Holiday Bow HDR - My First HDR

[MissCream]

It is under exposed, what did you meter off of to get your exposure values?

 

[o hey tyler]

There's really no reason to upload a full resolution file FYI. It just loads slooooooooooooooow.

 

[vipgraphx]

I actually like the bow and tree idea. It is very moody. Not every photo needs to be perfect exposure and bright. I did something similar of my tree on another forum and people just did not like what I was going for. Cool keep it up

 

[MissCream]

I actually like the bow and tree idea. It is very moody. Not every photo needs to be perfect exposure and bright. I did something similar of my tree on another forum and people just did not like what I was going for. Cool keep it up

HDR's do need to have perfect exposures, what would be the point if you under expose it?

 

[o hey tyler]

I actually like the bow and tree idea. It is very moody. Not every photo needs to be perfect exposure and bright. I did something similar of my tree on another forum and people just did not like what I was going for. Cool keep it up

HDR's do need to have perfect exposures, what would be the point if you under expose it?

High Dynamic Low Range?

 

[vipgraphx]

perfect to who you? Everyone has there own whats perfect. Its in the eye of the photographer. HDR is just a way of getting ranges in photos. Why are they usually -2,0,+2 different ranges to bring out darks lows and mid tones. Low exposure, mid exposure and over exposed. Once its in you can process the photos to your liking.

 

[o hey tyler]

perfect to who you? Everyone has there own whats perfect. Its in the eye of the photographer. HDR is just a way of getting ranges in photos. Why are they usually -2,0,+2 different ranges to bring out darks lows and mid tones. Low exposure, mid exposure and over exposed. Once its in you can process the photos to your liking.

Yes, and what she's saying (judging by the 1/4 of the picture I've seen so far) is that it's too dark for it to really be considered an HDR (or at least a well done one). There's not a lot of dynamic range to it, much less high dynamic range.

It's underexposed, and there isn't a lot of detail in the blacks. It's really just not a good candidate for HDR IMO TBQH LOL BBQ.

 

[MissCream]

perfect to who you? Everyone has there own whats perfect. Its in the eye of the photographer. HDR is just a way of getting ranges in photos. Why are they usually -2,0,+2 different ranges to bring out darks lows and mid tones. Low exposure, mid exposure and over exposed. Once its in you can process the photos to your liking.

So you're just taking 3 different pictures and blending them like that? I would have taken the meter reading of the darkest spot of the tree and brightest, taken those pictures and every other exposure value in between. High dynamic range wouldn't make sense if it was under exposed.


BBQ+1

 

[vipgraphx]

HDR is HDR there is no rule. Its just combining multiple exposers plain and simple. I agree with you that there are better pictures that using HDR looks better because of the lighting and surrounding objects. Just like black and white photos. Some look better than others. Some are really dark and contrasting and many people love that where I don't. Does not make it them less of a picture to be "considered" black and white.

My point is this. Photography is a form of art. There are many categories under photography and its growing. Some people come up with brilliant styles and some people come up with ok styles. When i look at photo its just not the exposure under over because I know many who do that on purpose. I look at the composition of the photo and colors in the photo. What is the focus point what is the meaning behind it. Was it a snap shot or a picture with a purpose.

To me this is not a bad picture. I think he could have gotten the same result using a single under exposed photo and adding some feel light and selective coloring but I judge this not my the method but the overall image.

Not trying to be a jerk just trying to open some doors and ways of looking at things

 

[vipgraphx]

Just to through this in here is an HDR of my tree. I did this on puropose. The original HDR was like a real photo but, with more processing using some filters this is where I went with the image. Like I said the original photo out of photomatix was clean crisp and showed all the tones.


christmas tree by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

not trying to steel this thread just showing what I am trying to explain

 

[o hey tyler]

So you're saying that every underexposed photo that we see we should just be like "Oh yeah, well I see where he's going with this 1 1/3 stops underexposed photo. It really speaks to me as an artform, nice work. 10/10."

Or should we offer critique for people to grow?

From wiki:

In image processing, computer graphics, and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than current standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. This wide dynamic range allows HDR images to more accurately represent the range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight, and is often captured by way of a plurality of differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter.

So you're saying that this universally underexposed photo meets the criteria for an HDR image, even though it doesn't allow for the dynamic range that should have been displayed in the scene?

 

[MissCream]

I don't think you're trying to be a jerk

HDR isn't just blending different pictures in post. If you took 3 under exposed pictures and blended them it would not be high dynamic range. I have already argued the art vs technical thing today so I'll just copy and paste what I already wrote lol

I'm not meaning to offend but I feel like people use the term art to defend an awful photo (not saying your's is awful). I also pretty much only see noob photographers against getting C&C (because they received bad feedback) or photography rules.

Here is the wiki definition of HDR High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[vipgraphx]

I don't think you're trying to be a jerk

HDR isn't just blending different pictures in post. If you took 3 under exposed pictures and blended them it would not be high dynamic range. I have already argued the art vs technical thing today so I'll just copy and paste what I already wrote lol

I'm not meaning to offend but I feel like people use the term art to defend an awful photo (not saying your's is awful). I also pretty much only see noob photographers against getting C&C (because they received bad feedback) or photography rules.

Here is the wiki definition of HDR High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I get what your saying...three under exposed images does not = HDR .....did not think about it that way.

 

[vipgraphx]

So you're saying that every underexposed photo that we see we should just be like "Oh yeah, well I see where he's going with this 1 1/3 stops underexposed photo. It really speaks to me as an artform, nice work. 10/10."

Or should we offer critique for people to grow?

From wiki:

In image processing, computer graphics, and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than current standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. This wide dynamic range allows HDR images to more accurately represent the range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight, and is often captured by way of a plurality of differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter.

So you're saying that this universally underexposed photo meets the criteria for an HDR image, even though it doesn't allow for the dynamic range that should have been displayed in the scene?

No you give honest CC thats what people need, not sugar coating...but saying that something is to dark to be considered HDR I don't agree with. I have seen many talented HDR photographers do amazing things with their processing. Some are darker than others. My tree had great range but I took it further with processing to get a look I was after. You may not like it and think its to dark to be considered HDR but I beg to differ because the original had all the ranges. I am not sure if the OP was going for this look or not.

let him chime in and see what he says.

 

[o hey tyler]

Well, you got what Ms Cream said in her previous post. But apparently when I say essentially the same thing, you don't understand...

Whatever, I give up.