my first post and first atempt at hdr

[mrrod]

Not sure how to post the picture in the post but the link works at least. It's my first attempt at HDR and was taken sometime ago.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/...0e10454d_b.jpg

[arith]

Looks good to me; to post just Browse for the image using the tool found below the text box and hit Host it. Copy the top option in ImageShack then click on Insert Image which looks like a telly above the text box. Paste and then post.

[Colin Southern]

I've inserted the image inline for you

How many shots were in your HDR sequence?

[mrrod]

cheers for that Colin, i took 3 shots for this pic.

[David]

Hi mrrod - I looked at this image yesterday and have spent some tme thinking about it. You don't say what software you used and I guess it was Photomatix Pro or similar. I would make four points. First, overall, the image looks good to my eye with a typical "HDR" feel to it: lots of grain and local contrast. Such images are not to everyone's taste, but so what.

Second, there is a typical halo effect around the bicycle. Sometimes this is good, but other times it detracts from the image. The commercial software can usually be tweaked to remove such artefacts if you wish.

Third, as oft stated by Colin and others (possibly including myself), what you have actually produced is a tone-mapped low dynamic range image.

Fourth, when using HDR techniques, remember that for the optimum effect you should have a scene that actually has a wider dynamic range than your camera is capable of capturing. I have a suspicion in this case that the dynamic range of the scene was probably not all that great and that a similar result could have been obtained by using the mid exposure and tweaking with levels, saturation and then a local contrast adjustment.

Anyway, just thoughts on an idle Sunday pm.

Cheers

David

[mrrod]

Hey David,

The software i used was photomatix pro. I must ask though, being new to HDR, what is tone-mapped low dynamic range? How do i find out if my camera has a wider dynamic range? The camera i used was a canon 30D. I did look up how to take HDR on youtube, the clip said to take 3 shots, one over exposed, one under exposed and one 'normal' (not sure what to call a proper exposure) exposure, is there another way of taking HDR?

[Colin Southern]

Hey David,

The software i used was photomatix pro. I must ask though, being new to HDR, what is tone-mapped low dynamic range? How do i find out if my camera has a wider dynamic range? The camera i used was a canon 30D. I did look up how to take HDR on youtube, the clip said to take 3 shots, one over exposed, one under exposed and one 'normal' (not sure what to call a proper exposure) exposure, is there another way of taking HDR?

We've had a couple of threads in the past that might help ... if you have a few minutes, have a read of this and this.

In a nutshell, HDR is used when the range of tones in the scene is too great to capture in a single exposure ... but I don't see anything that would get even close to doing that in your image ... so HDR almost certainly wasn't required. The "look" that you have is due to tone-mapping and procesing ... unfortunately, this look has been misassociated with HDR in the minds of many photographers (that I'm working hard to change). It certainly can be an attractive result ... it's just not necessarily HDR.

[Gary]

Ok, here's my first attempt at HDR. After reading and reading practicing and deleting does this even look close to HDR? Well, ok fake HDR. I haven't actually gotten to shoot HDR yet. It's one photo, exposure adjusted in camera raw and the rest was done in PS.

[Colin Southern]

Ok, here's my first attempt at HDR.

I haven't actually gotten to shoot HDR yet.

LOL - you just made my day

Hi Gary,

Probably best that we get the terminology right - it's not "HDR" or "Fake HDR" or even "HDR Look" (HDR doesn't really have a "look"). Perhaps "ultra-tone-mapped look" might be a better description?

You'd probably get close to the same look with one of the filters in the filter menu.

[Gary]

Colin,

Glad I could make ya chuckle. But now you have me all confused.. If the terminology is not hdr, why does the thread say "my first post and first attempt at hdr"? Also, you say hdr doesn't have a look? Please elaborate. Because what I'm seeing as being labeled hdr has a look all it's own. Not trying to be difficlut. Just trying to understand. Thanks

[rogerb]

This is in reference to some of the images posted to this thread......

The "look" that you have is due to tone-mapping and procesing ... unfortunately, this look has been misassociated with HDR in the minds of many photographers (that I'm working hard to change). It certainly can be an attractive result ... it's just not necessarily HDR.

Colin: Any chance we could talk you into doing a "white paper" on this subject that would go in the Tutorials section? Hopefully this would help put this issue to bed..... something we could refer people to?
Roger

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

Glad I could make ya chuckle. But now you have me all confused.. If the terminology is not hdr, why does the thread say "my first post and first attempt at hdr"? Also, you say hdr doesn't have a look? Please elaborate. Because what I'm seeing as being labeled hdr has a look all it's own. Not trying to be difficlut. Just trying to understand. Thanks

Hi Gary,

I'd be glad to help - but - a great starting point would be if you could read through a couple of threads for me first. In this first one we talk about what HDR is and isn't, and in this second one we talk about what tone-mapping is (which is more in line with what you've got).

Let me know when you're done with those two, and then we can go from there eh?

[Pawel]

The problem with HDR is that people don't fully understand the concept. Digital cameras can capture 5 stops of exposure (hence 5 stops on your meter), but human eye can see about 8-10 stops. Merging different exposures to HDR was designed to overcome this limitation and produce natural looking images with full dynamic range. Nowadays all movies are shot with HDR and yet they don't have that "ultra tone-mapped" look. This is just an effect you can get with software and heavy editing. At first you like it and then it's not that cool anymore.

You should try to shoot a scene with very high dynamic range, i.e. landscape with underexposed shadows in trees and overexposed sky. Shoot 3 or 5 exposures at full stops. Give yourself some time to remember how it looked to your eyes and then try to achieve that natural look by merging to HDR. I think you will like that much more

[Colin Southern]

Digital cameras can capture 5 stops of exposure (hence 5 stops on your meter

You've got the right idea, but digital cameras can capture a lot more than 5 stops (12 is typical), and the human eye can see a lot more than 10