| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2007 10:01:10 AM · #1 |
My first attempt to master this very exciting style, even bought pixmatix for it.
Shame on me, I do not even know what to look for or at, can someone please crit for me? |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:03:33 AM · #2 |
for your first HDR its very nice & a good job I like it. I love the clouds and I also like the border adds a little something to it. But also the town/city in the distance I also love. Very nice!!
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:05:06 AM · #3 |
For a first shot at it, you are doing great, Doc. Play around some more and then come back with any specific problems you encounter. What you've showed us here is relatively "extreme" tone mapping, which seems to be where everyone starts. The soft6ware can be used more subtly as well.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:07:55 AM · #4 |
I agree ... do it in layers and drop it to a 50% blend and you will see the true sublety and power of HDR
IMO the sky is great but the foreground is WAY too saturated ... just my opinion ...
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 10:09:03.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:16:33 AM · #5 |
| Thanks to all, and please, a spade is a spade... if it looks oversaturated then maybe it does because it is ;-). Thanks from my heart. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:49:21 AM · #6 |
You will see the true wonder of HDR with a VERY bright sky (or area) in your photo ... continue to experiment ... it is a wonderful way to play with photos ...
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:26:07 AM · #7 |
| Please point me in the right direction of a good HDR tutorial. Must get to grips with this stuff.... |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:32:53 AM · #8 |
I would recommend downloading a free trial copy of Photomatix Pro and giving it a whirl. It is quite amazing what can be done with bright sky photos taken in raw. Combinations of exposures is best (3 to 5 exposures at different settings), but I am surprised how much detail I can tease out of dark areas of photos I have taken in raw.
Originally posted by faery:
Please point me in the right direction of a good HDR tutorial. Must get to grips with this stuff.... |
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:52:41 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gibun:
My first attempt to master this very exciting style... |
There is a question in my mind as to whether HDR is a 'technique' or a 'style'. They are two different things. Clearly this treatment is intended to give this photograph a 'style' it did not have before and is not being applied as a technique.
HDR as a technique, on the other hand, is a set of steps used to correct an unavoidable defect... your camera's inability to capture the full dynamic range of a scene in a properly exposed single frame because of unique lighting conditions. In that case a lot of work is involved but the viewer would never recognize it in the final image.
At DPC we apply HDR as applicable to most every scene and lighting condition as a method to add detail 'punch' to an image, not capture dynamic range.
We appear to be experimenting with HDR moreso as a 'style' than as a technique to deal with extreme and/or 'bad' lighting conditions which is it's original intent.
There is one common type of landscape photography that comes to mind that seems tailor made for the benefits of HDR but I have yet to see it specifically emphasized and applied in a single HDR example here at DPC. That would be a sunrise or sunset. Perhaps it has been and I just missed it.
I would very much like to see HDR applied to a sunset and see not only the final result but all the originals containing the HDR detail essential to generate it.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:12:34 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I would very much like to see HDR applied to a sunset and see not only the final result but all the originals containing the HDR detail essential to generate it. |
I've done a bunch of 'em, Steve. Best known is this one, from 4 exposures of the same scene:
Here's one of the original images, from the mid-range, here ΓΆ€” I don't have all four exposures ready to hand, but don 't see what they'd add to the discussion really; you can see the range in this image alone :
Here's another one, no originals handy right now: this is a 3-image HDRI:
I think when you are discussing HDR as a "style" vs a "technique", you are perpetrating a certain level of confusion, unwittingly. I've tried to say this over and over again, and I'll try one more time:
HDRI is a technique, plain and simple. In HDRI imaging, "tone mapping" is a necessary component of the work flow, though it is called other things in different software. Tone mapping itself can be applied to any image, whether it is generated through an HDRI compositing technique or not.
The "style" that you are referring to is an exaggerated, cartoon-like use of the tone mapping utility. To call HDRI a "style" is sort of like calling the hue/saturation tool or the curves tool a "style", Steve. You can produce exaggerated results with those, too :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:33:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I would very much like to see HDR applied to a sunset and see not only the final result but all the originals containing the HDR detail essential to generate it. |
I've done a bunch of 'em, Steve. ... |
Thanks, Robert, I will look at them. I've been looking for an opportunity to try HDR out on a good sunrise/sunset.
I figured you had some but have never seen them used as examples of HDR discussions, but that might be because I live in a cave. ;) Most examples I've seen at DPC don't look like they really need it.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:15:10 PM · #12 |
But if someone takes a lot of time and uses Hue/Saturation to make, lets say, "street scenes" bright and very strange looking...and continues this over time, would you say that is "his style"?
************
I think when you are discussing HDR as a "style" vs a "technique", you are perpetrating a certain level of confusion, unwittingly. I've tried to say this over and over again, and I'll try one more time:
HDRI is a technique, plain and simple. In HDRI imaging, "tone mapping" is a necessary component of the work flow, though it is called other things in different software. Tone mapping itself can be applied to any image, whether it is generated through an HDRI compositing technique or not.
The "style" that you are referring to is an exaggerated, cartoon-like use of the tone mapping utility. To call HDRI a "style" is sort of like calling the hue/saturation tool or the curves tool a "style", Steve. You can produce exaggerated results with those, too :-)
R. [/quote]
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:21:03 PM · #13 |
Thanks for this tip. Will give it a try.
Originally posted by pccjrose:
I would recommend downloading a free trial copy of Photomatix Pro and giving it a whirl. It is quite amazing what can be done with bright sky photos taken in raw. Combinations of exposures is best (3 to 5 exposures at different settings), but I am surprised how much detail I can tease out of dark areas of photos I have taken in raw.
