Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Hdr

  1. #1
    Fat Tire Fatty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    83

    Hdr

    I know some don't consider this legitimate "photography",but I believe when done right you can create very interesting images. Anyone have thoughts/images they'd like to share?

    FWIW - I am a complete novice when it comes to HDR. This image is a merely an attempt on my part to start a discussion regarding the merits of HDR. It is not meant to represent HDR "done right".
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Hdr-trinidad-lighthouse.jpg  

    Last edited by fatstevie; 01-29-2012 at 06:59 PM.

  2. #2
    Look at the time!
    Reputation: lelebebbel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,137
    Interesting subject, but I believe this would have looked better taken in natural light (different time of the day maybe) without the HDR.
    For example, the effects of the HDR processing are quite visible near the bell. The white posts are actually brighter at the bottom than the horizontal bar, which looks weird. The bushes in the foreground are brighter than the ocean, the bush on the far left and the cliffs behind the lighthouse are "glowing".

    Maybe it's just because I don't like the HDR look at all. HDRs to me are only good if you can't tell that they are HDRs.

    Have a look at this, I believe it is painfully true sometimes:
    http://i.imgur.com/b2feF.png
    Last edited by lelebebbel; 01-29-2012 at 05:59 PM.
    wanted: Cannondale Lefty w/ V-brake studs

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    124
    My father is stuck on HDR. I do like some of his pics but I feel as though most look pretty fake. Specifically its usually the clouds. They always look like there is going to be a massive apocalyptic storm. The picture you posted above looks good though :thumbup:

    Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    87
    HDR has its place but must be used carefully. Film had more f-stop range than most of today's modern digital sensors. To get even close to film you would need a high end camera with a high end digital back. HDR is just a way of getting more range in digital images but it often leads to over dramatic or surreal results. Some like it, some don't. However, HDR can be manipulated to give a more natural image but it requires some editing of each stopped image separately prior to the HDR process.

    As in the old days of UV film, some use HDR for its ability to deviate from reality. But some will like it and the purists won''t. HDR can be used also to 'salvage' an otherwise poor image.

    Keep trying different techniques until you find what works best. There is no 'one formula' to any of it. I like to work from one image and create duplicate layers that are stopped down. I can selectively manipulate the layers and erase what I don't want. This way the I can avoid the negative effects of HDR aberration. Below is an example of what can be done with layers. I only spent about ten minutes on this and had to deal the the HDR stuff that was already in the picture so don't over critique. It is just to show what can be done with layers.

    Last edited by Duntov1967; 01-29-2012 at 07:09 PM.

  5. #5
    Fat Tire Fatty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by lelebebbel View Post
    Interesting subject, but I believe this would have looked better taken in natural light (different time of the day maybe) without the HDR.
    For example, the effects of the HDR processing are quite visible near the bell. The white posts are actually brighter at the bottom than the horizontal bar, which looks weird. The bushes in the foreground are brighter than the ocean, the bush on the far left and the cliffs behind the lighthouse are "glowing".
    I agree. I have many shots of this same spot shot on slide film and have gotten many great results. I just happened to be here today in the middle of the day with my camera in hand so I thought I would try something new.

    I have only played around with HDR a few times and admit I really have no idea what to do with the post-processing. I am intrigued with the possibilities that HDR holds though.

  6. #6
    Fat Tire Fatty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Sumptuously Numb View Post
    1. I'm not seeing any MTB content.

    2. I'm seeing a very poorly executed HDR attempt.

    3. HDR is most often a "hey, look what I can do with my software" rather than a successful, artistic photographic technique.
    1. You must not have spent much time in this forum, because quite a few of the posts are not MTB related. (ie Norcal Sunsets, Water images, etc).

    2. true - I freely admit that I am a novice when it comes to HDR processing. I prefer shooting standard images, but thought I would experiment (however rough the finished product turned out)

    3. I disagree. I have seen plenty of photographers that do HDR "right" and make very artistic images. Using the logic behind your statement, Ansel Adams' photography would be frowned upon because much of what made his images so great were the special techniques he used making prints ("hey, look what I can do with an enlarger in my darkroom"). IMO a true artist uses all the tools at his/her disposal - we just happen to live in an age where processing is done via software on a computer rather than in the darkroom.

