HDR??????

woogity

woogity

Active member
how do you take or make a HDR image.

i was talking to a kid in class and he said you take multiple shots of the same thing

and layer them on top of each other in photoshop or what evs.

is that true.

what is the way you do it.
 
Normally you would take the same picture at 3 different exposures which is also known as bracketing. (so for example ev steps -3...0...+3) Then in photoshop or photomatix you can combine these photos together creating you hdr imagine. Just make sure you have a tripod on hand.
 
ok heres detailed instructions on what to do to make an hdr.

1) take a picture

2) thats it. you dont need to make a fucking hdr. its not going to make your picture look any better.

3) realize how strongly I feel about this, and absorb my words as truth.

4) buy this camera.. http://http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Product-News/Pentax-K-x/

I feel like it would be a good camera for you.. its got an built in HDR filter and comes in different colors. Plus its Pentax, which everyone knows is at least 4x better than Nikon or Canon.

 
HDR is really difficult to do correctly. When I first bought my camera it looked like a fun thing to do. It IS cool to play with, but you can take way more quality photos without it. Like previous posts stated, it looks super fake usually and quite frankly isn't worth the time. Play around with it and have some fun with it, but do not expect to produce the highest of quality photos.
 
no offense, but you really have no "authority" to tell someone not to try a style of photography.
I'm sorry you take no joy out of well done HDR images like those of Trey Ratcliff. i mean don't get me wrong, a terrible HDR photo looks terrible. However i would hope you could appreciate the work that goes into doing very well done HDR. One that truly accomplishes the theory of the technique.
Also please don't respond with claim like, "photoshop isn't photography".
Just my two cents of defense.
 
screw HDR, the new thing is that shifting or whatever it's called, where one part of the image is in focus and the rest is blur-shifted. that looks cool.
 
i think a bunch of hdrs look cool. of course theres shitty hdrs, theres shitty photography too. if youve never tried it, why not, nothing to lose
 
ahah well actually you must be stupid if you actually call HDR a style of photography. HDR turns your style of photography into a digital art so its not really even a photo anymore. Used for advertising and its not usually good at all.

just take the best pictures you can and edit the least as possible.
 
exactlyyy ......and how can you feel good about what you just created when the only reason people would look at it is because of the hdr(or other editing tricks)

Get better at composition not editing.
 
...or you could get better at lighting not editing, or you could get better at technical details and not editing, or you could get better at catching the right moment and not editing.
The point is all of those things are a part of photography. there are plenty of photo editing techniques other than HDR that, after being applied to photos you would claim "not photos, but digital works of art". How about excessive gaussian blur to enhance the subject focus, or piles upon piles of layers upon layers to make something look better than it actually did or cloning out nuisances? Every method of photoshop or darkroom techniques is a manipulation of reality.
You think Mr. Ansel Adams just printed straight from the negatives?
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships!"-Ansel Adams

So yea, HDR is a flashy and extravagant editing process that is now readily available to any noob with a point and shoot. Just don't get all fussy if more people end up looking at someone's HDR photos than a traditional dynamic range photo and then blame it solely on the fact that they are HDR. That is never the only reason people would look at or like a particular photo. It is the feeling you get overall.
So when I'm looking through photos to finalize, some of them look great out of the camera and others I would love to enhance. I want the viewer to get the same "eye-opening, extended dynamic range and unreal" feeling that I had when I took the picture originally.
 
I realize you are being sarcastic, but 4x5 is awesome. I shoot with an Arca-Swiss Model C:

1241981920-779180-500x631-1241981895arcaswiss.jpg


The negatives are so awesome, nothing matches view cameras, you have control over everything and the negatives are unbelievable.
 
Why would I be sarcastic? I spent an entire semester shooting 4x5 last year. Nothing beats printing off a negative of that size.
 
sorry, just trying to start a more in depth debate... i mean we could go on all day saying "HDR sucks" "HDR is cool" "No, HDR sucks" "Actually i like HDR" "Actually you're not a photographer anymore because you like HDR"
who am i kidding though, this is NS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top