Stupid Question

[Sheiky]

For instance, I prefer images that do not look like processed HDR images - I always strive for more "real" looking images. I'm not saying I'm perfect - Many of my HDR images are very "artificial"-looking.

That's because your dynamic range is probably higher than your own eye's dynamic range. It just looks a bit weird [:P] In your mind you think there should be more shadow and/or highlights. I'm more into the real-life style as well, only happens that in my example this isn't really the case [:P] As for most people looking for HDR, 90% is looking for a surreal WOW effect and don't really get the idea. I've been there as well [A]

[Alan]

Jan, you're right about the colors. Like you said, they're "pushed." There are plenty of controls in Photomatix to subdue these over saturated colors.


What I do is try to get it "close" to what I saw, then further adjust in Photoshop, using several techniques (curves, layer masks, adjustment layer masks, etc.)

[btaylor]

I think HDR should be used to recreate what the eye sees. The problem is, your is basically constantly metering to provide the best exposure depending upon exactly what you're looking at. A camera meters once for each shot and exposes for that.


Therefore HDR is the blending of multiple images taken at different exposures to show detail in shadows/ highlights that would otherwise be blacks/ blown out respectively in a single image.

[wickerprints]

Personally, I roughly categorize "HDR" photos into two groups. Both use exposure bracketing and some form of image superposition, but the difference lies in the rendering intent.


The first group does this in order to bring very large differences in EV in the scene closer together, so as to better represent the ability of the human eye and brain to compensate when seeing such large brightness differences in the real world. The goal is to create the illusion of a natural image, closer to human perception.


The second group uses HDR as a special effect, resulting in images that are not even remotely realistic. The result is very obviously manipulated, often characterized by localized reversals in tone, high saturation, and high contrast. The goal is to create a specific aesthetic "look" that does not necessarily reflect reality.


Bear in mind that although I tend to prefer the images from the first group over those in the second, I don't necessarily dislike the second or think it is any less legitimate.

[bouwy]

Thanks Sheiky. You've been very helpful.

[Sheiky]

Well it wasn't just me [] Thanks for everybody!


I tried to recreate a more natural picture, as the scene was in reallife. It's something like this:





In my opinion this is more my favorite type of HDR. As you can see this one also looks a bit unnatural. That's purely because of the high dynamic range. There is also a small increase of colors due to the HDR. But not saturated/pushed.


Indeed like wickerprints says..there are essentialy 2 types of HDR. "Natural" HDR like my second picture and artsy HDR as I like to call it that pushes the unnatural look of an HDR to an even more unnatural but more colorfull picture.


Just like he says, I don't vote one group over the other either. Essentially there is only one group called HDR, with a second group that I like to call adjusted HDR. What I wanted to point out is that the second isn't the seential idea of HDR, but it can make beautifull pictures. Personally I think they're over-saturated a lot of time. I like the more natural look.


Good luck with making your own HDRs! Try Photomatix software. You can download a free trial whit a very annoying watermark or buy or ###### it [:P] I believe this program is more userfriendly then photoshop, so I would recommend just to try it out sometime.


Good luck!


Jan


Also don't hessitate to ask any other questions. I learn everyday as well! There are a lot of really smart people here that can tell you more details than you might even want to know[:P]