HDR C&C plus discussion welcome

PixelTrawler

Well I hated HDR - didnt really like what I was seeing but I've given a go and I can see there are certain circumstances it can be ok.

I've found that sunsets where you can get colour and detail from the sky and foreground seems to work pretty well. Also sunny foreground / heavy skies in the background.

These are a few early efforts...
Theres larger ones on flickr in a HDR set

Any thoughts on HDR in general? Any tips? Im using Photomatix to do the processing...

Dades

#1 does nothing for me really, I wouldn't have guessed there was HDR involved.

But #2 and #3 are very nice examples. The clouds look fab.
I love the way the clouds hover in #2.

PixelTrawler

Your comment on #1 is good!
Im so glad you didnt think it was HDR...

I feel or it seems people can overdo "HDR" to make it obviously a HDR image (or perhaps they are just overcooked), whereas I want to use it simply as a processing technique.

Reading that back maybe im not getting the point across right. You know when people do HDR, you end up with a glow around everything - thats what Im keen to avoid.

TelePaul

1 doesn't do much for me, it's the composition that I don't like. 2 and 3 are fabulous alright, 3 is really excellent. I think people are inclined to make a judgement call on a HDR photo, but every shot should be judged on its own merits.

Carrigman

Nice shots (#3 is my favourite). It's not obvious that they are HDRs and so the technique has worked well for you.

mathias

I like number 1 , Its my favourite of the three ,

I personally like HDR as long as it doesnt get pushed into surrealistic Psychedelic territory which so many people do.

2 , pretty good , but needs to be straightened.

3 is bordering on the surrealistic look , I dont care for that look , its not for me.

PixelTrawler

I was wondering what to do with 2. Its taken near new quay past Kinvara. Its a nice high road giving great views but I find on shots of slopes looking down I mess up the horizon. I need to work on that...

3 is a little over processed but im still trying to balance the right look and I think I went a little too far.

Photomatix is not a bad program. I find for best results save in 16 bit tif and convert to jpg in photoshop. Tis slow ish though... time for a dual core perhaps!

5uspect

2 has wonderful depth. I really like it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Solyad wrote: »

I was wondering what to do with 2. Its taken near new quay past Kinvara. Its a nice high road giving great views but I find on shots of slopes looking down I mess up the horizon. I need to work on that...

If your viewfinder has a grid turn it on, very much helps keep your horizon straight, just don't end up putting all your horizons on a grid line, the spaces can be used too!

alternatively you can use a straightening tool and crop the result so it has straight edges. I use the one in Bibble and it normally lets me get balls accurate horizons by hand, if I didn't get it first time with the grid.

PixelTrawler

Its a 40D so i try and line up the two outer square boxes that indicate the outer AF points.

Theres a grid on the live view but i dont use live view much

sasar

I we talk about HDR technique - I would say #1 is the best, as it is not overdone. Though the composition could have been more interesting.

#2 is a bit too boring for me and slightly overcooked.

#3 - I like the view, but HDR jumps out too much. See that bright spot in the grass on the left?

I used to be a big fan of HDR myself, now it's kind of fading away...

Fenster

There's no real foreground focus in the shots.

decsramble

I love 2, though you suffer from the same disability as myself, I think my eyes must be stuck in my head at a funny angle cause I can never get my horizontals level. Photoshop fixes that but it does mean loosing some of the edges of the shot.

1 could have been a great shot as well if it was taken from a little further out so that the whole of the mountain was in shot.

3 doesnt do anything for me, looks pretty but lacks something to draw my interest.

As for HDR, like it or love it it's going to be a feature of photography from now on, probably even built into cameras in a couple of years.

zeptar

Sorry, stupid question but what does HDR actually mean?

sheesh

High dynamic range

you take 3 pics at 3 different exposures (of the same thing) stick them together so you can get a large range and see more detail.

sheesh

I like the first one the second one is nice apart from bright grass towards the bottom right it just seems too fake to me. But I have a low tolerance for hdr anyway in that I like it to a certain extent but there is a point where i think its a bit fake looking.

PixelTrawler

sasar wrote: »

I used to be a big fan of HDR myself, now it's kind of fading away...

Can see it being a bit of a novelty alright - its a lot of processing work... still from time to time maybe, for the right shot

The images themselves arent of anything in particular but were more practice shots to try out the technique...

Fenster wrote: »

There's no real foreground focus in the shots.

Thats a fault of a lot of my shots so far - something im starting to try and put right - im a few months into working with dslrs and im starting to think more about what I see in the viewfinder and how it translates into an (entire) image on a screen.

sasar

sheesh wrote: »

High dynamic range

you take 3 pics at 3 different exposures (of the same thing) stick them together so you can get a large range and see more detail.

You don't necessarily need 3 shots. I've made lots and lots of HDR shots from a single photo and I have had a few made form over 10 shots.

PixelTrawler

My number 3 there is a single shot.
It works pretty well but you need to shot raw.

Its happened a few times that using AEB you have a tiny movement between the shots which can cause a bit of blur.

Photomatix seems a bit weak at doing aligning - compared to something like Panorama factory which seems brilliant at lining up photos.

amcinroy

These are three natural looking shots. There is certainly none of the problems that tend to plague HDR conversions, namely halos, artifacts and flat contrast. So well done there.

However, looking at your images I would be confident that you could have achieved this end result using single exposures with a lot less hastle. There are no deep shadows and the sun is out of view.

Perhaps you would post you mid exposure from your first shot and I will demonstrate.

Andy

sheesh

sasar wrote: »

You don't necessarily need 3 shots. I've made lots and lots of HDR shots from a single photo and I have had a few made form over 10 shots.

well yeah I realised that afterwards but it seemed like a reasonable description of it. I was too lazy to reedit it

PixelTrawler

Got some great feedback and tips on this thread and I tried to put it into practice this weekend. It kinda got me thinking more about my shot.

Especially around interest in the shot - foreground interest that kinda thing.

Hopefully this is an improvement on the first shots posted....

liveforphotos

They look really natural to me. Nice work. I agree about forced HDR. I generally hate the results. These look great.

sheesh

I like that really like the crispness of the rocks in the forground