OK, fair enough, hesitate to put my absolute first HDR attempts against such a fine photo but here goes...apologies for the leaning archway (which isn't really leaning of course), and the various junk that shouldn't be in the shot...and the watermark as I am testing Photomatix on that shot. The first is Photoshop HDR.
On that note, what software do you favour?
All the best!
Jeff
(This post was last modified: Oct 23, 2015, 11:04 by Freeman.)
This image was recorded last Sunday (25/10/15) at about 4 p.m. looking west from the north bank of the River Thames near Marlow:
[ Pentax K-5 II at ISO 160 with 40mm prime lens at f/8; 3 hand-held bracketed shots in Av Mode: -3, -1, and +1 EVs from the camera metered exposure; alignment, combination and adjustments in PaintShop Pro X6.]
I haven't acquired the Efex yet but I did find this in the wastelands of Worcestershire yesterday. I thought he well deserved the HDR treatment?
I have noted Ed comment about sharpening. In practice (it is my first week playing with HDR) I find it hard to dispense with light clipping in these HDR pictures so far, even this one. Advice, Ed? Anyone?
Thanks for your reply. I very much accept what you say. I am not personally averse to DI pictures as opposed to photos. At present I am experimenting with HDR to widen my general appreciation of the range of photography options. I'm really quite liking it, and interestingly so are my personal photo watchers. I fancy having a go at textures sometime too. This particular shot has nothing in it that the eye couldn't see, but there are some things which I have whipped out - but that's normal Lightroom stuff, isn't it.
It is a combination of 5 bracketed shots taken at 1/125,250,500,1000 and 2000, using Photomatix Pro. I then imported the result to Lightroom for edits, in the process of which, sharpening included, I found I was limited by the appearance of highlight clipping. Anyway, here's one of the original five at 1/500. I definitely welcome any advice thoughts or comments from the forum. I also attach a similar photo similarly treated which shows the benefit of differing exposures on the foreground and the sky.
Regards Ed and all, Jeff
PS Ed, the original I'm afraid died out in these parts at least, rather before our time...
Thanks for your reply. I very much accept what you say. I am not personally averse to DI pictures as opposed to photos. At present I am experimenting with HDR to widen my general appreciation of the range of photography options. I'm really quite liking it, and interestingly so are my personal photo watchers. I fancy having a go at textures sometime too. This particular shot has nothing in it that the eye couldn't see, but there are some things which I have whipped out - but that's normal Lightroom stuff, isn't it.
It is an HDR combination of 5 bracketed shots taken at 1/125,250,500,1000 and 2000. I then imported the result to Lightroom for edits, in the process of which, sharpening included, I found I was limited by the appearance of highlight clipping. Anyway, here's one of the original five at 1/500. I definitely welcome any advice thoughts or comments from the forum. I also attach a similar photo similarly treated which shows the benefit of differing exposures on the foreground and the sky.
In my view, it matters little to me how people choose to process their images - if it started as a camera image, then anything goes. However, it seems to me that the description of HDR images has moved quite a long way from its intended meaning and purpose.
HDR processing is done to enable us to view, in our prints or screen images, a scene which has a dynamic range wider than the camera sensor is capable of recording. No matter how the camera controls are set up for shooting, the result will have shadow areas and/or highlight areas with none of the details that we could see at the scene - those areas of the image are reduced to just black and white resp.
HDR software enables us to combine an image exposed to show the shadow areas with one suitably exposed for the highlight areas, so that the resulting image shows both shadow and highlight details and, of course, everything between. (In practice, we tend to use a bracket of 3 or 5 different exposures.)
The result should better show the reality of the scene that was before our eyes, but it can look a bit flat. So the software also includes tools to increase the local contrast and saturation, which can give a very realistic image. However, it is the excessive use of these tools, for creativity, that have produced the so-called HDR 'look' - high contrast and sharpness, garish colours, and halos.
Of course, there is nothing wrong (in my view) with using HDR methods to enhance images, and experimenting with their creative effects. However, the original photo of the dinosaur, shown above in Post #20, is an image in which the camera appears to have successfully recorded the full range of the scene, so HDR techniques were not really needed there.
Even in the little JPEG file posted above, the highlights are not blown, and there is plenty of detail and colour information throughout the range, which can be enhanced by the usual image editing methods, as little or as much as desired e.g. -
Fantastic! Special thanks to Philip for helpful, clear explanatory comment. Great fun altogether...Much more to explore here in HDR though. For instance, Philip's Thames scene is much more serene than the dramatic treatment demanded by the dinosaur. But maybe a little more punch in this season of autumn colour and sunsets and harvest? Here's my (restrained) suggestion.... Cheers Jeff
