HDR from this weekend

[McNugget801]

Maybe I am missing something but.... These are single images thate are not tone mapped yet they are HDR? I dont understand how you can create a good HDR image from a "30-sec single exposure method" because your really not extending dynamic range. The rusty tow truck has a potential with a wide angle or fisheye.... but not at "60mph hanging out of a jeep".

 

[Bee Bee]

Can I refer you to THE PACT

 

[modlife]

Good points - there are better ways to do HDR, but using RAW files with Lightroom you can achieve this in literally <30 seconds.

I've actually been referring to this as "fake" HDR elsewhere. RAW files contain enough data to get a similar look.

Here's my method:

Easy fake HDR Pictures with Lightroom | ATL Photographers

Maybe I am missing something but.... These are single images thate are not tone mapped yet they are HDR? I dont understand how you can create a good HDR image from a "30-sec single exposure method" because your really not extending dynamic range. The rusty tow truck has a potential with a wide angle or fisheye.... but not at "60mph hanging out of a jeep".

 

[shmne]

Please, and I stress this please, read up on this quick WIKI on HDR images. You have a very obscured view on HDR so before posting a tutorial at least understand what it is.

High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are doing is in fact destroying the quality of your photos, as I thought. This is probably the farthest thing from what HDR actually is.

Please before you hurt your image anymore read into what you're doing and research like Full Sail teaches.

My aspirations in this field will take me far because I am constantly researching and improving skills with these programs, and I never shut people out that are trying to explain something to me. You claimed you attended Full Sail? I find this tough to believe because this is one of the most important ideas they push.

 

[mosu84]

Please, and I stress this please, read up on this quick WIKI on HDR images. You have a very obscured view on HDR

+1

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Can I refer you to THE PACT

:roll:

 

[inTempus]

Good points - there are better ways to do HDR, but using RAW files with Lightroom you can achieve this in literally <30 seconds.

I've actually been referring to this as "fake" HDR elsewhere. RAW files contain enough data to get a similar look.

Here's my method:

Easy fake HDR Pictures with Lightroom | ATL Photographers

There is only one way to do HDR and what you're doing is nothing more than messing with the sharpness, contrast and smoothing of your pixels.

HDR is a specific process of blending multiple images with various exposures to show shadow detail, mid-range detail and highlight detail that would otherwise not be possible in a standard digital image due to the rather limited dynamic range of digital cameras.

Your images have no shadow detail. They are dynamically flat images that have been distorted to where they look like really bad HDR's perhaps. When I first viewed them I thought they were technically bad HDR's but we got so many post each day saying "my first HDR, what do you think" I don't spend time re-explaining why so many HDR's look bad. People think if they download Photomatix and run it on 3 exposures without understanding what they're doing they've made a great HDR.

Hell, I don't like making them because I can't make a good looking one either and I understand the concept.

Yes, you can make an HDR from a single exposure using Lightroom and Photomatix or Photoshop, but not the way you're doing it.

You take that single exposure (RAW file) and you move the exposure slider left a couple of stops and under expose it. You save that file. Then you move the exposure slider to the right a stop and save that image. Then you move it to the right some more and save it again... you repeat this until you have 3 to 7 images with different exposures. Then you tone map them using one of the two tools I mentioned.

Here, this should give yo enough info to do it properly.

http://lightroomsecrets.com/2009/06/lightroom-photomatix-and-the-single-shot-hdr/

As mentioned by shmne, all you're really doing with your "fake HDR" method is wrecking the image by over processing.

 

[Vautrin]

I like #1 but I have to agree that it would look better if the image showed less ground more flags.

I think using HDR to bump up saturaton to make the colors pop more is a valid use of HDR.

For #2 I'm nt sure it really called for HDR and doesn't really stand out... Not bad, but not memorable...

You say you have a 30 second HDR method, what is it?

 

[inTempus]

You say you have a 30 second HDR method, what is it?

He posted his process above.

It's not HDR. All he's doing is using Lightroom to bump the clarity way up, the vibranance way up and the fill light way up along with the contrast. The end result is a stylized image that looks somewhat cartoonish... or perhaps like a bad HDR that's been improperly tone mapped.

 

[modlife]

You say you have a 30 second HDR method, what is it?

He posted his process above.

It's not HDR. All he's doing is using Lightroom to bump the clarity way up, the vibranance way up and the fill light way up along with the contrast. The end result is a stylized image that looks somewhat cartoonish... or perhaps like a bad HDR that's been improperly tone mapped.

Regardless of what you think constitutes "HDR", you'll find that the develop modules in Lightroom serve essentially the same functions when used with raw files as exposure blending programs do with multiple exposures.

