Just thought this would be fun to start... Post your favorite HDR photo you have taken!
<p align="center"]Jeff Allred Photography
http://blog.jeffreyallred.com/images...05/modelt2.jpg
Printable View
Just thought this would be fun to start... Post your favorite HDR photo you have taken!
<p align="center"]Jeff Allred Photography
http://blog.jeffreyallred.com/images...05/modelt2.jpg
Not sure its my best, but one of my latest and current favourite.
http://www.general.colston-online.co... Reservoir.jpg
Another one is this one - taken in London the other week.
http://www.general.colston-online.co... of London.jpg
This is probably my best but it's also one of my first since I just started dabbling with HDR.
It is "The Bean" in downtown Chicago. Properly called "Cloud Gate"
http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/1...5/original.jpg
Very nice work everyone. I've seen a lot of HDR images that I don't like - many of my own included. These are very nice.
Jeff, I love that photo. The car, man, and environment are just great.
Yeah... great HDRs everyone [:)]
Those look great anglefire!
Very nice Don.... The warm tones give that image a nice feel.
love the HDR photos...have a few of my ownfrom Hawaii, but I can't figure out how to post a pic(help).
Greggf - Try clicking on the "Insert Media" button (looks like a film strip). You can link to an image hosted somewhere or upload one into your gallery here. Let me know if you need more help.
thanks Bryan...figured it out last night...Love the forum
oh yeah...my very first HDR..haven't played around with it too much...combined 6 shots into 1 through Photomatix...still learning, and I know it looks totally fake....tips please?? And please feel free to give feedback(good or bad). Thanx, Greggf[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_2-_5B00_1024x768_5D00_.jpg[/img]
it got cut off...here is a smaller version??[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/_2D00_2-_5B00_800x600_5D00_.jpg[/img]
Looks great Greg!
Really great!
Here's one...
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/...9d0cdd7863.jpg
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Burkett
I love the photo of the bean. We are from the Chicago area, and its nice to see it without 50 people taking their pictures in it with P&Ss. Also there is just enough detail to make it interesting without looking too HDRish.
Thanks,
Tom
Thanks for the kind comments. This is another one- processed this afternoon.
Taken near Elan Valley in Wales. The bottom half is not HDR - it was too strong, so I used the +2EC shot to hold the bottom of the image.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/...6dd87c62_o.jpg
Sorry for the ignorace, but what exactly is HDR?
True HDR is when you take more than 1 image (Normally at least 3) but alter the exposure of each to be say 2stops over exposed, 2 stops under and the final image as metered.
You then combine the images inan editing program to create a 32bit image. Photoshop does do HDR, but arguably not as well as third party programs, such as Photomatrix. The resulting image is then tone mapped - that is the 32bit image is compressed to 16 or 8bits. The tone mapping is the bit that can make or break the final image - get it wrong and it looks dreadful - but get it right and they can look stunning!
Does this help any?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anglefire
I understand this may be a normal typo, but the program is actually Photomatix. No R.
I used photomatix for my HDR at the beginning of this thread and love the program. I had 4 images merged. The photo was taken at about 7:40pm May 20, 2007 with my 5D and 24-70. f/8 I do believe.
Yep, you're right, no r. [:$]
Here's one of the Braga Bridge in Fall River, MA
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/...c4c0960a_b.jpg
Here's my first HDR. I took the pictures over the summer and finally got around to it in the past hour. So I suppose it's my best one.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.61/firstHDR.jpg[/img]
That's a great help but I still don't understand what the desired effect is. Also is the idea with Photoshop you would lower the opacity of the images that are laid on top of eachother to get the desired effect? Finally am I talking to professional photographers or are you doing it as a hobby?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming
When you use photoshop's merge to hdr option, it "reads" the tones
in each photo and puts together one photo with the range of tones,
basically. So yes, in a way they ware laid on top of each other, so to
say.
I work at F.E. Warren Air Force Base as a base photographer,
and I do weddings and senior portraits on the side. All my income is
from photography, just in a bit different situation than other
professional photographers. I get a consistent paycheck, and whatever
I do on the side is just extra :o)
HDR can better represent what the eye sees. We are able to see a huge range light intensities simultaneously, but a camera's sensor is limited. Therefore, by taking multiple exposures of the same scene, we can compile the different exposures so that the final image has a correctly exposed foreground and a correctly exposed background.
