HDR from a single JEPG.

[Jaszek]

Not the best quality but I wanted to see how it would look like. Took a picture (the original) and cropped it in lightroom than saved it, than take the exposure 2 steps down and save it and than 2 steps up and put them in Photomatix. C&C appreciated.
Original:

HDR:

 

[jwsciontc]

just looks more contrasted with a bluer sky to me

 

[RONDAL]

that's not an HDR photo.
Please search, and read the FAQ's on photomatix's website as to what HDR actually is. It's not simply taking on exposure and turning it into 3, its much more than that. it's capturing a full dynamic range and putting it into one picture.

This topic has been covered multiple times


edit.
I don't mean to come across as a jerk, but this is like the canon vs nikon, mac vs pc, is there a god kind of topics. it pops up once a week, everything gets posted on the subject, but no one bothers to read and learn from them. Understanding what an HDR image "is", what the purposes of using one is, and how it is properly made is essential. While photomatix is a great tool, its almost too easy. People have just started doing what you did, take one jpg, change the exposure settings in a program, throw it into photomatix, crank the sliders to max, and then call it a finished product.
That is not what an HDR image is, or how it is created.

The photomatix FAQ found here http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html is a great starting place.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Yeah, I really think the word needs to get out. So many people don't truly understand what hdr is. Just because you ran it through photomatix doesn't mean you have an hdr shot. The original photo had no spots where there was under or over exposure, so making an HDR would be pointless. Not to mention that a single Jpg doesn't save the depth of colour information needed to do a 3-exposure HDR from it. It can sometimes be hard to do with a single Raw file, never mind a jpg.

To be a little nicer though, I like the photo. I would love to be on one of those beaches once again right now. Ohh man.

 

[Drake]

The dynamic range of the second image seems actually lower than the original. Boosting contrast and saturation is not the way to make HDR images. Anyway, I don't think the photo needs adding more dynamic range.

 

[chrisburke]

this photo looks this way, because i'm guessing the OP didnt do any tone mapping... after you hit generate in Photomatix, this is what the photos look like, but then you need to hit Tone Mapping, and adjust things, so it looks better

 

[Jaszek]

I di do tone mapping and I know what an HDR is. If you actually read what I wrote you would see that .it is experimental...not a real HDR since I know how to make a real one.

 

[ANDS!]

You wouldn't WANT there to be "over"/"under" exposure in your base file. Why would you. You've lost detail at the point and theres nothing you can do to bring that base. The OP's original JPEG probably isn't the best candidate for an HDR simply because there isn't that much range going on (for this scene - had he pulled out and grabbed some reflection and sun peeking through the sky, then we might be in business).

And there are SEVERAL techniques out there for pulling off a good HDR from a single JPEG, suggesting that its impossible (or at best futile) is wrong.

And nowhere on the forum faqs does it say someone HAS to do a search for a topic before making a post. The base question may be the same, but sometimes information is better received when we know the answer has been tailored to OUR specific question, instead of having to guess at whether or not the OP of the original thread had the exact same situation as mine.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

I'm sorry for really being mean here, but if you knew what hdr was, then there's no way you would have called that original image hdr. You reduced the dynamic range of the image, you didn't increase it. Technically we could call it a LDR, or Low dynamic range image.

If you take a photo of buildings in a sunset and the sun is blown out to white and backs of the buildings are black from underexposure, then making an hdr image out of that scene would fix that.

For example, this shot could use some hdr work:

So you also take a shot that is exposed for the really bright areas of the image, like the sun

And then you take a shot that reveals the dark areas, like in the grass:

Then you combine them to get this, HDR:

 

[chrisburke]

I di do tone mapping and I know what an HDR is. If you actually read what I wrote you would see that .it is experimental...not a real HDR since I know how to make a real one.

well then, if you did do tone mapping... its not a great edit

 

[Dao]

I strongly believe technically, if you are showing a image in jpg format and display it on a regular monitor. It is a LDR.

And if you have a single exposure from the camera, that image is a LDR. Even if you use a software to create an image to look more dynamic, but the dynamic range of the finial result cannot be higher than what the camera sensor can capture.

 

[Ls3D]

Nice example Drewski! I hope the OP understands our monitors can not display the full range of the combined 32 bit image, hence the term tone mapping, to map the results of our experiments in 32 bit space down to 16 & 8 bit image formats.

BTW - The 32 bit files make great reflection maps in 3D programs. Mine works in 64 bit color space and the resulting renders are way more realistic with the widely sampled data. Had lunch with one of the creators, Greg Ward.

-Shea

 

[Dubious Drewski]

You wouldn't WANT there to be "over"/"under" exposure in your base file. Why would you.

Well of course you don't want it. I agree. What I'm saying is that HDR is the cure for that symptom and the OP's original shot had no such symptoms; everything in the scene was properly exposed, so making an hdr out of it was redundant.

And there are SEVERAL techniques out there for pulling off a good HDR from a single JPEG, suggesting that its impossible (or at best futile) is wrong.

No, there is only one definition of the term "High Dynamic Range". It's a technical term that means only one thing. It's not the same as the word 'art', as in, "What does art mean to you?".

 

[ANDS!]

What I'm saying is that HDR is the cure for that symptom and the OP's original shot had no such symptoms; everything in the scene was properly exposed, so making an hdr out of it was redundant.

I have seen HDR's of chairs sitting in a museum with no visible light in the far right of the dynamic range. HDR imaging is most definitely NOT limited to scenes where we are able to obtain "proper" exposures.

No, there is only one definition of the term "High Dynamic Range".

I never said otherwise. I did say that you could produce the HDR "images" (note images in quotes) from a single JPEG. Whether or not this meets the strict definition of HDR is irrelevant to the end product.

 

[Ls3D]

BTW - This single image to HDR theory becomes even more viable with RAW formats that can shift +/- 2 stops.

I prefer exposure bracketing. Commercial HDR for said 3D use can be made of 6 exposures.... where fully blown highlights can be dialed into normal values and the like.

-Shea