HDR..without the cartoon look..does that exist?

[bill_from_new_york_city]

<blockquote>

<p>Subject: HDR..without the cartoon look..does that exist?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The reason why I have not used HDR because of that cartoon look. But this photographer David J nightingale from Blackpool in the U.K., has made me take a second long look using HDR, <a href="http://www.chromasia.com/">http://www.chromasia.com/</a>.</p>

<p>When done with the correct image, keeping the HDR technique within the limits to enhance the image I think it can work. I still see to many HDR images where the photographer does HDR for the sake of HDR and the image become almost non important to them.<br>

Bill</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[bwcombs]

<p>I use the process for a lot of interior shots to balance exposures and light without the cartooning.</p><div></div>

[philfx]

<p>HDR often looks unatural when there is one light source (common outdoors), and then the bracketing occurs. Its almost like being in a studio set as you can dodge or burn the lights anyway you want. this is a LENGTHY process, specially with meaty large files. On the flip side, you can have a studio lit set and have it look HDR. I think HDR is not a success or failure story, as mentioned more of a expose/processing style and the degree you take it.</p>

 

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>I did some HDRs but they are not labeled as so. They do not have the cartoonish look. I've found that HDR is good when there are extremes in contrast. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, as another part of my questions; it is a normal look for HDR? or simply a user that push it too far? i mean, do you think it look over the top in general? it could be just me : )</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like to use it subtlety. Over the top is bad IMO.</p>

<p>I'll provide some links if you want to see the couple that I've done recently. </p>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason why I have not used HDR because of that cartoon look. But this photographer David J nightingale from Blackpool in the U.K., has made me take a second long look using HDR, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.chromasia.com/" target="_blank">http://www.chromasia.com/</a> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but for me those HDR's pretty much epitomize "the cartoonish look": http://www.chromasia.com/galleries/hdr.php</p>

[philfx]

<p>sure send the links, just dont send anyone to google ;-)</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Bill, lot of nice image. this images is what i dont like about HDR, but man..there is nice image in that link, i can even like some of them a bit over because it goes with the subject.</p>

<p>http://www.chromasia.com/galleries/0806111949.php</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>So i guest now, thanks to all who participate, that HDR could look natural when is well done, or done in a way that you dont see it.</p>

<p>Always fun to get new link to bookmark.</p>

<p> </p>

[mpd]

<p>Patrick,<br>

I shoot HDR almost exclusively. DLSRs have become similar to PCs in that "memory is cheap". Taking 3 exposures per image no longer carries a significant penalty. During my two recent big trips, Banff/Jasper and France, 95% of the images were shot -2,0,+2 based on Manual spot metering and hand held(I am rethinking the hand held part as I write this). Not every image was processed through Photmatrix, Picturnaut or Photoshop HDR but about 50 to 60% were. For the rest I selected the best exposure of the three and processed it.<br>

I try to avoid the "cartoon" look in most of my images. That's not to say they would be to your taste. I like (over)saturated colors and contrasty skies. With HDR I try to get them as natural looking as possible(except the skies). I then use CS3 to saturate the colors. <br>

I capture almost every image with HDR in mind because the tonal range in my typical mid day outdoor touristy shots exceeds the range of the CMOS sensor in my camera. I can't tourist it up by only shooting at dawn, dusk and on cloudy days. I see lot of beautiful landscapes in between. Nor can I ask the churchs and museums to turn up or down their lights to suit my needs. <br>

I looked through my images to find those that didn't have much sky or oversaturated colors. <br>

I offer my list for your inspection.<br>

 

<p >

<p >Waterfowl Lake Banff NP</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1294/1196670431_27ac05ece0_b.jpg">http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1294/1196670431_27ac05ece0_b.jpg</a></p>

</p>

<p >Frog’s leap in</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2008/2306747508_2ce9b76690_b.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2008/2306747508_2ce9b76690_b.jpg</a></p>

<p >Musse d orse</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/2874741315_4ee2f1a65d_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/2874741315_4ee2f1a65d_b.jpg</a></p>

<p >Louve</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/3034670699_c99a0a5076_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/3034670699_c99a0a5076_b.jpg</a></p>

<p >Notre Dame</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/3009818438_fd990f12f1_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/3009818438_fd990f12f1_b.jpg</a></p>

<p >Roussillon</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/3078423413_734057928d_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/3078423413_734057928d_b.jpg</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am going to the Sierra Nevadas this summer for a two week backpacking trip with my son. I expect to capture all my images at -2,0,+2 as usual or maybe even -4,-2,0,+2,+4 as I have a new toy for my Canon 1D Mark II which expands the bracketing.</p>

<p > Pat</p>

</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>OK here is one I played around with using a free program. Without bracketing and combining the sky was either stark white, or trees black. I think it's OK. I had a time and a half cloning out the nag letting me know this was a free trial program. LOL<br />

<p>Not too cartoonish I hope?</p>

<p>I tried this while out playing with some friends. They set their cameras up on tripods and started firing off shots like a machine gun, 6-7 bracketed shots for HDR later. I could only bracket 3 at a time (touche Nikon). <br /> I tried this technique in the Canadian Rockies without good results so I won't show it.</p>

<p> </p>

[mpd]

