Show us your HDR photos.

[Voe]

Hi all,
Recently I started experimenting with Photomatix.
This one is created by using 3 different exposures.



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[martino]

what is HDR?

 

[Voe]

what is HDR?

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range, it's a process whereby one uses multiexposed images and blends them into one final image.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[PopPicker]

I didn't know they had those kind of peg baskets in the ol' wild west and just why is that cowboy gonna shoot the other in the head?

)

PP

--
Camedia C750
Lumix FZ30 + Olympus WCON-07
Pentax ist D + Sigma 18-125
Hoya +10 Macro
Vosonic 40gb Portable Storage
Metz 36 C-2

 

[Voe]

I didn't know they had those kind of peg baskets in the ol' wild
west and just why is that cowboy gonna shoot the other in the head?

)

PP

Oh, I forgot to tell that these cowboys did a time travel from the past, and somehow they ended up in my courtyard. The guy in the left is about to shoot the other one because he was aiming at me.

--
Camedia C750
Lumix FZ30 + Olympus WCON-07
Pentax ist D + Sigma 18-125
Hoya +10 Macro
Vosonic 40gb Portable Storage
Metz 36 C-2

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[twonker]

--
watching-the-time.blogtog.com

 

[twonker]

--
watching-the-time.blogtog.com

 

[Voe]

I like the combination of those vibrant colors with the blue sky.
Great work!

--
watching-the-time.blogtog.com

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[KateRK]

Mine is taken with a KM5D but it came out well and this is my first attempt at HDR:



The contrast between the bright sky and background and the extremely dark trees required this kind of work to get a good result.

-- Kate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Make you the world a bit better or more beautiful because you have lived in it.
-- Edward W. Bok

 

[twonker]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twonker/sets/72057594128261087/

--
watching-the-time.blogtog.com

 

[linuxworks]

I don't have any from outdoors, but I have many from my inside lightbox:

















(enough for you?)

--
bryan (pics @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more @ http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

 

[Robert Barnett]

I don't know why but I find HDR images look fake. I also find the subject of HDR images boring. But, I suspect that has more to do with the fact that you are very limited in what the subject can be since the multiple images have to be stacked on top of either and combined. You basically can't do anything that has any type of movement.

I guess it just isn't a very practicle technology.

Robert

 

[linuxworks]

its VERY practical, but yes, based on whether your subject can be kept still or not.

its not the be-all cure for every shot. but sometimes you can squeeze extra range out of a scene IF it meets the criteria for HDR shooting.

HDR also has an inherent noise reduction side-effect. whenever you average samples, the variation between them (noise and error) becomes less 'wild'. you cannot achieve this with a single frame - you need multiple samples for this cancellation effect to work.

HDR is cool. but its not for every subject and shooting style.

--
bryan (pics @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more @ http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

 

[twonker]

... have a tendency to look fake, but I don't think the purpose is necessarily to look real. After all, if we only wanted realistic photos, then we wouldn't boost colour, or use monochrome. I think they can work, but you are right, they do need the right subject.

Actually you can use on moving subjects, provided you shoot RAW. All the ones I posted were actually a single shot developed 3 times with different exposures and then blended. Noise is a problem if you do it this way.

--
watching-the-time.blogtog.com

 

[criniere]

Actually you can use on moving subjects, provided you shoot RAW.
All the ones I posted were actually a single shot developed 3 times
with different exposures and then blended. Noise is a problem if
you do it this way.

That is a great advantage of raw over jpeg ! Because with jpeg, you need a tripod to use the HDR technic... And each time I wanted to use it, my tripod was far far away...

Maud
--
Have fun while taking pictures !!
Please critic my pictures

FZ 20 and Sunpack 383

few galleries : http://membres.lycos.fr/oiseau1/

 

[richardplondon]

yes, that can happen with HDR- but such a reaction exposes an interesting divide.

Photography gives a ("deliberately" / "inescapably") narrow view of the world compared with normal experience.

Photography, for some, is about a decisive moment image. Those with this approach often embrace the camera's limited dynamic range creatively, to help illustrate dazzling or gloomy lighting conditions. The picture becomes amongst other things "about" the too-light or the too-dark. After all, when the light is bright in our eyes we are briefly dazzled, when the shadows are dark we need a moment to adapt.

Other people want a photograph to be a rich world you can explore at your leisure, turning your attention progressively from the sky into the deepest shadows. These people obsess about posterised darks and blown highlights (and sometimes - gasp - noise), longing for a perfect sensor and kind even lighting so you can see everything you wish to - just like when standing still for a while in the real world.

HDR is for these people (so is fill flash).

Each group's work can be as genuine and worthwhile - but how we struggle to understand each other!

RP

 

[twonker]

I agreed with all you said except I don't think there are necessarily two groups of people. I think there are many who enjoy and practice both forms of the art?
--
watching-the-time.blogtog.com

 

[richardplondon]

I think many people worry overmuch about shadow noise or blown highlights - they perceive them as technical flaws (which they are) but also as unpleasant distractions that stop them from enjoying or valuing a picture. This is normally explained with a one-to-one comparison with nature - "the sky isn't really grainy, it shouldn't be grainy in my picture".

If you are not so upset by these technical artefacts (let's call them that), you can start to enjoy their formal and aesthetic consequences. This comes with an appreciation for all the other artificialities involved in a photographic image.

So really there are 3 groups:
1) not technically experienced, doesn't know the rules
2) technically experienced (often very), lives by the rules
3) technically experienced, not afraid to break the rules.

1), 2) and 3) infuriate each other - I am not sure they can co-exist in one person!

3) spends his time trying to match the instinctive openness of 1)

1) envies the impressive 2)

2) ingeniously follows the rules ever more perfectly!

2) has the best time, 3) envies him but could never go back.

 

[twonker]

And that really does explain a lot if you are correct, which I think you are pretty much (obviously not everyone fits neatly into a box).

 

[Robert Barnett]

No I disagree it isn't very practicle. It is good for indoor still live things but very little else. Very seldom is there a breeze free day. When you can use it it is interesting, but still the images look fake. Maybe we aren't used to seeing so much detail and dynamic range.

Its a personal thing. But so far none of the samples show on this site have been of anything overly useful.

Robert