Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Includes seascape, panorama and travel photography

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HDR

    HDR image from 5 shots, (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2)
    A small foot bridge at our local park/lake.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	5299-Bridge_At_Lake-1.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	153.5 KB
ID:	483292
    I Shoot A Canon

    Web: isacimages.com / My Gear
    I dusted once and it came back. I'm not falling for that again!
    I never make the same mistake twice. I do it like, five or six times, you know, to make sure.

  • #2
    G'day mate

    Looks good - nicely detailed in all zones .... what would a 'normal' image look like??

    Phil
    __________________
    > Motorhome travels outback eastern Australia much of each year
    > recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

    Comment


    • Isac
      Isac commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks Phil. I'll post the 5 shots below.

  • #3
    EH. Why?
    Better a full bottle in front of me
    than a full frontal lobotomy.
    Hans

    Comment


    • #4
      Originally posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
      G'day mate, Looks good - nicely detailed in all zones .... what would a 'normal' image look like?? Phil
      Here's the 5 images -2 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +2
      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG 159 (001).jpg
Views:	28
Size:	196.7 KB
ID:	483318
      I Shoot A Canon

      Web: isacimages.com / My Gear
      I dusted once and it came back. I'm not falling for that again!
      I never make the same mistake twice. I do it like, five or six times, you know, to make sure.

      Comment


      • #5
        Isac -

        Okay - but not quite what I meant ... it would be beaut to see the 'normal' original side by side with the HDR to compare and see what / if it's worth the effort!!

        Phil
        __________________
        > Motorhome travels outback eastern Australia much of each year
        > recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

        Comment


        • K1W1
          K1W1 commented
          Editing a comment
          I think I am having the same thought process as you. Looking at the 0 shot I'm not sure there is much the HDR has achieved that editing the 0 shot would not have been able to do. It's always good to try things but in this case I don't think the HDR has added to the image.

      • #6
        I think what Phil is asking for is a side by side comparison of the 0 EV image and the HDR image.
        Personally I feel that the HDR image lacks a bit of "punch", maybe a boost in contrast would help.
        My Gear

        Comment


        • #7
          OK. Thanks everyone for your input - all appreciated.
          I've decided that HDR is a complete waist of time for this type of scene.and it should be used only on scenes that benefit from being able to see the full dynamic range.

          Here's the 0EV next to the HDR. I added contrast to the HDR as suggested by GJ.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	5330-Compare.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	103.6 KB
ID:	483343
          This is the 0EV edited to my liking.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	5300_Lake_Bridge.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	134.9 KB
ID:	483342
          This one is the single 0EV image created with an action I wrote. It certainly lifts the shadows and adds contrast and colour.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	5300_Lake_Bridge_HDR.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	137.0 KB
ID:	483344
          Conclusion:

          HDR is fun and I have never checked out what it actually is and why one would use it. BUT after some pretty indepth articles and viewing some brilliant HDR images, I'm now a fan.
          I know that some don't like HDR images, but to me it's just another artistic and fun thing to do with photography and editing.

          This is a snippet of what I came across in trying to come to grips with what HDR actually is and why one would want to use it. After seeing some HDR images, I'm impressed.
          ---------------------------------------
          • real-world scenes contain light ranges that exceed a 50,000:1 dynamic range (or contrast)
          • media has been limited to around a 300:1 dynamic range (including photo paper and computer monitors for digital imagery)
          • How, then, do we represent light values in a real-world scene using such a limited set of light values provided by different (current and past) media types?

          In general, humans can see details of scenes that span 4-5 orders of magnitude in luminance instantly and can adapt within a few minutes to changes that span 9 orders of magnitude. The sRGB gamut, created as a standard for digital graphics display media (monitors, printers, and the Internet), however, prevents colors outside this color space from being visible as it covers about half of the human-perceivable colors whilst only showing less than an order of magnitude of 2 in luminance.
          ---------------------------------------
          I Shoot A Canon

          Web: isacimages.com / My Gear
          I dusted once and it came back. I'm not falling for that again!
          I never make the same mistake twice. I do it like, five or six times, you know, to make sure.

          Comment


          • K1W1
            K1W1 commented
            Editing a comment
            I used to used HDR a lot back in the early days of digital but I find that the modern sensors have much more latitude and I hardly ever use it now unless there is a massive variation on light across the scene. Back then we would do up to 9 shot brackets but that is totally unnecessary now 3 shots always in my experience gives enough data. invariably I now take the brackets do the HDR merge in LR then don't like it and just use one of the original frames anyway. :-)

          • Ozzie_Traveller
            Ozzie_Traveller commented
            Editing a comment
            G'day fellas

            Isac- yes the side-by-side as GJ suggested was what I was asking for ... and yes, your 2 samples certainly show a difference, but not a major one.
            I surmise that -as K1W1 also suggests, that most sensors have more 'latitude' than earlier times, then the excessive need for HDR might not be there much of the time

            Phil

          • Isac
            Isac commented
            Editing a comment
            Thanks all. I will only be using HDR for artistic purposes from now on, as Photoshop has amazing power in reducing the gap in dynamic range between what our eys see and what the camera produces. As noted, sensor improvements have come a long way but are still a long way off in being able to capture what our eyes can see.

        • #8
          I have used HDR for really high contrast lighting but use it less and less these days as I also found, as mentioned above, that sensors have improved so much that editing a single image would giv the result I wanted. I usually found that I preferred the results from manually combining images rather than specialised HDR programs.
          Alan W

          My Gallery

          Comment


          • Isac
            Isac commented
            Editing a comment
            Thanks for the info Alan - appreciated. I was never a big fan of HDR images but they do have a place in our artistic world and some of the images I have seen are absolutely amazing.

          • wigz
            wigz commented
            Editing a comment
            Yes, I have seen some great HDR images but could never get them right myself. It became a bit of a fad for a while and was over-used I think.

          • Isac
            Isac commented
            Editing a comment
            I agree it was a fad for a while. I'm still going to press on play with it to see if I can get some artistic images.
        Working...
        X