 | | 
02-05-09, 02:03 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2008 Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 158
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 89StangGT50  There are some pretty good one posted, but most of them are way overprocessed, HDR should still have a real look to it. | I respectfully disagree.
Photography is a creative pursuit and therefore we are free to do whatever. HDR "should" be anything it can be. The only reason you see yours as more "real" is because BW photos already have a history in our culture. If someone were to have just invented BW photos, I am sure many people would say they look ridiculous. And if overprocessed HDRs had been around since 1820, I am sure they would be seen as great works of art. Especially considering that most folks who look at an overprocessed HDR think it looks like a painting. They are responding to the fact that overprocessed HDRs have the same tonality as paintings did before photography came along. Photography is actually pretty poor at capturing all the visible tones in a scene, we were once able to get them all in using a painting, then photography came along and all of a sudden we all think 9-10 Zones (Exposure Values) is the maximum possible to squeeze into a picture.
I agree that the overprocessed HDRs look odd, but only because we are not used to them. There is nothing a photo should be. Photography is not math, there is no right or wrong answer.
Sorry for the rant. I am a professional photographer and come across this type of bias all the time, so it is a personal pet peeve of mine.  |
02-05-09, 05:20 PM
|  | Member | | Join Date: October 2004 Location: Raeford, NC
Posts: 43
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDiesel I respectfully disagree.
Photography is a creative pursuit and therefore we are free to do whatever. HDR "should" be anything it can be. The only reason you see yours as more "real" is because BW photos already have a history in our culture. If someone were to have just invented BW photos, I am sure many people would say they look ridiculous. And if overprocessed HDRs had been around since 1820, I am sure they would be seen as great works of art. Especially considering that most folks who look at an overprocessed HDR think it looks like a painting. They are responding to the fact that overprocessed HDRs have the same tonality as paintings did before photography came along. Photography is actually pretty poor at capturing all the visible tones in a scene, we were once able to get them all in using a painting, then photography came along and all of a sudden we all think 9-10 Zones (Exposure Values) is the maximum possible to squeeze into a picture.
I agree that the overprocessed HDRs look odd, but only because we are not used to them. There is nothing a photo should be. Photography is not math, there is no right or wrong answer.
Sorry for the rant. I am a professional photographer and come across this type of bias all the time, so it is a personal pet peeve of mine. | here here |
02-05-09, 06:04 PM
|  | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| |
I see both sides of it. I personally think that, for the most part, HDR's should look realistic. However, if done properly, with the right photograph, a highly tone mapped image looks absolutely amazing and is transformed into a work of art.
The biggest problem with HDR is that when anyone learns to use it (myself included), the first thing they do is over filter it because they want to see the effects of it.
Darn near every picture of my car for the last year has been HDR, and you really can't tell in most of them anymore. But if I showed you the single exposure, you'd be like "ohhhhh".
Here's a recent edit 
And here's an overprocessed one that "works" (not mine)  |
02-06-09, 07:49 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2001 Location: TX
Posts: 177
| |
I understand your point but stand by mine. But there are definitely times when over processing looks good, especially indoors, and for abandoned structures.
I wasnt talking about the one I took at all. Personally I dont like how car shots come out in HDR, I prefer HDR for landscaping.
Look around Flickr. The most popular HDR shots are the ones that are lightly done. The ones with halos everywhere and grainy composures look aweful in most cases. When you look at almost anyones HDR work, when they start out, they over process everything. As they get more experience they tone it back big time, and their results are astonishing. When I look back at the original HDRs i did a year or 2 ago, I cant believe how bad I was, but at the time I thought they were decent.
Check out Fraggle Red on flickr. I think you will see what I mean....
Some more advice for HDR beginners....Photomatix is not the only HDR program, there are 2 or 3 others that are incredible. try out Dynamic Photo HDR, (DPhdr), you get many more options and it really helps with a different look.
Here are a couple I did...some over processed, some more real looking...but you are right, its all about personal preference    
Last edited by 89StangGT50; 02-06-09 at 07:53 AM.
|
06-16-09, 03:08 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: October 2008 Location: Altoona, IA
Posts: 203
| | 
One I did recently after a wash and wax. I need to get my computer with photoshop going to clean it up but it turned out ok.
Another one I took on a trip to Georgia.  |
06-17-09, 07:49 AM
| | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| |
I like the Georgia one. The other one is fine, just don't like driveway pics. Bad composition. But your processing is good. It seems to be in between unnoticeable and over the top. |
06-17-09, 08:18 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: October 2008 Location: Altoona, IA
Posts: 203
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkFireGT I like the Georgia one. The other one is fine, just don't like driveway pics. Bad composition. But your processing is good. It seems to be in between unnoticeable and over the top. | Yeah I know driveway pics suck. It was more of a see how the program acts with my black car vs landscape. I haven't found any really interesting places to shoot my car at yet.
Here is another one from Georgia that turned out alright. 
For some reason I have found that orange objects in Photomatix usually explode and you have to crank the saturation way down to get it to look halfway normal. I have a picture of a burnt orange barrel somewhere around here (oh yeah, my mom stole my thumb drive to show my aunt my pictures) and it looked almost blaze orange when I first processed it. |
06-19-09, 12:12 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2008 Location: Hot as hell, Arizona
Posts: 76
| |
You guys inspired me to take some pictures today... 
Thanks for reminding me of Dynamic Photo! I used to use it all the time, but I had to wipe my old computer and forgot what it was called! 
Anyways, here's my favorite shot I took. 1st time taking RAW format photos & changing the EV... Cool stuff!
