Palouse Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Royce Howland, over on NatureScapes.net has a great primer on HDR in the July issue of their nerwsl;etter. You can find it at: http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I wonder if the author of the article notices or not that his HDR technique makes the clouds look like mud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Royce would be better off if he used a better example in his opening page. That mountain scene shows barely any improvement in the "after" image. A poor candidate for HDR tutorial. It is far easier to get to that point with some slight saturation and levels & curves adjustments. HDR is time consuming. Levels and curves is a mere seconds of your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_thompson Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 A lot of folks think PS's HDR just doesn't work very well - too many color shifts/mixed color casts. Instead you might want to try the PhotoMatic alternative http://www.hdrsoft.com, which seems to do a better job. But IMO (from printing architectural interiors) neither works as well as the old method of combining layers 'by hand' with masks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harri_j Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I dabbled with HDR to get more dynamic range from a nighttime cityscape. And just like Kirk, I found that I get more control and better (and more natural-looking) results by contrast masking. Sure it's fun to have a 32-bit picture and play with the controls, but since there's nothing that can display it in any shape or form, there's not really much point. The only use I see for HDR is to create unearthly "photos" you see on flickr HDR groups or for those who can't be bothered to learn contrast masking, which isn't any harder or time-consuming than HDR itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgvaughan.com Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Flickr.com has almost 10k images posted: http://www.flickr.com/groups/photomatix/pool/tags/photomatix/ This image was created using three exposures and an Photoshop action named IDrange. It combines the photos into a more realistic appearance.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Nice, Michael, but where do you get this action? Harri: The whole point of HDR is to reduce the dynamic range to a usable level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmjacobs Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I sense a negative attitude toward HDR (not only in this thread) that I really can't understand. The way I see it at last there's a way to deal with one of the shortcomings of photography - big contrasts. Until something better comes along - and I think it will - this is a technique that can give some pretty good results that can't be achieved with just one exposure. I really don't understand how one can say that the mountain scene in the above link shows 'barely any improvement' - the original shows a blown-out sky and the result on page 2 shows a beautiful sky, or is it that we're so used to blown-out skies? This result is impossible with just one exposure. I agree in a lot of HDR photography (especially on flickr) the results are awful, but that's mostly because most photographers either lack the technique and/or good taste. Also HDR is not time-consuming - at least not more so than PS. Photomatix is a fairly easy program everybody can learn in 10 minutes, but the use of PS with its steep learning curve is limited to only the more fanatic amateurs/professionals. I agree the tone-mapping process still has its flaws -the pronounced halos for instance- but I expect these problems will be sorted out in future versions of this software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgvaughan.com Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 The action comes from Peter Inova's book for the D70: http://www.gmbooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=gmb&Product_Code=D70&Category_Code=100 I would suppose it's also available in his other books. Bottom line is it works.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_hughey Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 http://www.cybergrain.com/tech/hdr/ This is a very interesting wrap up of what is happening with hdr technology and what may be in store for us. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielrtan Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Royce Howland write " the High Dynamic Range (HDR) landscape photography tutorial text & image - This is very good article, start from what is HDR until comparation 2 great software for HDR technique (CS2 & Photomatix)& the conclusion, this article add benefit for improve knowledge & techinique - thanks Royce & Nick best regard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_burgreen Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I have lots of <a href=http://www.hdrjapan.com/>Japan Pictures</a> that were shot HDR style, with a tutorial also on my technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Folks,folks, I got a question please. I just perused the article linked. Got me wondering if this technique is something I need to get into and learn, because it entails extra work. And,more to the point for undersigned, would use of shooting devices to reduce contrast not be a quicker and dirtier solution. Confession: I really am not all tha interested in the DD. Signed, Innocent but pure of mind, aloha, gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 You only need to learn what you need to "fix". If you see nothing that an increased dynamic range would contribute to your photos why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfotom Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 who cares? just take pictures! peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_webb1 Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 The way I see it is HDR is what is going to be happening inside our cameras someday. Right now, the only cameras that can really capture a high dynamic range are in the $100000 range, so photomatix and other HDR converters is what we have to rely on. I love HDR because it brings a whole new dimension to the photo. It allows you to get details that would otherwise be lost to overexposure/underexposure of your high dynamic range picture. It is the only medium that reflects truly what our eyes are capable of even if sometimes our computer monitors arent. Any time our cameras shoot outside of its saturation capabilities all we get are whites and blacks. Anyway, I could go into an in depth overview of how HDR works and how it can assist ANY photographer in creating better images, but I don't want to bore everybody. It should be noted though that there are technologies out there already and these technologies can allow up to 10,000 frames per second. It's just a matter of time before they are able to produce it in an affordable pro/consumer model camera. Personally, I can't wait! Until then i will continue to snap my still images in multiple exposures to cover the entire range and blend them with my software. time consuming? Yes. But worth it? FOR ME... Absolutely. keep shootin' Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now