Some help with HDR

*Pow2ThePeople

*Pow2ThePeople

Member
okay, so i know a lot of people hate the way HDR looks and if u are one of those, just dont comment.

I personally like it in some instances so I would like to learn how to use it better/more appropriately.

Ive tweaked a few pictures so far and the common theme among all of them has been noise... in all of my pics i end up getting a ton of noise when i put the three exposures together to get the HDR image.

anyone have any tips for how to reduce this, or just tips for HDR in general?

thanks, and please no hate if u dont like this style.
 
One shot with shadows exposed correctly, one shot with highlights exposed correctly. Lowest ISO for each. If you're getting noise it's most likely because you're underexposing the shadows and trying to work with it anyway. Two exposures, mask the parts you need to, that's all there is to it. If you think you need more than two exposures then you're either trying to cram too much range into one shot or you don't "get" it. Don't use any of those programs or actions that give an "HDR" effect, do it yourself.
 
okay, great, thanks for the help!

so would u consider this a proper, or improper HDR?

5671052303_f1a7765c66_b.jpg

 
This may sound idiotic but the point of a high dynamic range photo is to achieve a ideal exposure across all ranges. It works best on photos with large depth of field, such as a landscape. Theres no reason to try to apply HDR to a photo that is properly exposed everywhere.

Heres an example of one that I shot in Steamboat

425379
 
If your doing this from multiple exposures, make sure they are bracketed consistently but in intervals that maximize the areas in ideal exposure. HDR's can also be taken from a single raw image, but they are typically not as good as ones from bracketed sequences.
 
okay so i have been bracketing, -+2 EV and the original of that picture really didnt look all that great because the tree was darker than i would have liked and the sky was washed out.

the pic of steamboat is awesome, i can definitely see how that is great use of HDR!
 
so here are the three images i used. none of them have been touched with photoshop (just to scale down to be uploaded)

i just wanna know what you guys think:

-2EV

5672752748_ac454207b2_z.jpg


0EV

5672184169_f5b0b6f403_z.jpg


+2EV

5672184551_938e4fc567_z.jpg

 
I mean they look good, and the HDR result definatly brings in the sky while maintaining good exposure on the tree itself but... Like someone else said I don't think the composition of a single tree is a good candidate for HDR. Try it with some landscapes or architectural photos and I think you'll get the results your looking for.
 
First of all, whoever posted the proper and improper thing, thank god. Nobody needs to see more butchered images.
I'd say tone down the greens and blue a bit, they're very unnatural. If you're doing hdr, try not to make it blatantly obvious. I think that the purpose of an hdr is to mimic the dynamic range your eye can see. Then somebody decided to make it look awful and go way beyond. If you take a picture of a snowy landscape, you're gonna have some under trees and some over snow. You don't see it like that, the snow is still bright and the trees are darker but they have detail and color. But once you get it to how you do see it I'd stop there.
So I'd reckon keep the colors natural, and whatever people do to bring way to much contrast, glow and detail to stuff should be kept to a minimum. That shot that's "proper" with the lake and mountains and reflections looks kinda natural, if you look past the fact that few digital imaging devices I know of can capture a straight image like that without help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top