Why aren't there more posts here for HDR? Newbie question

[cgipson1]

NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!

The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.

IS Zuul dark, colorless and sometimes OOF? I am assuming so, since you brought it up!

 

[amolitor]

NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!

The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.

IS Zuul dark, colorless and sometimes OOF? I am assuming so, since you brought it up!

I assume that this is an insult, but since it is incomprehensible, I am able to shrug it off easily.

 

[Derrel]

Most of the HDR images are all frosting and no cake. Taking a ****ty image and blowing it out results in a ****ty images that is over processed. I like HDR, its a great idea to get much closer to what the human eye sees. I just haven't seen many HDR images that combined a great photo and just the right amount of tone mapping and HDR.

You know what *I* find so annoying??? The way the above type of attitude toward a style, a working method, a way of showing images, is so frequently expressed here on TPF. The HDR method is dismissed and ridiculed by so,so many people here on TPF. And yet, at the same time, basic compositional strategies, fundamentals of design, and just sound, pleasing compositional strategies, are pooh-poohed. God-awful composition is regularly elevated and defended here, and sound, BASIC ideas underlying visual communication are quite often ridiculed. By those with no training or study (study either formal, or informal, or taught-by-others, or even self-directed) in anything photographic except how to operate a camera's controls and "the exposure triangle".

 

[Underdeveloped]

as an amateur and very uneducated picture taker, I love the concept of HDR when taking shots that look like they need some exposure help (ie. can't get the highlights and darks together enough for the pic I see in my mind). However, in post I find that these punchy, over cooked photos are all I can come out with. What HDR needs is more people willing to teach HOW TO PROCESS IT properly.

 

[amolitor]

The thing is, there is no "proper" for HDR. It's a basket of techniques. Many many different looks are possible.

It sounds like you have a pretty specific result in mind, and it's unfortunate that you can't find a good clear tutorial on how to achieve that. Good luck!

 

[The Barbarian]

(and I can't imagine anyone really WANTING a blown out fried tail on a pet picture! But hey, maybe that is just me!)

"Blown out" normally means "so overexposed, no detail is captured." We're obviously using a different vocabulary here. Perhaps it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and step back a bit. I just noted my own drift into sarcasm there, so I'm guilty as well.

Let's not forget the point: how much dynamic range you use, depends on what you are trying to do. In the case of Bagel (my basset/beagle mix), I wanted to get her goofy run (eyes closed, ears flapping), and the very fine and shiny hair on her head and ears. It worked well, because I knew what I was looking for, before I started processing. I suspect a lot of people do HDR to see what turns up and then work with that.

No smarter than those who did zone system processing without first deciding what they wanted completely white and what they wanted completely black.





lol!

 

[cgipson1]

as an amateur and very uneducated picture taker, I love the concept of HDR when taking shots that look like they need some exposure help (ie. can't get the highlights and darks together enough for the pic I see in my mind). However, in post I find that these punchy, over cooked photos are all I can come out with. What HDR needs is more people willing to teach HOW TO PROCESS IT properly.

We had a really good one that was willing to teach! But he got banned fighting with the Overprocessed HDR types! I am willing to help with exposure fusion techniques... and that is all!

 

[cgipson1]

NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!

The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.

IS Zuul dark, colorless and sometimes OOF? I am assuming so, since you brought it up!

I assume that this is an insult, but since it is incomprehensible, I am able to shrug it off easily.

Zuul?? ZUUL! That is who you remind me of.. Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters!!

 

[The Barbarian]

gg

 

[The Barbarian]

as an amateur and very uneducated picture taker, I love the concept of HDR when taking shots that look like they need some exposure help (ie. can't get the highlights and darks together enough for the pic I see in my mind). However, in post I find that these punchy, over cooked photos are all I can come out with. What HDR needs is more people willing to teach HOW TO PROCESS IT properly.

The trick is knowing how to use a light touch. I can share with you what I've found. What software do you use?

 

[manaheim]

^^^ most of the folks in this section did NOT use a light touch in hdr.

That last one was beautiful, btw... but it looks like you put more than one exposure behind it. Did you?

If I'm seeing right your cloud one was not more than one exposure. Am I right?

There's often a certain dead/flat look to the images that are one exposure turned HDR. Not sure why.

 

[The Barbarian]

Both of those were one exposure, but the old kitchen was a beast to get right. I wanted the view outside the window to look the way it would to someone whose eyes were adjusted to the darker kitchen. I ended up making several different pseudo HDRs, and then layering them. Maybe that's why it looks different.

 

[manaheim]

Nice trick. It worked well. Why didn't you just do multiple exposures? Have you ever tried it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Nice trick. It worked well. Why didn't you just do multiple exposures? Have you ever tried it?

I've done it, when I have a tripod handy. Even pretty good fitting programs don't do as well as I like. Mostly I do that for really dark conditions, at high ISO, to reduce noise. Sometimes stacking different jpegs of a single raw works, too. This time, it wasn't successful at getting the window light just the way I wanted it to go. But I do like the way stacking exposures makes the middle tones look rich. The eggs and the chair look better for that.

Here's what I usually get when I try to do multiple exposures, hand-held:


Not very sharp, at least without unsharp mask. Here, I was trying to get a pastel, postcardy look, so the lack of sharpness doesn't bother me.

When I do multiple exposures on a tripod, I get things like this:



But you've given me a couple of ideas; I'll try some different things, next time.

 

[manaheim]

Most of the ones I do 5 total exposures. Sometimes I'll take 7 and cherry pick. Works very well. That one you have above looks a little washed out... you definitely nailed the painting/postcard look though.

Is your monitor calibrated?