  7. #7
    Fat Tire Fatty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Sumptuously Numb View Post
    Comparing yourself to Ansel Adams is laughable.

    There's a vast difference between burning and dodging in the darkroom (Adams' forte) and the vast majority of HDR "hey look what this plugin can do" fanciful crap that is posted on the net.
    No need to be a d*ck. Never did I compare myself to Ansel Adams nor never would I. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of your argument. I am quite familiar with the dodging and burning techniques that Adams used and I know, from experience (I worked for many years in a large professional photo lab in San Diego), that these techniques can greatly alter an image's final outcome (much like HDR software, Photoshop tools, etc)

    And I agree most of the HDR stuff you see on the net is garbage, but I have seen plenty of artists that do HDR exceptionally well. I will agree to disagree with you on this.
    Last edited by fatstevie; 01-29-2012 at 07:57 PM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Sumptuously Numb View Post
    Only if you're counting cell phones and point-n-shoot cameras...

    Even my 10 year old DSLR has more dynamic range than film when shooting RAW.
    You might want to go research that. Check range within a given ISO.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Sumptuously Numb View Post
    Been there, done that. After exposing thousands of SLR film frames and thousands of DSLR frames I'll choose DLSR RAW over film every time.
    Yep, been there, done that also. I am in my 60's and started shooting at age 10. Used it all, 35mm, medium and large format, DLSR & digital backs on my Hasselblad Flexbodies, Negative, trans, UV, color, B&W, etc.

    You just haven't had enough experience outside of 35mm and DLSRs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sumptuously Numb View Post
    I am sorry that you are so incredibly sensitive.
    If you are not interested in honest experienced feedback then you should probably refrain from posting images like the HDR attempt in your initial post.
    The gentleman said he was a novice and he did not compare himself to Adams but merely pointed out that Adams manipulated his prints. How about a little more sensitivity and work on your social grace.
    Last edited by Duntov1967; 01-29-2012 at 08:50 PM.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,576

    pugsleybeach-hdr by mbeganyi, on Flickr

    it has a fatbike in it.
    it is a photo (digital).
    it was made by stacking 3 shots and playing with various combinations of the exposures.
    it was made by a rank amateur. (rider and photographer)
    to me it captured the mood better than the other shots i have from the same outing.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by bmike View Post

    pugsleybeach-hdr by mbeganyi, on Flickr

    it has a fatbike in it.
    it is a photo (digital).
    it was made by stacking 3 shots and playing with various combinations of the exposures.
    it was made by a rank amateur. (rider and photographer)
    to me it captured the mood better than the other shots i have from the same outing.
    I like it! Conveys a nice mood for sure. You are no longer a "rank amateur" my friend.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19
    What are you guys using for software? I use HDR Efex Pro. I really want to get topaz adjust for some signal image hdr images of action shots.( Photoshop does an OK job at single image hdr )

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Duntov1967 View Post
    I like it! Conveys a nice mood for sure. You are no longer a "rank amateur" my friend.
    duntov1976 - thanks!

    nine22 - i've just been playing with picturenaut (free, open source).
    i've also used hugin for aligning, stacking and optimizing.

    i don't think i'll get into it enough to purchase software - i need to save up for lightroom first..

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by bmike View Post

    i don't think i'll get into it enough to purchase software - i need to save up for lightroom first..
    Lightroom 4 is in open beta right now you can try it for free. If you are saving up now make sure to wait till LR4, they have some nice improvements with shadow and highlight recovery.

    I don't have high enough post count to post the link, but google "lightroom 4 beta" should be the first link on adobe labs

  15. #15
    Fat Tire Fatty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by nine22 View Post
    What are you guys using for software?
    I use Photomatix Pro 3

