Hibiscus

The Barbarian · Jul 21, 2012

IMO, HDR is to make the image look as real as possible. I enjoy the over-the-top images, but I don't care to do them, myself.

Jrmdb3 · Jul 21, 2012

It's a bit noisy on the right side. What ISO were you using? How many different exposures were taken for this HDR?

Good contrast in colors otherwise though! Not bad!

The Barbarian · Jul 21, 2012

Was very early in the morning, and ISO 1000. Probably should have denoised it before doing HDR.

Jrmdb3 · Jul 21, 2012

Ah gotcha. Upping the ISO will increase the noise. Try using an ISO lower than 400, this might achieve better results!

that1guy · Jul 21, 2012

1000 iso :O

you post process this? i can see ghosting in the center

The Barbarian · Jul 22, 2012

you post process this? i can see ghosting in the center

That would be really odd, since the five exposures were obtained from a single RAW image.

The Barbarian · Jul 22, 2012

Ah gotcha. Upping the ISO will increase the noise. Try using an ISO lower than 400, this might achieve better results!

Might. But underexposure will also increase noise.

Jrmdb3 · Jul 22, 2012

That's why compose a slower shutter speed so you don't have all under exposed pictures

. It's all about compensation

The Barbarian · Jul 22, 2012

That's why compose a slower shutter speed so you don't have all under exposed pictures;-). It's all about compensation

Or in this case a tripod.

vipgraphx · Jul 22, 2012

this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR...........

The Barbarian · Jul 22, 2012

this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR

An HDR doesn't have to look over the top. It's purpose is to increase the dynamic range of an image. If you do it right, the first thought of a viewer

isn't "an HDR" but "hey, nice shot."

All the action HDRs you see were done using RAW to make bracketed images. It's not a difficult process. And it's quite possible to make those overcooked images, if that's what you like. There's even a bit of haloing here. The real advantage in shooting flowers is the improved definition of texture in the flower itself.

o hey tyler · Jul 22, 2012

I believe the reason it is not a real HDR is because you used a single raw file.

It's also pretty boring compositionally, but that doesn't have anything to do with the processing style. However it is vital to have a good composition to make a pleasing image.

that1guy · Jul 23, 2012

The Barbarian said:
this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR

Click to expand...

An HDR doesn't have to look over the top. It's purpose is to increase the dynamic range of an image.

theres no dynamic ranges ... thats what we're trying to say... its like you tone map your image then finish ur post processing

The Barbarian · Jul 23, 2012

theres no dynamic ranges ...

There is, and it's considerably greater range than you'd get from a simple shot. It's just more subtle than you like. Look at the HDR of the night heron. Then look at the finished image.

The finished image may not be an obvious HDR (although most people who understood the process would know what it was) but it looks better than the RAW image or the HDR. Notice that the shot was heavily backlit. In the HDR, the bird is well-exposed, but the sky, which would have been blown out in a normal image, retains the clouds (albeit OOF, due to a very close shot with a long lens).

thats what we're trying to say... its like you tone map your image then finish ur post processing

Often I do, if the HDR doesn't give me what I want, by itself. HDR is supposed to support your vision, not replace it. It's a tool, not an end in itself.