My first HDR - dosent look that HDR - i think - why?

[anna_nielsen]

<p>Mostly i like photographing people but when i havent got any peopleto photograph i need to do other images. So i got photomatix and started shooting away with my 5d doing 3 images wich was braket 1/2 stop. Anyway this image i did i think 5 images: +2,+1,0,-1,-2 and tone mapped in Photomatix- loaded it in to PS to finish it of Maybe its me but i dont think this image looks so HDR . What do you think and do you know of any tips to improve HDR. For this image i followed the recipie on Photomatix site. Thanks anna</p>

[podstawek]

<p>Anna,</p>

<p>This image does look HDR-ed. It has all HDR features: crisp contrast between strongest lights and strongest shadows (without HDR, your sun would be an unclear area of brightness somewhere in the bush), pristine detail in dark areas (without HDR, we wouldn't have seen the flowers in the shadow), rays of light clearly cut as in impressionists' paintings, and oversaturated colors (they, too, are there in the picture).</p>

<p>Even though I don't like HDR as an effect added to salvage otherwise hopeless pictures, here I find the use justified, and I must even say I like this picture as it is now... if you care about my opinion. One problem I see with the image is that the bush with white flowers on the right moved somewhere between your exposures. Next time tell the bush to stand still!</p>

[rene gm]

<p>Well, if HDR does not look like HDR (as it does in your picture), I think that is a good result.</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>I find a lot of people confuse the HDR look with the LucisArt look: http://www.lucisart.com/lucis-art3-artist-gallery/lucis-art-3-gallery.htm or the Topaz Adjust look: http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/examples.html</p>

<p>All of my Fall Color photos: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=880419 were done with Photomatix and have a similar look to yours.</p>

[newland]

I' think this is a very good image, that it is not over done, know when to stop can some times be the key to HDR good work.

[ann_clancy6]

<p>i would agree with the above statements.</p>

<p>perhaps your thinking of the over the top toned mapping look.</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>Quite nicely done, I would say. An appealing image. And the technique you used to achieve it should <em>not</em> be obvious!</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>wow - thanks for all the posetiv responses! - well maybe i am thinking of the look of Lucis art wich , i dont really like. and yes i see now why its called "dynamic range" - getting that detailed shadows and midtones. Actually i kind of like the look for landscapes. Nice spring images there Michael! i wonder if this can be done: photograph and light a person - then process this one raw image to get 3 (,+2 +1, 0,-1,-2) images by using exposure slider in cameraraw and drop them into photmatix?</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>Thanks Anna. There are several threads about doing just that, HDR from a single RAW shot. It does work to a point, not quite as effective as actually taking multiple exposures, but will still yield some decent results. I've done it from a single raw shot in situation where I could never get the subject (usually a bird) to hold still for 3 bracketed shots. I haven't uploaded any of those to point you to, but it can be done.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>I join the chorus--wonderful poetic image, and I don't see how you can improve on it. There is a slight motion blur in the foliage, but I think it adds to the romance.</p>

<p>Since you are interested in HDRs which look more like illustrations than photographs, the key is the kind of tone mapping you choose. You can do a tone mapping that emphasizes local contrast, and that will give you the strong contours and bright colors that many people like and many others find over-the-top. Lots of ways to go.</p>

[gt1]

<p>Here, here, I join the chorus, too! The best HDR image is one that isn't completely and totally obviously HDR.</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>If it looks like most of the HDR, it is most like overdone as most are. You are not supposed to tell unless it for special effect.</p>

[kevin_price3]

<p>Hi Anna,<br>

Your image looks very good because it does NOT look like most HDR images. Yours looks much more realistic and you did a good job with it. Don't try for the painterly/cartoonish HDR images, unless that's what you are trying to do. Those images are everywhere and most look too fake (in my opinion). Michael Lawson's and yours are good examples of HDR done to enhance a photo without making it into something completely different. </p>

[Palouse]