BTW, I do photography for a hobby, I think you'll find a mix here.
That's a great way of putting that Tim. I've seen it explained closely to that before as well, and it's true. Our cameras can only "see" so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Alicoate
Thanks Tom, if your interested a have a small gallery of Chicago and The Bean at www.pbase.com/dbrasco
I'm from Pittsburgh originally but have really enjoyed Chicago the last few years.
I hope you don't mind (you said you wouldn't), but your image makes me feel slightly ill at ease. I must admit I don't like HDR imaging that much, but can see the appeal for architecture photography. It's the whole unreal lighting, which a fine seascape like yours contrasts with. The Japanese colouring and motif are interesting, but the sea looks radioactive. Could you show us a non-HDR version? Hope you don't object to my totally subjective criticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming
As has been said before regarding the use of Photoshop - though PS is a lot more subtle compared with PhotoMatix fo example.
I am amateur (I think!),though I do take a lot of photographs for work, its not my paid job. (Though I have been paid for some of them!). As a result I've had quite a few published in our works documentation for marketing as such like. So whats that make me [:D]
Thanks guys, I think I understand now. [:)]
Don was there no one at the bean when you took that picture or is that one of the advantages of HDR?
It's not a problem. Glad we could help.
When doing multiple exposures, it is best to have the same scene each time - without objects being in some photos and not others because the programs read the pixels within the images to line them up appropriately.
Not sure about my best, but this is one of my favorites. Although, strictly speaking, it was made from just a single exposure, but that didn't stop Photomatix.
Who said HDR needs to be in color?
http://www.artistlies.com/images/blo...asupai-590.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by maloner
Single exposure "pushed" and "pulled" = pseudo-hdr :)
HDR definitely does not need to be in color. If you want as many tones as possible from black to white, hdr is definitely the way to go.
If you want to get picky about semantics, then there isn't a single HDR image on this thread, just tone-mapped jpgs.
I'm not a fan of the "pseudo" term when the workflow I used to create this image is the exact same as what I would use with two, three, or ten exposures. It's one thing if you're using curves and layers and blending to try to make a jpg look like it's more than it is, because that process has nothing to do with HDR imaging, but a RAW file already has more data than can be displayed in it, so the pushing and pulling of a single frame is really quite the same as pushing and pulling multiple exposures.
That sounded a little more prissy than intended. OK, much more - it's still my favorite. :)
could you show us how to make a "real" HDR image? from the threads I've seen online, here and other places, bracketing is the only way I know so far. Is there any other way to produce a true HDR? I wonder how did Ansel did it.
At its simplest, an HDR image is just a photo that shows more of the shadows and more of the highlights than is possible in a standard shot. In computing terms, an HDR image is created when you make an image that contains quite a bit more data than a single exposure could hold.
With film, you need multiple exposures, although you can probably cheat it a bit (ahem, psuedo-HDR it a bit :) ) through dodging and burning, but that wouldn't give quite the same effect.
With digital, that's still the best way -- but the fact is a raw file already has more data than you can really show in a single exposure without compressing the dynamic range down a bit. You can blow highlights when shooting raw and recover them somewhat.
A true HDR image (in the digital sense) is generated when you load multiple exposures into Photomatix (or even just one exposure; it does the same process), before you tone map the final shot. If you view it on your screen, you'll see a really ugly mass of wildly overexposed and underexposed areas, usually with a little rectangle that floats around with your cursor allowing you to see a localized version that is mapped to your monitor so that you can actually tell what is there.
Another place to see them is in any high-end computer game. They all use HDR images because it allows you to see in dark areas and bright areas depending on where the character is standing/looking. Actually, that's probably the best example of true HDR use today (I would assume modern animated movies use similar techniques).
I am no expert, but I know the technique Ansel Adams used is called tonal mapping which has to do with mapping the tonal values of a scene, knowing which ones you can actually reasonably expose without them being too dark or blown, and then shooting based on that map that you have made (in your head once you are good at it). He may have also done some dark room masking, I am not sure (don't know a lot about his techniques...anyone else?).
I don't, but I'm still astounded by the fact that it was being done as far back as the 30s. When I first heard of the technique, I thought it was the first thing that could truly be described as a digital-only technique. Nope!
Those guys were geniuses.