HDR (High Dynamic Range) Pictures

Xave

Xave

Active member
Anyone else think they're badass?

I want to try to make some of them, and if I read right, I need to take 3 pictures of the same thing with different exposures and mix them together with a special plug-in...Am I right?

1156912539

hdr-49.jpg
hdr-67.jpg
hdr-9.jpg
hdr-38.jpg
hdr-44.jpg
hdr-32.jpg

Hope my links work...I usually suck with linking pics...
 
i find most of the time they tend to just look too digital and i dont like the feel they give.

that being said ive seen a few that are really sick too.
 
I think they're waaay sick. Subtle and drastic HDR images can look really cool. I really want to try filming an HDR timelapse with a few closely placed cameras and compositeing the pictures together.
 
i think they look amazing..it really puts a new dimension on the picture..and clouds always look stunning in them..

just thinking, the top picture...with the bird, i dont think thats hdr, because you couldnt take a picture of a moving object like a bird in three different exposures quickly enough to capture it in the same place in each photo..

Also, if anyone thinking of trying HDR stuff, download a program called photomatrix, it does everything for you so long as you have the shots in different exposures. You can also do it in photoshop cs3 which has a HDR layering option..however i havnt used photoshop to do it
 
i think they can look awesome but can also be overdone, or done when its not necessary. and that ruins things.
 
no the one with the bird can be hdr

you dont need to take 3 different pictures on the spot

you could shoot one in raw and edit it later into three different exposures i believe.
 
That one doesn't really look HDR to me either just because you can't see any detail on the inside of the lighthouse, usually HDR shots can capture that really well, pic just looks kinda like a really oversaturated pic or something still cool though.
 
yeah true i didnt really look at it i just read his post

and wanted to say you could still make an hdr image with something moving in it

i dunno if it looks as good though never done it but yeah.
 
i think they'd look sweet for snow. is the idea behind it that you can eliminated over/underexposed shots and get as much detail as possible? i think that's why the clouds look so cool, because you see all kinds of detail you wouldn't be able to see in 1 shot.
 
ahh, i was actually going to ask if this was possible..i always assumed you could just edit the exposure later..thanks for enlightening me
 
Here are a few I did

Canon XTi - 3xp - RAW

(-1.3, .0, +1.3)

2490973310_12af263268.jpg


(-1.5, 0, +1.5)



(-1.5, 0, +1.5)

img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2490966628_1eb6bc1438.jpg?v=0">

img src"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/2490142159_c0770eb8a1.jpg?v=0">

img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2209/2490963266_3628ab5113.jpg?v=0">

1xp - 0 - RAW

n1164600997_30296896_1380.jpg


Canon SD800 IS - 13xp - JPEG

n1164600997_30204284_5246.jpg


4xp

n1164600997_30094595_8944.jpg


5xp

n1164600997_30095180_5271.jpg


 


Not sure if its any good but have a look:

1198019977XtrailunsmoothedHDR__Large_.jpg


I use a program called photomatix, you can download it or pay, anyways its a great program and then i always bring it back to photoshop to touch up the photos

 
i've done a lot of stuff with it in the last 6 months, but am slowly getting tired of it and am trying to get out of it.

here are some..

2260314333_f6633a2968_o.jpg


radosunsetsmalluw0.jpg


1584853518_ad39717a54_o.jpg


1232447995_914cb3f719_o.jpg


natural hdr is more pleasing i think. i just did masking in of different exposures here..

1072572663_21f3be6e81_o.jpg
 
very very sick technique that i feel like you dont see very often. I am doing a series of Denver for a gallery with a friend. It will be fun maybe.
 
sorry but a lot of bad examples in here.

HDR pictures are best used when you brigthen up the dark spots and lighten down the dark spots and get a very nice range of colors, not any of this pastel bullshit. If you wanted to make pastely pictures, paint something, don't overuse it in photoshop or photomatix.

Most of the pictures here have A LOT of underexposure to be even called an HDR.

Here are some good examples of HDR with the right amount of exposure, no unders or overs.

224782755_87bd7e8a8e.jpg


161483435_40cd230235_b.jpg


VVV this is a really good example, nighttime HDR, 4 pictures and hardly underexposed or overexposed, very good balance of both and it's pretty colorful.

182191565_0537107963_b.jpg


2248245135_10b6e96ed1_o.jpg


there's a bunch more on flickr if you search for it.
 
^^ yea man that's what i thought it was supposed to be used for. seems super prime for snow/ski pics, with a shitload of super bright snow ya know? can get alot fuller shots of the non-snow, or get alot more detail in the snow.
 
ya that's true but it's kind of a hassle because you need to take a couple pictures of the same spot. Nobody wants to carry a tripod around snow, heh.
 
first off.. every picture here is a "high dynamic range" image. The dynamic range of the camera was extended... it's up to you to judge whether you think it compares to the images of the HDR guru... "stuckincustoms".

secondly, i'm surprised after telling everyone their pictures aren't HDR that you aren't aware of single RAW HDR image processing... perfect for action shots... also carrying a tripod around in the snow is quite easy...
 
you may not get the exact same quality, yet it's the exact same concept with the same exact effect.
 
The problem with HDR, and why 95% of it looks like shit, is because people are using it to completely destroy the tones of an image.

Instead of using it to bring subtle details into the highlights and shadows of an image (which is what it was designed for), people completely flatten any contrast of light and dark within an image, and it just looks like shit.

I spent a month learning HDR and even more time on the concepts behind it in school, but I rarely use HDR myself.

Place it's being used the most is in QTVR panorama's at the moment, shooting indoors and outdoors at the same time. Can't use flashes/lights, so this makes capturing details possible..........

 
good to see that i'm not the only one that thinks this way. It's getting way too overdone and too many people are starting to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top