Hdr

[skunkdSiR]

not to bad!

[.:Chris:.]

It seems to me like you're all missing the point of HDR. Lets start with a definition:

Dynamic range is the range of light that a camera can record in any specific scene, from light to dark. With your normal dSLR you'll get about 6 stops. To put it simply, think of it this way: your camera can only capture a certain range of light at a time. You can move that range up and down via exposure adjustment, but it won't grow or shrink. Anything OVER your range will be OVERexposed (recorded as a hex value of #FFFFFF). Anything UNDER your camera's range will be UNDERexposed (#000000).

HDR involves taking multiple exposures of the same scene at different exposure values. A typical example would be taking your base shot at the exposure value chosen by your camera's meter, taking one picture at +2EV and one picture at -2EV. In your first picture you have captured 6-stops of light, and you have captured an additional 2-stops of light in each of your other exposures (The second pic moved the range up two EV's, the third moved it down 2 EV's from the base exposure). Combining these pictures together should give you approximately 8 stops of light in your picture.

The purpose of this is not to create a surreal, oddly highlighted picture. You can use it to do that, obviously, and there's always going to be some portion of a surreal effect but that's not what it was originally intended for. The purpose is to capture detail in a scene that is not normally possible via your camera.

In this thread there are a bunch of images that have been run through the HDR process just for the sake of processing, and as a result they seem over-processed to me. Once you get over the novelty of HDR, it really doesn't serve a huge purpose for most scenes.

HDR is put to good use in scenes that have a high dynamic range. One example would be when you're taking pictures of a subject in a shadow with a portion of the scene including a sunlit background. Normally your camera will expose for the shadowed subject and blow out the background leaving you with a background that is either mostly or completely white. HDR would
bring the background back into the scene and provide some detail.

In closing, here's an example of a scene that benefits from HDR. This scene would have had too much dynamic range to capture without HDR.
(Courtesy of Excavadora on Flickr - Photo Sharing!)


P.S.: I'm not going to get into tone mapping or explaining why everything starts to get the halo effect. If you're interested in reading more on HDR, start with the wikipedia article: High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[oASHo]

holy big novel batman.

[.:Chris:.]

holy big novel batman.

Sorry, I'm long winded sometimes.

[Ronald Mcdonald]

Sorry, I'm long winded sometimes.

I need someone like you, to really teach me HDR.

Cause I can't figure it out, even following the directions people posted.

[oASHo]

ya. i dont get how my crap turns out so much different than lets say, kirks or that dumptruck thingy

[.:Chris:.]

First off, ditch the Photoshop HDR tool. Get yourself a version of photomatix from wherever it is you got photoshop from.

Second, see here: Stuck In Customs » HDR Tutorial - Featuring HDR 2.0
This guy is amazing with HDR techniques. Knowing the theory is one thing, getting pictures like this is entirely another.

[DD.]

Nice Write up 94TurboGSR

Just something i noticed with this picture that may help some understand the "concept" of HDR, rather than "Ooo...it looks cool"

In a BIG scene, like this picture, its almost always hard to catch the full color and detail of the whole scene. By taking pics under several exposures and processing them in Photoshop, you can create a picture that will show details in both the dark and bright areas of the scene.



Example:



Box 1: There would be no way to see ALL the way back here...Without HDR Merging. Not to mention the color quality of this area.

Box 2: Dark clouds are a bitch to shoot when your not focusing on them. Again, Without the Merging process, you wouldn't be able to get the detail in the clouds to that extent. It would be more of a solid object and an area of darkness.

Box 3: Since the Fisher Price is obviously the point of focus. These areas wouldn't have much detail either, Due to it being overcast. But the HDR even brings out the ripples in the sand. Just another example on how bad ass HDR is.

So as 94TurboGSR said, knowing the theory is one thing, getting pictures like this is entirely another.

BUT...At least you have the theory down

[skunkdSiR]

nice post info guys..

i've been starting mine with photomatix and finishing up with a lil touching in photoshop..

it'd be alot easier for me to practice if i had a frikin camera...

*****TO ALL WHO HAVE A GOOD CAMERA******
feel free to post up some pics with different exposures for me play with :Thumbup:

[oASHo]

idkk if its just the picture or what. im going to go try some other things this weekend.

[.:Chris:.]

Nice Write up 94TurboGSR

Thankyouverymuch, sir.

So as 94TurboGSR said, knowing the theory is one thing, getting pictures like this is entirely another.

BUT...At least you have the theory down

I know the theory. I just don't really care for HDR most of the time. I find that I'd rather take the exposures and cut/copy/paste in photoshop without the help of an HDR processor. HDR pictures are generally plauged by halo's around any areas of large contrast, and that's easier to limit when I'm not working with an HDR processor.

Anyway, here's an HDR I processed with photomatix. It's good, but I prefer my original:

[skunkdSiR]

nice! i got some USF ima do in a lil bit..

[JP Money]

So I want to get a setting with a big dynamic range for it to work right, right? So at dusk, dawn or an overcast day would be ideal? I have a point and shoot camera that goes from -2 to +2 s I can get some variation on exposures. I'll give it some work this weekend if I like anything I'll post it up. You guys should get side jobs as photography/photoshop teachers.

[.:Chris:.]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

I probably should be a teacher.