Help : Someone do an hdr of these images?

[AnthonyCorbo]

I want to see the potential that this could have as an HDR please and thank you.

Here are the pics:

Thanks in advance

 

[GeneralBenson]

Well, there's really no point. For one, these three exposures are pretty close together, and for HDR, you usually want to bracket your exposure about 1.5-2 stops apart, depending on the situation. Secondly, the whole point of HDR is to be able to capture information that exceeds the dynamic range of your camera. Except pretty much everything is registered in all three of these images, except for the sky which is blown out in all three.

 

[shed301]

gave it a try in photomatix pro. this is the end result that came straight out of the box ( so to speak). no adjusting in tone mapping etc, Only thing i did was resized it in photoshop. At least i tried

cheers
Grant

 

[NateS]

FYI: You can't do an HDR with 1 properly exposed image and 2 underexposed image as you have here. As shown by the example above....all you end up with is the car underexposed and the background looking like poo.

 

[Moglex]

There is another HDR thread at the moment which prompts the same observation as this one:

Before you start the process of making an HDR image (i.e. before you start taking the photographs), ask youself exactly what you're trying to achieve.

It's true that you can make and HDR of a great many scenes but in a lot of cases all you're going to get is an odd glow that is a signiture of HDR and may or may not prove attractive to an audience.

But to make the best of HDR you really need to be simultaneously bringing out detail in both highlight and shadow in a way that wouldn't happen in any normal photograph.

In your example above, had you added an 'overexposed' shot you might have been able to bring out some more detail in the car and under the car but even then it's not clear why you would want to do that.

 

[KmH]

I took a different tack from Grant's.

I normally use RAW files to make HDR's not JPEG's, but I'll play.

Your 3 in Photomatix Pro and then some other tweaks including Photoshop. As pointed out, the source images lack good exposure latitude.

 

[KmH]

V.1 with a vignette:

 

[SrBiscuit]

I want to see the potential that this could have as an HDR please and thank you.

i cant see the images that people have posted up, but i agreewith the initial thought that they have little potential as an HDR as you are lacking the range needed to create a nice HDR image.

over expose 1.
correct expose 1.
under expose 1.

should have better results.
keep shootin!

 

[AnthonyCorbo]

So i've realized it wasnt a good set of photos for an hdr so i went out today and took 4 of my neighbours garden. They were overesposed 4 and 1 i believe and -1 and -3.

Same deal any potential:

Thanks in advance

 

[KmH]

I'm sorry Anthony but I don't think you quite understand the purpose of an HDR.

Again you have posted images of a scene that will benefit little, if any, from making an HDR because the dynamic range in the scene is within the capabilities of most DSLR cameras.

HDR is needed when the dynamic range exceeds the cameras image sensor capabilities.

Just tone map the second image if you want an HDR look or download the trial of Photomatix Pro at www.hdrsoft.com

 

[AnthonyCorbo]

I'm sorry Anthony but I don't think you quite understand the purpose of an HDR.

Again you have posted images of a scene that will benefit little, if any, from making an HDR because the dynamic range in the scene is within the capabilities of most DSLR cameras.

HDR is needed when the dynamic range exceeds the cameras image sensor capabilities.

Just tone map the second image if you want an HDR look or download the trial of Photomatix Pro at www.hdrsoft.com

ok thanks for theinput i understand now why people do hdr's, I thought otherwise but i was wrong, it's ok thats why im on here

 

[Josh66]

If you want to do HDRs, first firgure out what the brightest and darkest things in the scene are.

Now meter both of them. If they are only a few stops apart, there's no need to even try HRD - you can get everything in that scene with one exposure.

In your first set (car), the sky is not properly exposed in any of them. That is probably the brightest thing in that scene, so your 'brightest' picture of the set should have it properly exposed. The darkest thing is the shadow under the car, but you may not care about having that properly exposed - you could use the car as the 'darkest thing'.

Let's just pretend that the sky and the car are 5 stops apart. 3 pictures - one for the sky, one for the car, and one for everything else (grass, trees, shed...) would be enough.

In your second set (flowers), it looks like you could probably get it all in one exposure.
The third photo in that set has good exposure on almost everything. Probably close enough that you could make it 'perfect' everywhere in PS.


The one of the car would be a better candidate for it, because the sky is blown out (in all three of them). Take one picture metering off of the sky, one metering on the grass, and one metering on the car. Merge those and you should get an image with everything exposed properly; though you probably really only need two shots for that - one for the sky, one for the car/grass.

 

[BeyondMegapixels]

I just thought that i would let you know that we recently did a very nice HDR tutorial that can help you create your own images.

SINGLE IMAGE HDR CREATION | Beyond Megapixels

 

[shed301]

nice tuturial but sadly i prefer the old fashion way of 3 shots bracketed

@kmh i do love the way you did that.. looks like i need to brush up on my ps skills

 

[BeyondMegapixels]

Thanks glad you liked it.