Trying HDR (just learning)

it looks flared

 

Quite good. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any true blacks.

 

A bit flat, but maybe it’s the place. Not as flashy as the more processed HDR pics, but like it. The even brightness of everything is kind of inviting to explore every details of the picture like searching for anything hidden in it.  
Just that, I guess I’m expecting darker sky outside from the shorter exposures shot.

 

I'm in a similar place, i.e. I've recently started playing around with HDR and Photomatix. I was impressed with the capabilities, and also intrigued by the fact that images can be processed in a very overt manner, which makes them obviously "HDR", or more subtly, preserving tonal range and clarity without the "special effect" often associated with HDR.

I did notice that the processing tends to reduce contrast in the mids quite a bit, and it often has to be added back afterward. That looks to be what you have here, but it's all a matter of personal preference and what look appeals to you. I assume this image reflects your decisions in editing.

Heck of a lot of fun, isn't it?

 

the right side of the shot looks flat - no real blacks. almost like lens flare.

I had the same problem when I first started playing around with photomatix.

 

I'd be happy to assist

I do a lot of HDR work. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. What software are you using? What camera?

Check out my Flickr Page for some of my most recent work.
Happy New Year - to all!

 

Was wondering if anyone else is still not convinced they even like HDR? Would Ansel Adams like HDR? One of the things I liked about his images was the black blacks and the fact that there is often no shadow detail and that is what simplifies the image and makes it a classic. I really like an image that goes from pure black to pure white with neat stuff in between, especially with color. Shouldn't they call HDR "LDR" for low dynamic range, since you are really making everything more the same? I agree that it is entirely a matter of what you like.

 

HDR is spawn of the devil....have yet to see any HDR image that impresses me.

i fully understand what the aim of HDR is... but as it doesn't relate in anyway to why i take photos.

Its an interesting technology... but a useless cul de sac in the pursuit of the better photograph which to me is more about the content than the quality

in this particular instance its a pretty mundane/very uninteresting image that is not enhanced at all by HDR


just my thoughts... no personal offense meant

K

 

Wow Kevin - you don't mince words, and I must agree with you at this point. I took a look at a number of the images in your gallery and concluded that in fact HDR would ruin them. The silhouetted areas, the dark moody images would not benefit at all from seeing everything evenly lighted. Too much shadow detail can take away much of the mystery in a photograph and to my mind clutters up the image with too much information.

 

mincing words is never my strong point... i call things as I see them... fully understand that others may have different opinions/viewpoints/goals or aesthetics and fully respect these

the benefits of forums like this is to share experiences, knowledge and opinions

in the world of photo forums there is often an emphasis too much on the equipment or the the technique and less on the actual final image....the cool thing here is that balance is just about right

K

 

If HDR is used sparingly, and under the right conditions it can really enhance the photo. In large areas where it would be difficult to use a flash, it allows you to capture the natural dynamic range which a single photo can't reproduce.

I find church interiors are great HDR subjects. Here's one example.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wasabi_bob/3883417902/" title="Panorama Basilica Cathedral by Wasabi Bob, on Flickr">

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

"1024" height="550" alt="Panorama Basilica Cathedral" /></a>

 

Photog Scott Bourne at photofocus.com had a blog post in the recent past about HDR...

I’m No Trey Ratcliff But Here’s My Basic HDR Primer « Photofocus

The post is a basic primer on HDR, but his last paragraph contains his subjective views on HDR. I personally think that it can be effective if not overdone, but do I do believe Scott Bourne's observations are probably valid and HDR is not going away especially as it now appearing as a built-in option in some of the newer cameras now hitting the market. The referenced paragraph is...

HDR is a controversial subject in the photo community. Just as the jump from B&W to color was controversial; Just as the jump from film to digital was controversial; Just as the use of filters and plugins was controversial; So is HDR – but note I said IN THE PHOTO COMMUNITY. Outside the photo community, there is no controversy. People LOVE looking at HDR photos. So if you think you’d like to try your hand at it, don’t be put off by the controversy. Go for it and have fun. HDR is a great way to retune your eye and your photography.

 

Anyone who has looked at Wasabi Bob's HDR photos and doesn't feel like HDR has a place in photography is not using their eyes (and possibly their brain, too), but that's just my opinion  

Gorgeous work, Bob!

 

Luke.... we are all entitled to our opinions... but the implication that someone who disagrees with your opinions is wrong isn't really very polite or helpful

peace

K

 

Yeah Kevin I remember what you said about my attempt at HDR. LOL.
Unfortunately ever since, I've lost wanting to have another go. Can you encourage me mate to go out and try another HDR. Please Kevin 
BTW, Cheers for a new year! (my part of the world is anyway)