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

[roger_smith4]

<p>Excellent work, Rich. Very judicious in your use of dynamic range.</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>I dont get it. I think that most digital images of today have enough dynamic range that they pop, even with shadows and highlights. With HDR you are asking for something that looks un-natural. Of course one can find HDR images where you cant tell, but most of the time, these images could have been captured sucsessfully on one frame of film or even on a good digital sensor. So if you dont like the over the top look of HDR, stick with normal photography, you know, with a range of tones. HDR levels the light IMHO and makes photos flat, boring and if it doesnt it looks photoshopped, not the look i like or suspect the OP does either.</p>

 

[ned1]

<p>Almost all architectural interiors are shot HDR these days.</p>

[kidbiotek]

<p>Patrick, here's a link to a website dedicated to HRD images. You'll find all types. You'll find what you're looking for here.<br>

http://hdri.wordpress.com/</p>

[reginapagles]

<p>Hi Patrick,<br>

I shoot all of my photos for HDR. Some have halos more than others. I always try to avoid that, because like you, I hate that fake look. Here is an example of the end result that I strive for (natural looking...I hope!). Thank you for being such a great contributer on photo.net! Regina</p><div></div>

[RickDB]

<p>Hi Patrick...Yes HDR is a great tool to help capture the natural look that your digital sensor can't quite cope with. The "HDR" term is rather misleading and I tend to think of the cartoonish look as a plug in filter for artistic effects (which in moderation can be very appealing). However, you can't create a true HDR image from a single exposure! I have used bracketed exposures "developed" in CS3/4 to create what I hope are natural looking images, eg:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7251346">http://www.photo.net/photo/7251346</a><br>

Perhaps the trick for the natural look is not to completely eliminate clipped highlights and shadows, just reduce them to an acceptable level that appears to be natural. Maybe we should use the term Extended Dynamic Range (XDR) for the the natural look....Cheers, RickDB</p>

[tmjacobs]

<p>My folders from 2007 onwards (the year is in the folder title) are almost exclusively HDR and I like to think they look natural. Looking back at some of the earlier HDR folders I think I could improve them now, tone-mapping software has improved quite a bit these past few years. I haven't read all replies, but did read Galen Anderson's. Admittedly I could have have had pretty good results with quite a few of these photos without HDR, but for me it's the ease of mind with bracketing every photo (-2, 0 , +2) that I'm pretty sure I capture all, or at least most, of the dynamic range there is. I simply don't think -especially with difficult light situations- that a sensor can always capture that dynamic range. There is of course an alternative with grad filters, but these won't help with interior photography. I use a 'home-made' post-processing PS technique which, for me at least, improves the results -in particular the natural look- quite a bit: I overlay the original '0' exposure and vary the opacity, mostly somewhere between 20 and 50%, that improves contrast and avoids the 'muddy' and oversaturated look so many tone-mapped images have. <br />A nice article about achieving a natural look is this: <a href="http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~reinhard/tm_comp/flickr_hdr/Flickr%20HDR.html">http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~reinhard/tm_comp/flickr_hdr/Flickr%20HDR.html</a><br />(BTW: you can also see my photography here: <a href="http://www.rtjacobs.nl/Theo/galleries.html">http://www.rtjacobs.nl/Theo/galleries.html</a> )</p>

 

[sjmurray]

<p>I used Artizen HDR program which does "tonemapping" of a single image on this one.</p><div></div>

[jefwong]

<p><img src="../photo/8663558" alt="" /> <br /> Hi I'm picking up HDR too. I've posted some shots in my gallery, ranging from 'Cartonish' to more dynamic picture. The strength can be control during processing. There are times, i like it as a painting rather than a photo, i would like to call it photo-art...<br /> here's my take..<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8663558-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="452" /></p>

<p><img src="../photodb/folder?folder_id=307392" alt="" /> Let me know what you guys think...thankyou<br /> <img src="../photo/8663558" alt="" /></p>

[sameen_mazhar]

<p>try <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=812655">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=812655</a></p>

<p>regards</p>

[andre_grobler]

<p>My biggest problem is getting the grass / leaves to stand still when bracketing exposure... SO am mostly doing single exposure +PPP. Am still not too fond of the tonemapping I get, but then again I just use freeware (qtpfsgui), so i suppose the payware could be better... Here is prolly the best image that I tried to get done by single exposure and pp-ing five exposures and the other one is just curves applied to original exposure... in Pentax Photolab. Must say I have only tried this on a few images... Can't say I'm too fond of the jpg engine... but maybe it is the noise in the pp that causes loss of res when making image smaller...</p><div></div>

[andre_grobler]

<p>Curves, which I sortof prefer... even though you loose bits</p><div></div>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Some shots to me look as if they would be OK without combining images. <br>

Where HDR has the most power is when you have several bracketed exposures and neither one reflects what the eye-brain saw. </p>

[tylerwind]

