Post your HDR photos!

[Avotius]

I have a friend who is a HDR photo nut, all he shoots are HDR photos it seems. Well I thought I would try it for the heck of it with a single image and 5 different ev levels pulled out of the raw. Worked ok, I had to tweek it a lot in photoshop before I got what I wanted/saw because I dont like the complete lack of contrast some of the images show but it was interesting. Maybe someone else out there has played with this or seriously uses this in their work flow?

Wondering if anyone else here ever tinkered with HDR imaging?

btw: HDR stands for High Dynamic Range for those who might not know

btw2: I used photomatix for this one, a 10 second exposure on my Canon 20D and canon 50 f1.4 set at f11, in raw of course.

Show us some of your neat HDR images!

 

[doitashimash1te]

Incredible! I never heard of this HDR technique before. Thanks for sharing this.

Your picture is one of extreme beauty.

 

[gavinlg]

To be completely honest I really don't like 99% of the HDR stuff thats floating around at the moment. Most of it to me looks like some scene out of a very disturbed childs nightmere.

Your example is quite good though - not an over-done effect like most.

I do use some HDR stuff for real estate/architecture work with lower paying stuff - means I dont have to balance light inside and out with strobes and can still stop windows etc from blowing out. Looks quite natural if you don't use a whole heap of it.

 

[Avotius]

To be completely honest I really don't like 99% of the HDR stuff thats floating around at the moment. Most of it to me looks like some scene out of a very disturbed childs nightmere.

Your example is quite good though - not an over-done effect like most.

I do use some HDR stuff for real estate/architecture work with lower paying stuff - means I dont have to balance light inside and out with strobes and can still stop windows etc from blowing out. Looks quite natural if you don't use a whole heap of it.

thanks, im not a huge fan of HDR myself but decided anything is worth a try. For me to use HDR has to be the way I use photoshop, use it if you want but dont make it glaringly obvious that you did. For landscapes and architecture I can see where HDR could be a real neat tool though.

 

[Welsh_Italian]

HDR can be good, but IMHO, the best work is when you can't tell it's been HDR'd.

 

[Monz]

I have a friend who is a HDR photo nut, all he shoots are HDR photos it seems. Well I thought I would try it for the heck of it with a single image and 5 different ev levels pulled out of the raw.
[...]
btw2: I used photomatix for this one, a 10 second exposure on my Canon 20D and canon 50 f1.4 set at f11, in raw of course.

Show us some of your neat HDR images!

Hello Avotius,

Did you
1. Take 5 SEPARATE pictures at different exposures and combine them with Photoshop or
2. Take ONE picture and extract 5 pictures from this one source and then combine them with Photoshop?

Thanks.

--
Monz

 

[Avotius]

Hello Avotius,

Did you
1. Take 5 SEPARATE pictures at different exposures and combine them with Photoshop or
2. Take ONE picture and extract 5 pictures from this one source and then combine them with Photoshop?

Thanks.

--
Monz

number 2 kind of, I took the raw, extracted images at -2 -1 0 +1 +2 then used the photomatix HDR program to stick it all together then used photoshop to season to taste

 

[rich815]

Like most photos HDR when done subtley and done right can give a gorgeous result. Unfortunately you can go look at the HDR groups on Flickr and learn quickly how awful it can be too.

I mean just look at some of this crap:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HDR&w=all

 

[cmedin]

number 2 kind of, I took the raw, extracted images at -2 -1 0 +1 +2 then used the photomatix HDR program to stick it all together then used photoshop to season to taste

Stupid question, but how do you pull out the additional exposures from a single RAW file? How is it different from selectively applying curves/contrast/brightness in select areas?

 

[FrankS]

Ahhh, that explains the hyper-real look of some of the stuff posted at PNet!

eg: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6286575

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6287029

 

[Bryce]

HDR allows scanning of color slides with your DSLR and bellows assembly with slide copier. Hooray, finally a way to digitize slides without a scanner!
To work you'll have to take at least 3 exposures, raw or not there just isn't enough latitude from a ccd to handle a slide.

 

[cmedin]

Frank: those types of pics look almost cartoon-ish or like Kinkade gone wild. I'd call it digital art, but it's a far cry from regular photography.

 

[FrankS]

I agree !

 

[schrackman]

Now, now, just because it takes on a different form doesn't mean it's not photography. It's just a different kind of photography, and as with all other forms of art one type appeals to some but not to others. Many here are strictly film photographers, and that's great. But there's a new age of digital out there, and people are not only having a lot of fun with it, they are getting very creative as well.

Personally, I'm not all that crazy about HDR, but there are some pretty impressive examples of it out there.

For example, you have to admit that this one is pretty cool: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mexikanec/895760173/

I'm somewhat of a conundrum, in that I started out with digital but am being drawn more and more to film for certain types of photography, even to the point where I want to learn how to develop b/w film. I'm sure there's plenty of others out there like me, but you get my point...different strings.

Ray

 

[mfunnell]

Looks quite natural if you don't use a whole heap of it.

It's a technique - and as you say, you can use it to help something look natural. Pulling detail out of blocked shadows or blown highlights by extracting data recorded in a RAW image is one use where the technique arguably makes the result look more natural rather than less (if done well). Or, of course, you can make something look quite unnatural - sometimes to good artistic effect.

My problem with a lot of the HDR stuff out there is that it screams "Look at me! I'm HDR!!" Kind've like wide angle shots where the only message seems to be "this was taken with a wide angle lens". I prefer it when people use the technique to produce the photo rather than setting out to produce a photo that demonstrates the technique.

...Mike

 

[Epimetheus]

Here is couple HDR pictures of mine:

 

[EmilGil]

Most HDR images I've seen looks like some Disney nightmare but there are a few good ones to, Epimetheus' and Avotius' pics are really nice.

I especially like Epimetheus' second shot, I think that is from central Helsinki, right?

 

[thafred]

nice shots epimetheus! allthou I think you could have done it easy with one single exposure on b&w film 😛

I usualy dislike HDR stuff, unless as some people mentioned when you can´t tell it´s a HDR but somehow it feels as logical as doing color photography with b&w film and 3 Filters in front of the lens! IMHO If you want High dynamic range use Print film... even Slides aren´t so crappy for dynamic range.

ok, in for some real nightmare? take a look at that flickr set, the worst HDR I ever saw! I warned you!!! ;-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/buehlerphoto/sets/72157600844777775/

 

[Epimetheus]

I especially like Epimetheus' second shot, I think that is from central Helsinki, right?

Yes, it's a restaurant called Klippan on a very small island in the central Helsinki.

 

[Mikael.N]

HDR a way to get a decent digital BW.i am a bw film shooter maybe i have been doing HDR all this time without knowing it?