<p>I agree-HDR typically looks garish and fake--yours looks natural and easy on the eyes. Well done! Maybe being a person shooter makes you appreciate normality more than the typical landscaper looking for the extremes. BRAVO!</p>

[stp]

<p>I think it's better than many that I see on this and other sites, but to my eye it is still obviously manipulated and the overall lighting is quite flat (again, IMO). It doesn't have the range of bright areas and dark shadows that I'd expect in an image like this, especially one that is looking into the sun. When I see a manipulated photograph (regarding HDR, curves, saturation, blends, etc.), I generally want to be either fooled or impressed that the photographer captured what the eye saw. Other viewers may have other goals when viewing photographs; it's a personal point of view.</p>

[keith_anderson7]

<p>Yours looks HDR. Luckily not TOO HRD'd, like many are. In my humble opinion, HDR can turn a perfectly good landscape photo into overdone garbage very easily. If you ask me, yours is just fine as is. If you have different expectations for HDR than you got, what *did* you want to get from it?</p>

[rustys pics]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe its me but i dont think this image looks so HDR . </p>

</blockquote>

<p>And THAT is a GOOD thing....</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>One thing I've found HDR is great for is B&W. It does even better with making it look non-HDR by eliminating the color color luminance uniformity, while retaing the evenness of the pure, grey luninance.</p>

<p>This is from PS>Image>Adj>B&W with red, yellow and blue channels turned down, and green turned up. Hope it was OK to do...</p><div></div>

[ned1]

<p>There seem to be two uses for HDR: </p>

<p>First, to give you the dynamic range of film (or greater). If this is done right, you have to look closely to realize it is an HDR image.</p>

<p>Second, as a cheesy special effect that seeks to remove rather than add realism.</p>

<p>Your image looks fine as an example of the first one.</p><div></div>

[sven keil]

<p>Do you know about HDR, tone mapping, and corresponding mathematical methods (algorithms)?<br /> HDR means that a big range of luminance values of an image (e.g., the input image may contain integers that range from 0 to 65536 = 16bits in each channel), is compressed ("<em>tone-mapped</em> ") onto a lower range (say from 0...256 = 8 bit for a jpeg image).<br /> The result you finally get depends on the original dynamic range and the algorithm which you used.<br /> With a good algorithm the results look just like your image (or a poor algorithm fed by a low to mid dynamic range). Not so good algorithms do not handle well a high dynamic range, and typically over-compress luminance information and leave only color, yielding this typically grayish look, which has nothing to do with how our eyes compress these images in the retinal network (if we fully understood how it worked...).<br /> So, your image looks good, it comes close to how you perceived the image while taking it. However, it is not a HDR in the physical sense, because the range of luminance values in your original image is not so broad (ignoring the sun, it seems to span only an extended dynamic range, so I think you could have get a similar <a href="../photo/8509035">result from Fuji S5 camera</a> with some post-processing, just from taking one shot of your scene).<br /> But, as said, your result is pleasing.</p>

[jared_chapin]

<p>Anna check this out.</p>

<p>http://www.kelbytraining.com/player/index.html#150</p>

<p>19.99 a month for just what you need or you can get the HDR on a disk</p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Joining the other opinions. Your image is fine just because it does not shout "HDR" like so many. About effects: if it shows, it's overdone. Side remark. You don't need to bracket by 1/2 stops; every stop or even 2 stops would probably be fine.</p>

[joseph_lynn]

<p>Well done, HDR isnt about oversaturating, it's about depth. I could tell from the leaves in the tree even before the image had loaded half way.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Hey, you got the details in the shadows, and it looks natural. What more could you want?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>Just joining the chorus: If it "looks HDR" you did it wrong.</p>

<p>You wrote, "Actually I kind of like the look for landscapes." I'd also point out that natural looking HDR has become a mainstream technique in architectural photography - particularly for interiors.</p>

<p>Keep up the good work - Greg</p>