<p>I find that you can use HDR to whatever extent you want. I have started using photomatix and you can easily get carried away and end up with a "cartoon." But, I find if you resist the urge to make everything in the shot look like the sun is hitting it perfectly with golden light then you can come up with some very realistic images that *increase* the dynamic range without removing all shadows and highlights. When I tone map my shots with HDR I can adjust the settings so that the shadows have complete detail as if they are in perfect lighting or darken the shadows so that they have very little detail. I think the key (for me at least) lies in adjusting the shadows and highlights without losing them. I have several HDR shots in my portfolio and no one has ever noticed.<br>

Furthermore, I forget the link but I remember someone a while back on here did a comparison of HDR with properly done tone mapping and multiple exposures and blending. In the end, the image produced was identical to my eye (and many others as well). It seems to me that HDR is simply an electronic way to blend multiple exposures without photoshop, but it is a dangerous tool if you are going for a realistic look because you can easily get carried away!<br>

In the end, great shots are great because they look *slightly* unrealistic. If you look at David Clapp, Vincent Tylor, etc. the scenes they capture are borderline utopian but are still believable. In my opinion, that is what makes a great shot--finding a scene you can capture and make mouths drop without being accused of making it on the computer. I think you can accomplish that with blending (as demonstrated by David Clapp and many others) or disciplined HDR use. I'd love to hear more thoughts...</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Tyler, i too agree that with a simple blending mode of 2 shot you can actually get perfect shot..it have been done before digital, and i still doe it when in need. the link you are talking about was from Ellis Vener, that show is personal image of a huge interior and he does that with a simple blending mode.</p>

<p>Heres the link..it is the exact method i use.</p>

<p>http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2008/01/a-simplified-hdr-technique-1.html</p>

<p>thanks for all the link, i will have a look at it this weekend!</p>

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

<p>I agree most here that most HDR I see on the web looks "unrealistic" to my old photo viewing eye, I still like it. I've been experimenting lately with Photomatrix and have gotten some pretty good results by subtly using it.<br>

<a href="http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4258/34pano.jpg">http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4258/34pano.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3808/pilchucksunrisepanorama.jpg">http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3808/pilchucksunrisepanorama.jpg</a><br>

As you can see in the second one I let the darkest shadows go to black to keep it "real" looking to me, and as a graphic framing element. HDR let the sky keep it's color and show some detail in the mid tones.</p>

[arup_kamal1]

<p>HDR with minimal light smoothing<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3318789971_baf4fe7767.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="296" /></p>

[john_latimer1]

<p>Hello Patrick,<br>

I have a HDR system for exactly this use if you own CS3 or 4 extended version of PS. I am writing an article on it for View Camera magazine right now but if your interested I would be happy to share it with you. Just shoot me an email.<br>

John<br>

john@ejarts.com</p><div></div>

[john_latimer1]

<p>Sorry, I should have said that I do not use PS's HDR system at all but rather a set of steps through statistical analysis thus why you need the extended version of PS.<br>

John</p>

[dallalb]

<p>Hi Patrick, I am a film shooter and tried the HDR approach from different exposures of scanned film and then processed with the new blending exposures features of Photomatix 3.1... I got this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8312751&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8312751&size=lg</a> (2 exposure blending). When I shot slides, because of their narrow dynamic range I take two exposures and process them with the same technique, getting this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8448774&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8448774&size=lg</a>. Otherwise I take full advantage of the wide dynamic range of some color negative films and with a single exposure I can get this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8651494&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8651494&size=lg</a>.<br>

I hope this helps, also if I don't shot digital...<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

[philfx]

<p>super nice work I see posted here.<br>

I tried it off of a couple smaller jpgs from raw, using 3 files / 3auto bracket shots, and I liked the results, but I dont see them being much HDR-sh.<br>

Also, why doesnt CS4 leave the files in their own layer? I tried the Merge to HDR, and it merge the 3 files I selected... but it also flattened them. making it one file to tweak.<br>

and i dont see an option for it?</p>

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

<p>Excellent work Alberto, that is HDR at it's best. That is also some good calibration lining up scans, did you have Photoshop auto align?</p>

[bob_irvine]

<p>I did a church interior on Wednesday and without HDR it wouldn't have worked, but pushing it for the intent and purpose of the shoot would not have worked either.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8667602&size=lg</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[dallalb]

<p>Thank you, Jim. Before blending the exposures in Photomatix I opened the scanned files in Photoshop, putting them in the same image file on different layers: then I aligned the layers manually, playing with layers opacity and blending modes. I finally save each aligned layer as a new image and process this images in Photomatix, to be sure that they are already aligned (the automatic aligning process is very time consuming)...</p>

[michael_faulk]

<p>I do a majority of my work in black and white, and have been incorporating some of these techniques in that workflow. I make sure it's not a noticable edit, but it has become an important part of my artistic process. <br>

I have a few <a href="http://www.colorvoyeur.com">Tone Mapped Landscape Photos</a> you'd never get a cartooney vibe from.</p>