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    87
    I use Photomatix also. Much more control than basic HDR.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4
    Personally I like HDR. I like the range of creativity that is afforded by this process. You can go from processing an image to be as close to what you saw with the naked eye, to the surreal, almost cartoon like effects. I don't care which lens you choose, it's not going to be as good as the naked eye, so we often find ourselves trying to process images in some fashion to get back what we feel has been lost. HDR can do a lot for us this way, if we are careful about it.
    When consumers have been polled, they overwhelmingly have preferred the HDR images to those unprocessed that way. That being said, it's entirely subjective. Though it's not HDR,why did Rhine II sell for 4.3 Million?!? Well, someone thought it was worth it, that's why!
    fatstevie, It's just like all other forms of media, music, painting, writing, etc. some will see creative genius, some will pretend to see it, and some will write it off all together as being pure crap! but if you like it and put it out there, it'll be a mixed bag, but the bottom line is, it's an example of YOUR creative expression, your passion, your mind, and it will resonate with some, and perhaps many.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    45

    What About This

    Hdr-novatel-hdr-copy.jpg

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Nice pic.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    12
    In that last picture, it looks like the plane has been photoshopped in and it looks too cartoony. It really takes away from the main picture.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    265
    In my opinion, the best HDR photos do not look like they have been processed at all. Is it just me or am I the only one that seems to think like this?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by blundar View Post
    In my opinion, the best HDR photos do not look like they have been processed at all. Is it just me or am I the only one that seems to think like this?
    In my experience, I would say yes. Both in photography and in videography. The best special effects are the ones you don't know are special effects.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rsgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by fatstevie View Post
    I know some don't consider this legitimate "photography",but I believe when done right you can create very interesting images. Anyone have thoughts/images they'd like to share?

    I don't buy the "legitimate "photography"" tag. ANY picture taken with a camera and processed or not, is art. And who is anointed or designated the person to decide what a legitimate photograph is? That's the beauty of photography, especially since digital - you can create and manipulate as you like, and it still started with a camera. HDR, either radical or slight, can be awesome. I don't think anyone can judge what constitutes a 'real' photo. For every picture taken, there is someone who is going to think it was overdone, underdone, not enough color sat or too much color sat, etc. Just choose to either enjoy the shot or not. (ahhhh- done with rant - thx...)

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    80
    Stacked with three exposures.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by rsgs View Post
    I don't buy the "legitimate "photography"" tag. ANY picture taken with a camera and processed or not, is art. And who is anointed or designated the person to decide what a legitimate photograph is? That's the beauty of photography, especially since digital - you can create and manipulate as you like, and it still started with a camera. HDR, either radical or slight, can be awesome. I don't think anyone can judge what constitutes a 'real' photo. For every picture taken, there is someone who is going to think it was overdone, underdone, not enough color sat or too much color sat, etc. Just choose to either enjoy the shot or not. (ahhhh- done with rant - thx...)
    One person's trash is another person's digital "art". I suppose.

    The thing that irritates me the most about what people think HDR is are the "blown out" look. Yes, that can be achieved with both HDR and photo manipulation both (HDR is cleaner), but that is just an effect. HDR is actually about showing the "true" color scheme of whatever it is your capturing.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    798
    I like the HDR technique ... I like the technique a lot. HDR is just another technique of photography, just as valid as any other technique of photography. The more techniques we have in the kit the better.

    What I don't like are HDR images that are overtly HDR. But, when HDR is used to give detail in the important elements of the image, to expand the tonal range, consistent with the original brightness range of the subject, I think HDR is a bonus to Tonalists and Colourists.

    Some of my HDRs ... from Australia's Bicentennial National Trail.




















    Warren.
    Last edited by Wild Wassa; 04-23-2013 at 05:58 PM.

  28. #28
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by rsgs View Post
    I don't buy the "legitimate "photography"" tag. ANY picture taken with a camera and processed or not, is art. And who is anointed or designated the person to decide what a legitimate photograph is? That's the beauty of photography, especially since digital - you can create and manipulate as you like, and it still started with a camera. HDR, either radical or slight, can be awesome. I don't think anyone can judge what constitutes a 'real' photo. For every picture taken, there is someone who is going to think it was overdone, underdone, not enough color sat or too much color sat, etc. Just choose to either enjoy the shot or not. (ahhhh- done with rant - thx...)
    +1, a photo is a photo, your photo is your photo; the equipment, materials, and methods vary.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuyOnABike View Post
    One person's trash is another person's digital "art". I suppose.