Sure, the quality isn't as great with a single exposure, but here's why I think it is in fact a form of HDR:

It is a form of tone mapping when you use the "recovery" (enhances detail in highlights), the "fill light"(enhances detail in lowlights), and the blacks (adjusts shadow dropoff)

Also, you have to consider that RAW files contain all of this data - LR just makes it easy to use. Want to take your time w/ HDR in LR? Just use the adjustment brushes and the same sliders.

All I was saying is that it's a cool effect, a form of HDR (although even I call it "fake"), and that it is in fact a "30-sec" method

Have none of you taken a single raw file, adjusted exposure +1 or +2 and -1 or -2 and then used the results to build your HDR image?

You're lying if you say this isn't a "proper" method.

Especially if you use HDR for action shots - it's not possible to get multiple exposures out of the camera in many cases

-and yes, the "clarity" slider can make it seem a little "cartoonish". I like that - in fact, Lucas Art has made millions selling plug-ins that give you an almost identical look.

 

[modlife]

You claimed you attended Full Sail? I find this tough to believe because this is one of the most important ideas they push.

No I didn't attend Full Sail. I said I make enough money to pay for it.

To each his own, man - but this is HDR - the develop modules are made to manipulate RAW files. No matter how you look at HDR, it's about clarifying detail in areas that couldn't be properly exposed out of the camera - RAW files just happen to contain enough data to do it easier than you might think.

While we're on the subject - anyone have links to what they consider to be "great HDR"?

 

[shmne]

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Omg kid you have to be one of the funniest people I've ever met, and I say kid because I think calling you anything else is giving you too much respect. Have fun in your dream world, seriously, I'm done trying to explain to you how your methodology is completely wrong.

You're cute though, thinking that Full Sail's 84.3% placement rate - In Field could be beaten by a community college.

Seriously though, try and learn something from what we've all been telling you because if you keep up this attitude you won't ever progress in this or any field. I'm not being facetious, but sincere. I don't like seeing anyone fail, even if they're being pigheaded. You need to learn about the software you are using otherwise one day you are going to make a client extremely unhappy when you return an "HDR" image with destroyed pixels all over it, and I mean a real client not a small time mom and pop place that doesn't know a good photo from a snapshot.

 

[Lazy Photographer]

Can't say I know enough about it, but I do like the look. I often attempt to imitate HDR with my photos. They suck but it's fun trying. Here are two photos I think are really sweet. They are not mine, I found them with a search. (If someone says they suck as HDR, I won't argue because I don't know enough about it, but I still like the following images.)

Photo #1
Photo #2

BTW, I really like your truck photo. Well done. The second photo's nice too, but the first I like better.

 

[modlife]

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Omg kid you have to be one of the funniest people I've ever met, and I say kid because I think calling you anything else is giving you too much respect. Have fun in your dream world, seriously, I'm done trying to explain to you how your methodology is completely wrong.

You're cute though, thinking that Full Sail's 84.3% placement rate - In Field could be beaten by a community college.

Seriously though, try and learn something from what we've all been telling you because if you keep up this attitude you won't ever progress in this or any field. I'm not being facetious, but sincere. I don't like seeing anyone fail, even if they're being pigheaded. You need to learn about the software you are using otherwise one day you are going to make a client extremely unhappy when you return an "HDR" image with destroyed pixels all over it, and I mean a real client not a small time mom and pop place that doesn't know a good photo from a snapshot.

I'm not arguing about it - you're mostly right about HDR, and of course I would take more than 30-sec for a paid-for shot.

My point is, it's a quick, cool HDR effect...and by you saying you have 1 month experience in photography proves to me that you can't possibly know very much more than what they've taught you.

Full Sail is a great school for networking, but that's about where it ends in my opinion. I've hired worthless kids out of that school ( I used to run 3 Trees in Nashville - recording studios) As for placement rate - The community college here has a 99.7% placement rate for nurses, but that doesn't mean I want any one of them sticking me with a needle...

I've also had many jobs in media and advertising and currently am the Director of Marketing for a fortune 500 development company. I think I have the background to claim that I have substantiated opinions. I've done campaigns for Pepsi and currently have Trump Towers as a client - my point is I'm making a living with no complaints.

I really don't want you to take my remarks the wrong way - I'm a good guy, but get tired of people claiming to be experts when they can't claim to have done anything worth mentioning. People assume that everyone needs a "teacher". Well, I never have needed that - I learn by watching those I want to learn from.

Anyway - you seem like a cool guy and quick learner, nice to meet you. Let me know when you have some work up for me to see and maybe I can point you to some agencies in your area.

-Joshua

...and I call everyone "kid"...no offense taken

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Ooooh...an ePeen thread!
Awesome!