<p>Patrick,<br>

I realized I didn't give many landscape examples above. So...<br>

Here is a link to my favorite shot from France. Even though there are lots of techincal problems with it I still like it. The out of focus forground is operator error. I must have focused incorrectly as it was shot a 1\400 with appox 20mm lens. But the deep greens in the ground are not an artifact of HDR. The forground and upper right sky are from a single image. The sky/clouds to the left are from a 3 shot HDR image. It is pretty obvious that I used a large brush to blend the HDR image and the single image. Look at the right edge of the clouds. The transition from dark blue to light blue is too abrupt. Just another technical issure. I would probaly fix the sky transition if the image wasn't blurry.<br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/739413/0#6729115">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/739413/0#6729115</a></p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Patrick, nice image! and full on good souvenir, i was in Paris last years so a lot of images bring backl memories.</p>

<p>Nice image of la Gorge du Verdon..exception of the 2 saturated orange spot in the cloud (natural problem with digital, but easily fixable by simply desaturate it a bit) , its a well done images for sure. Im glad i post and ask, because people show ne that HDR could look good!</p>

<p>i wouldtn know it was HDR.</p>

[philfx]

<p>On some of those examples, WOW, and I can see how the light looks like it is coming from within....Not doable with one frame, practically. and thats the balance that can make it more cartoonish. <br>

I have tried it a few times but I ended up with too cartoonish results and stopped, but perhaps with more practice, I could have gotten something I liked...surely from some examples I see, possible. I just was on a chopper, so i think I will give it another go with some of the shots I have :-)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Manual exposure blending can work very well for many scenes.</p>

<p>http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/exposureblending.php</p>

<p>I like David Clapp's work a lot. He does go for a very saturated, contrasty look and you might find that "cartoonish". But to me it's not cartoonish at all like the typical over processed HDR image. Instead it reminds me of work by artists like Rowell on slide film using graduated neutral density filters.</p>

<p>More to the point, you can manually blend exposures and tune color and saturation to your tastes. Fundamentally a manual blend just lets you compress scene range into image range. It doesn't impart contrast or saturation. You can do a very subdued or even dull exposure blend if you want.</p>

<p>For those who are getting realistic images using HDR software, any suggestions on software and settings? I've played with PhotoMatrix but I can't seem to reign in that HDR look to be a bit more realistic. That's why I turned to manual blends.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I'm not totally opposed to the typical HDR/tone mapped look. It can work. I think my main problem with it is that it has been completely over done of late. Any and every dull subject is instant art to people obsessed with HDR and tone mapping. It's like going to an art fair and seeing a photographer's booth where every single image has been processed using Photoshop's Artistic filters. OK in moderation, bad all the time.</p>

[jay_patel]

<p>Here are some examples:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6351678&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6888188&size=lg<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/8655732&size=lg<br>

All of these are done with manual blending technique. Thanks.<br>

-Jay</p>

[jay_patel]

<p>More example at: www.timecatcher.com. Thanks.<br>

-Jay</p>

[philfx]

<p>Jay ..those are BEAUTIFUL! what original medium did you use? <br>

(wondering the detail level they might have)</p>

[pedroolivo]

<p>Hi Patrick.<br>

I use HDR and try to keep it as natural as posible. Take a look.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7714726&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/7714726&size=lg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7117187&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/7117187&size=lg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7020420&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/7020420&size=lg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8560508&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8560508&size=lg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8648451&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8648451&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Hope you like them</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Pedro.</p>

<p> </p>

[Emmanuel Enyinwa]

<p>More HDR without the cartoon look.<br>

Three shot HDR</p>

<p><a href="../photo/7735461">http://www.photo.net/photo/7735461</a></p>

<p>One shot tone mapped images.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/8125885">http://www.photo.net/photo/8125885</a><br>

<a href="../photo/7685214">http://www.photo.net/photo/7685214</a><br>

<a href="../photo/7218964">http://www.photo.net/photo/7218964</a></p>

<p>There was a time when I disdained the HDR process, believing it was the same as stitching images together, a dishonest representation of what was not as what was, but as I have worked with the HDR process, especially on old black and white scans like this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8372198">http://www.photo.net/photo/8372198</a>, I have shed my inhibitions, and now see it as no more than burning and dodging an image to achieve greater tonal clarity. In fact, I see the HDR process as no more than using grad filters to block highlights, while getting shadow detail in the dark areas.</p>

[peter_k4]

<p>Could you elaborate on what you mean by manual blending technique?</p>

[sketch_tbhotmail.com]

<p>Hey Peter, I suggest checking out the link Daniel Lee Taylor posted from David Clapp's website. Its a great tutorial.</p>

[digimage]

<p>hi PATRICK LAVOIE . I think every tecnich it's their own look dependent on who looked it . I'm new & interesting about HDR almost 3months ago now I have some you can see please feel free tell me it's look natural or catoonist . thanks for any suggession .</p>

[digimage]

<p>sorry I do some thing wrong than I can not post image in here</p>

[samoksner]

<p>http://www.hdrsoft.com/gallery/gallery.php?id=5&gid=0</p>

<p>I think that carefull processing with the orignial photo present helps not over do it. The photographer used it to pick up slight dynamic range to add to the depth, not fill in every dark or light spot.</p>

[Rich_Phelan]

<p>If you can stand looking at yet some more examples:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=879100<br>

and my favorite:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/8315276<br>

All done with Photoshop CS2 or higher and between four to seven shots. What comes out of the processing when converting from 32 to 16 bit usually looks very flat but has all of the exposure range that I want. Then with proper curve modifications and some (or a LOT of) dodging and burning I can achieve the looks that you see in the gallery. I've started to play with Photomatix and while it's easier and quicker I'm not to the point where I can get the look that I want that I could with PS.<br>

As for the cartoon look - I think that you could get that with any image in Photoshop. It doesn't necessarily have to start out as an HDR.</p>