This pic makes Mustangs look so badass...   |
10-10-09, 03:38 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2005 Location: Trabuco Canyon
Posts: 145
| | | |
10-27-09, 10:11 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2006 Location: Bartlett, IL.
Posts: 210
| | |
Last edited by HEAVYGT; 11-03-09 at 01:56 PM.
|
10-28-09, 03:20 PM
|  | mine works really well and can take a fair amount of pressure without bending | | Join Date: August 2006 Location: Central VA
Posts: 1,649
| | | |
11-03-09, 01:37 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2006 Location: Bartlett, IL.
Posts: 210
| | |
Last edited by HEAVYGT; 11-03-09 at 01:54 PM.
|
11-03-09, 05:44 PM
| | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| |
Sorry Glen. Way too overdone for me. |
11-03-09, 08:44 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Tallahassee Fl
Posts: 385
| |
Great pics guys!!! |
11-06-09, 11:42 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2006 Location: Bartlett, IL.
Posts: 210
| | | |
11-07-09, 10:06 AM
| | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| |
Those are better. This is my favorite of them:  |
11-10-09, 12:39 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2006 Location: Bartlett, IL.
Posts: 210
| | |
Last edited by HEAVYGT; 11-10-09 at 12:46 PM.
|
11-11-09, 12:40 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2006 Location: Bartlett, IL.
Posts: 210
| | | |
11-11-09, 06:29 PM
| | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| |
Much much much much better. No halos either. Halos are worse than noise, to me. Give them a (small) saturation boost and hit them with the smart sharpen filter at about .8-1, and you should have some nice images there. |
11-11-09, 08:42 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2009 Location: SouthEast Kansas
Posts: 55
| |
so is this some kind of program you buy to edit the picture to get them to look this way? I really like a few of these. Especially the Chicago one. Nothing jumps out at me in it. Looks as if it should be that way. I also like the one with the mowed lawn and mail box, but the cedar tree to the left seems really bright around the edges. |
11-12-09, 03:00 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2006 Location: Bartlett, IL.
Posts: 210
| | |
Last edited by HEAVYGT; 11-12-09 at 03:02 PM.
|
11-12-09, 07:04 PM
| | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| |
Lookin' good. I think you're getting it! Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Cagle so is this some kind of program you buy to edit the picture to get them to look this way? I really like a few of these. Especially the Chicago one. Nothing jumps out at me in it. Looks as if it should be that way. I also like the one with the mowed lawn and mail box, but the cedar tree to the left seems really bright around the edges. | You need a camera capable of bracketing the exposure. Ideally, you'll want to bracket using the shutter, not the aperture. Bracketing takes a set of images (usually 3 or 5) by holding down the shutter in bracketing mode (on my Canon, it's the AEB setting). Generally, I bracket using -2, 0, and +2. This will give you an underexposed image, and normally exposed image, and an overexposed image. You use a HDR program to combine and tone-map the images.
What happens here is you are taking the stuff in the overexposed image that would normally be black due to shadowing, and bringing the details out. Then you are taking the stuff in the underexposed image that would normally be blown out highlights, and bringing those details out. All of those details are essentially added to the main image, and you get a higher dynamic range than possible with a single photograph. You then tone-map that image to bring it down to a resolution that normal computer programs can work with. When tone-mapping, there are many options and you can come out with wildly surreal images, or ultra-realistic, depending on your settings.
That's it, in a nut-shell. Dynamic-Photo HDR is a great program to start with. |
11-12-09, 07:27 PM
|  | I'm Mad as HELL and I'M not Gonna Take it ANYMORE! | | Join Date: September 1998 Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,559
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkFireGT Lookin' good. I think you're getting it!
You need a camera capable of bracketing the exposure. | Just about all cameras can bracket. Quote: |
Ideally, you'll want to bracket using the shutter, not the aperture. Bracketing takes a set of images (usually 3 or 5) by holding down the shutter in bracketing mode (on my Canon, it's the AEB setting). Generally, I bracket using -2, 0, and +2.
| You don't have to have a camera do it for you.
Set up on a tripod, manually change exposures. This is far superior to hand holding the camera even if the camera can take 5+ FPS because the camera WILL move. Quote: |
What happens here is you are taking the stuff in the overexposed image that would normally be black due to shadowing, and bringing the details out. Then you are taking the stuff in the underexposed image that w
| Yeah, HDR is almost a necessity because of the limited range of the digital format. |
11-13-09, 07:31 AM
| | kooldawg's better half | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 1,813
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Wart Just about all cameras can bracket.
You don't have to have a camera do it for you.
Set up on a tripod, manually change exposures. This is far superior to hand holding the camera even if the camera can take 5+ FPS because the camera WILL move.
Yeah, HDR is almost a necessity because of the limited range of the digital format. | True, any camera with any type of manual mode can be set to bracketing, but if there's not an automatic exposure bracket, the camera will probably get moved while changing settings, unless you have a good tripod.
I've done HDR's handheld, even with my heavy 5D. A tripod is definitely preferred, but with a steady hand, it can be done, especially if you kneel on one knee and use the other as a support.
No matter what equipment you have, if you have the will, you can do it. But using a tripod with automatic bracketing is a sure way to get the best results. |
11-14-09, 08:39 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2009 Location: SouthEast Kansas
Posts: 55
| |
Wow there is alot to this stuff. I would love to learn how and get some starter equipment. Any good forums/websites for a beginner? B/c just reading this makes it seem very overwelming. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
2007 Ford Mustang GT
2005 Ford Mustang GT