    The thing that irritates me the most about what people think HDR is are the "blown out" look. Yes, that can be achieved with both HDR and photo manipulation both (HDR is cleaner), but that is just an effect. HDR is actually about showing the "true" color scheme of whatever it is your capturing.
    I think that the way the artist describes or interprets their work is how it should be considered, but acknowledge that tastes vary. I sort of take issue with your use of "true color" though, a color is a color, a visual image is a visual image and how you got there is the way you got there. The very act of capturing an image photographically is a huge manipulation of reality.
    I ride with the best people.




  29. #29
    MMS
    MMS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Wassa View Post
    I like the HDR technique ... I like the technique a lot. HDR is just another technique of photography, just as valid as any other technique of photography. The more techniques we have in the kit the better.

    What I don't like are HDR images that are overtly HDR. But, when HDR is used to give detail in the important elements of the image, to expand the tonal range, consistent with the original brightness range of the subject, I think HDR is a bonus to Tonalists and Colourists.
    Agreed.
    Stunning work btw.
    I'm having more FUN than anybody!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3
    Wild Wassa, while not a fan of HDR, your images are what make it enjoyable at times.

    Some of those shots are beautiful.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Wassa View Post
    I like the HDR technique ... I like the technique a lot. HDR is just another technique of photography, just as valid as any other technique of photography. The more techniques we have in the kit the better.

    What I don't like are HDR images that are overtly HDR. But, when HDR is used to give detail in the important elements of the image, to expand the tonal range, consistent with the original brightness range of the subject, I think HDR is a bonus to Tonalists and Colourists.

    Some of my HDRs ... from Australia's Bicentennial National Trail.

    Warren.
    Dude!! These are gorgeous! This is very perfectly executed use of HDR. It greatly adds to the photos seamlessly without it being obvious and over processed. Very Nice!

  32. #32
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron C View Post
    Wild Wassa, while not a fan of HDR, your images are what make it enjoyable at times.

    Some of those shots are beautiful.
    What are you a fan off, just curious? I have personally gone through stages of liking and producing everything from soft etherial pinhole works to a hard edged highly digitally manipulated look like hdr on steroids. That said I tend to like a painterly look, and I think the ability to render all tones/zones clearly is a large part of what painterly means. Warren does that superbly.
    I ride with the best people.




  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3
    I like realism and natural shots but when one can manipulate the images and not make them over the top I like those also.
    Some HDR is just not real looking at all. Good in advertising persay but for artistic display, not my cup o' tea.

  34. #34
    mjw
    mjw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    635
    More like "true" dynamic range

  35. #35
    R.I.P. DogFriend
    Reputation: jeffj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,515
    This was taken with an iPhone and an app called HDR. It takes two images and blends them for you.


  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffj View Post
    This was taken with an iPhone and an app called HDR. It takes two images and blends them for you.
    In my humble opinion, severely limited dynamic range is probably the biggest problem that regular digi-cams and cellphone cameras have. HDR (if used properly) makes a humungous difference for these kinds of cameras.

  37. #37
    R.I.P. DogFriend
    Reputation: jeffj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,515
    Quote Originally Posted by blundar View Post
    In my humble opinion, severely limited dynamic range is probably the biggest problem that regular digi-cams and cellphone cameras have. HDR (if used properly) makes a humungous difference for these kinds of cameras.
    Agreed, from my perspective anyway. Digital cameras have a limited, finite number of steps of dynamic range. In a single shot, if you have areas of very bright highlights and lots of darker shadow details, and everything in between, you need more steps than what today's digital cameras have in order to see it as the human eye sees it. Hence the reason HDR photos are generally so much more pleasing (familiar) to look at IMHO.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,434
    I'm a big fan of over the top colors and saturation. Just my taste. I don't care if others think it's not legit or out of style. To each their own. I don't actually do HDR often though. Here is one example of a 5 shot HDR I did a couple years ago...


  39. #39
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Every once in a while I play around with HDR. Occasionally I like the results.

    Here's one of my truck at sunrise.


    Though I'll happily admit I don't have much talent when it comes to this stuff, I really like how HDR can add detail to what would otherwise be a washed out / overexposed sky. I just have a hard time keeping the colours somewhat normal / accurate.

    Before


    After
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •