Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
TylerBramer
Jun 16th 2008
-
antOnwoOds
Jun 16th 2008
Im interested in this type of work, Not the best at creating HDR but i would like to learn for when i get my new camera later this month :) -
Fredrik
Jun 16th 2008
I'm sorry, but that's no HDR. HDR - or High Dynamic Range - is intended to expand the dynamic range, not make it smaller like you've done in the examples above. For example, the first photo has a correctly exposed sky but your "HDR's" sky is overexposed, and there are some dark areas in the lower left that are even darker in the "HDR" version.
This is the opposite of what HDR is, your light areas (i.e. sky) should be kept at the same exposure but your darker areas should be brought to light.
The same goes for the second one, the original photo has a good range, but the "HDR" goes from underexposed to overexposed in a heartbeat.
What you've done is increasing the contrast, not HDR.
I have been thinking about putting a HDR tutorial together, but so far I haven't because I really dislike the effect HDR creates and it's one of the most overused effects in photography these days. Maybe doing one on how to use it in moderation? -
antOnwoOds
Jun 16th 2008
yeah fedrik i wouldnt mind, obviously the readers have different tastes and may like HDR but using it in moderation could go down well with the readers.
-
TylerBramer
Jun 16th 2008 edited
Thanks for the input Fredrik. From what I've read on HDR photography, it is simply creating a greater intensity and range from dark to light. It does not state that the shadows are meant to be brought to light. I've seen examples of HDR that intensify light more than shadow, some that intensify shadow more than light, and some that keep an even balance.
If you could share your resources so that I could learn more please do. -
Fredrik
Jun 16th 2008
I don't have any good sources, but the whole idea of HDR is to be able to capture a much larger range of light than you can with just one exposure. What you've done is the opposite, you've chopped off both the dark and the light parts of the spectra and have a very high contrast.
Sure people can do all sorts of things and call it HDR (these days you can see cartoon-like photos that people call HDR etc) - but the original idea was to recreate the landscape more like our eyes sees it. Like exposing both the foreground and the sky correctly, which can be impossible with just one ordinary exposure. What HDR was from the beginning was a way to photoshop a photograph to achieve the same effect you can with a gradual ND filter (but with more flexibility). These days HDR is not what it was intended to be, it's not used to create a more natural look to photographs, in fact most people do the opposite.
I'm not saying your editing isn't nice, I'm just saying it isn't HDR. Your original photos have a higher dynamic range than your editing, i.e. the edited photo can not be classed a "high dynamic range" when it has a lower range than the original.
I'm not sure what you mean with saying that HDR intensify shadows more than light, I have a hard time seeing how that can be HDR. The idea is to take several photos with different exposures and true HDR would not replace an underexposed area (shadow) with an photo that was even more underexposed. -
TylerBramer
Jun 16th 2008
Thanks for the information Fredrick. Always good to learn all that I can!
-
CJ.H
Jun 16th 2008
HDR photos come out with a neat effect, but there are all ready countless tutorials on HDR, and as Fredrick said, they are overused. -
Jana
Jun 17th 2008
Well I think these are good examples in HDR photography as it is
http://damien-c.deviantart.com/gallery/
1 to 9 of 9
Original
Final
Original
Final