Post Your Best HDR Photo

[anglefire]

If you want to get picky about semantics, then there isn't a single HDR image on this thread, just tone-mapped jpgs.

How do you know?


The two images I posted are both created from 3 RAW exposures, 2 stops apart and using Photomatix. The second one just had the bottom half replaced with the +2EC image to reduce the strong tones.

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.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

There is some truth here, but surely its largely semantics? [^o)]

[maloner]

Sorry angelfire, I haven't figured out this message boad yet so I don't have your post quoted here - but to answer your questions:


1) Because a true HDR image has far more data in in than the 8-bit jpgs we see on this webpage. True HDR images can't be shown in all their glory by current display technology (not all at once, anyway). They need to have their massive dynamic range compressed into something much smaller, which is what happens in the tone mapping process. I wasn't saying that you didn't use more than one exposure, or that you didn't follow a standard HDR workflow - just that the output of that workflow is not, in the digital technical sense, an HDR file (although one is created in the process).


2) Lots of semantics; I'm a writer in addition to a photographer, so everything I do is semantics. It's fun! I'll argue with you about what a salad is, if you want. Seriously. Get a beer first; it'll be easier on everyone.

[Don Burkett]

Thanks guys, I think I understand now. [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]


Don was there no one at the bean when you took that picture or is that one of the advantages of HDR?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I purposely went there an hour before sunrise to avoid people. The extra benefit was some pretty terrific early morning light. What HDR did for me on this shot was enable me to use a long exposure to capture the night's light, a shorter exposure to keep from blowing out the christmas and city lights and a normal exposure to retain the midtones.

[anglefire]

Sorry angelfire, I haven't figured out this message boad yet so I don't have your post quoted here - but to answer your questions:


1) Because a true HDR image has far more data in in than the 8-bit jpgs we see on this webpage. True HDR images can't be shown in all their glory by current display technology (not all at once, anyway). They need to have their massive dynamic range compressed into something much smaller, which is what happens in the tone mapping process. I wasn't saying that you didn't use more than one exposure, or that you didn't follow a standard HDR workflow - just that the output of that workflow is not, in the digital technical sense, an HDR file (although one is created in the process).


2) Lots of semantics; I'm a writer in addition to a photographer, so everything I do is semantics. It's fun! I'll argue with you about what a salad is, if you want. Seriously. Get a beer first; it'll be easier on everyone.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Took me a bit to see the quote button - which appears after you've pressed the reply button to a message, just below the one you reply to - assuming that you don't quick reply (I assume!).


Ok 1) I understand the bit about the resulting image that gets displayed as being not HDR - however, I thought the whole point of programs like Photomatix was that they created a HDR from multiple (For what is traditionallly a true HDR) exposures and then was tone mapped to keep the extremes of the range back into an image that can be displayed properly.


2) Bit early for a beer now (Its 5:15am as I write this!) But I'm game.

[Don Burkett]

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





This is an awesome shot.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Thanks Greg, I have a few others from the bean here, http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/the_bean if your interested.

[Don Burkett]

I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.

[maloner]

Took me a bit to see the quote button - which appears after you've pressed the reply button to a message, just below the one you reply to - assuming that you don't quick reply (I assume!).


Ok 1) I understand the bit about the resulting image that gets displayed as being not HDR - however, I thought the whole point of programs like Photomatix was that they created a HDR from multiple (For what is traditionallly a true HDR) exposures and then was tone mapped to keep the extremes of the range back into an image that can be displayed properly.


2) Bit early for a beer now (Its 5:15am as I write this!) But I'm game.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Ahh, there we go!


1) That is what Photomatix does -- the image it shows you after you load all of your exposures (which will surely show some ugly scene with massively blown "highlights" (in areas that aren't even highlights) and "shadows" (in areas that aren't even shadows). That's your real HDR image right there -- your screen can't show it, but that file has all the image data from the darkest shadows you recorded up through the brightest highlights. And it has them at their actual values! So it's more the way your eye would actually see it -- and if you view it through the little floating window in photomatix, it will show you an actual localized image based on wherever you point, which lets you see through the blown highlights/shadows. This is how 3d gaming and animation works, too -- they use HDR images to simulate real vision; if your character walks into a bright area, then the highlights come into view; if you walk into a dark area, then the highlights get blown and the shadows come into view.


What we often call an HDR image now, the tone mapped version of an actual HDR photo, actually has much LESS dynamic range than one of these real HDR images. But that's what makes them so interesting to look at (and sometimes offensive).


2) Ha -- maybe I'll just drink your beer instead, since it's still early over here? Well, early NIGHT, that is. Still, if you want to join, by all means!

[Jeff]

I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Well thank you. I do like the more real looking HDR images, rather than the painterly ones. Although certain situations can lend itself to one way over the other. I hope to do more HDR work soon.

[anglefire]

I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Well thank you. I do like the more real looking HDR images, rather than the painterly ones. Although certain situations can lend itself to one way over the other. I hope to do more HDR work soon.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Thanks for the kind words.


I must admit that I too generally prefer the results that are more true to life - but I have a few on my website that are a bit more striking!


Such as this one.





This is actually Dover Castle on the south coast of England.


Mark

[Jeff]

That's a nice image too, angelfire. The sky plays such a big role in it. Very well done.


The only thing I dont care for is the parking lot. But the path leading the eye in is a nice touch.