Originally posted by faery:
Please point me in the right direction of a good HDR tutorial. Must get to grips with this stuff.... |
|
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 03:00:20 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
...
HDRI is a technique, plain and simple. In HDRI imaging, "tone mapping" is a necessary component of the work flow, though it is called other things in different software. Tone mapping itself can be applied to any image, whether it is generated through an HDRI compositing technique or not.
The "style" that you are referring to is an exaggerated, cartoon-like use of the tone mapping utility. To call HDRI a "style" is sort of like calling the hue/saturation tool or the curves tool a "style", Steve. You can produce exaggerated results with those, too :-) |
I think I agree with you though I'm unsure if totally. I agree that HDR(HDRI) is a 'technique' and it is intended for a very limited purpose; that is, being able to combine images of the same scene taken with different exposure values specifically designed to cover a larger dynamic tonal range of exposures than is possible with one frame alone with a specific camera.
But is this a necessary component of workflow? I mean no disrespect but I'd serious question whether or not that you have to combine multiple images, whether created from one image or from many different exposures, as a necessay component of normal workflow. It certainly is not in my normal workflow. I would, though, in extreme situations with important images utilize this technique.
If you are instead suggesting that post processing is a necessary component of workflow, whatever form that may take, then I would agree with that.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 03:31:51 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...
HDRI is a technique, plain and simple. In HDRI imaging, "tone mapping" is a necessary component of the work flow, though it is called other things in different software. Tone mapping itself can be applied to any image, whether it is generated through an HDRI compositing technique or not.
The "style" that you are referring to is an exaggerated, cartoon-like use of the tone mapping utility. To call HDRI a "style" is sort of like calling the hue/saturation tool or the curves tool a "style", Steve. You can produce exaggerated results with those, too :-) |
I think I agree with you though I'm unsure if totally. I agree that HDR(HDRI) is a 'technique' and it is intended for a very limited purpose; that is, being able to combine images of the same scene taken with different exposure values specifically designed to cover a larger dynamic tonal range of exposures than is possible with one frame alone with a specific camera.
But is this a necessary component of workflow? I mean no disrespect but I'd serious question whether or not that you have to combine multiple images, whether created from one image or from many different exposures, as a necessay component of normal workflow. It certainly is not in my normal workflow. I would, though, in extreme situations with important images utilize this technique.
If you are instead suggesting that post processing is a necessary component of workflow, whatever form that may take, then I would agree with that.
Does that make sense? |
Steve,
In Ken's reply he accidentally snipped away the first half of the "quote" tag: he had been quoting me in his response. So I'll answer:
I didn't say "HDRI" is a necessary component of the workflow, per se. I said that tone mapping is a necessary component of the HDRI workflow. See the difference? I made the distinction because tone mapping can be, and often is, applied to a single, standalone image, usually (but not always) to achieve this cartoon-like effect.
Let me see if I can make my point a little clearer: the use of tone mapping to generate an effect of extremely flat lighting with very high local area contrast is properly attributed to tone mapping (or its equivalent in programs other than Photomatix), NOT to HDRI per se.
HDRI remains a technique, and it properly refers to the merging of several distinct exposures to expand the dynamic range of the image. Tone mapping is a tool that is a component of the HDRI workflow. The TOOL can be used for other purposes, and when used in an exaggerated way it produces the "style" you are referring to.
***********
The main problem we are having in discussing this in the forums, IMO, is that it seems that most people are unaware that HDRI has even been used UNLESS it is exaggerated in this way, and so they believe that unnaturally flat light and extremely high local area contrast in and of themselves ARE what HDRI is, and this is not true, as you and I are pointing out.
This is an example of a workflow progression showing the original exposure I was working from, tone mapping of that single RAW exposure (no merging of variant exposures), and the final result after PP in CS2.
  
The first image is straight from RAW with zero sharpening and very low contrast. When I opened this in Photomatix and tone mapped it, the second image was the result. Finally I exported that to CS2 and did the rest of the PP; most significantly, I used a heavy application of high pass sharpening to crisp it up strongly.
Anyway, THIS is tone mapping used as a "style", but it is not the same style as the extremely dramatic, hypersaturated examples you seem to be referring to. IN many ways it's closest to what people refer to as "draganizing", which is a definite style. Bottom line; there's a lot of different effects you can go for with the tone mapping tool, but they don't necessarily have anything at all to do with the concept of HDRI imaging.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 15:36:16.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 03:50:47 PM · #16 |
I have only been playing with the trial version of Photomatix and only on single RAW images or 16bitTIFFS. While I find the cartoonish aspect interesting at times I have been really pleased at what a mild tonemapping on a single image can do. I havent played with landscapes yet but I do like its effects on portrait type images. These being some of my first experiments. Granted I did alot in PSElements after the tonemapping, but the initial image out of photomatix gave me a huge jump start. I could see this becoming a part of my workflow on certain images rather than used as a style. That probably doesnt make any sense or really add to this thread properly. Oh well - I tried. ;)
  |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 04:03:02 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I have only been playing with the trial version of Photomatix and only on single RAW images or 16bitTIFFS. While I find the cartoonish aspect interesting at times I have been really pleased at what a mild tonemapping on a single image can do. I havent played with landscapes yet but I do like its effects on portrait type images. These being some of my first experiments. Granted I did alot in PSElements after the tonemapping, but the initial image out of photomatix gave me a huge jump start. I could see this becoming a part of my workflow on certain images rather than used as a style. That probably doesnt make any sense or really add to this thread properly. Oh well - I tried. ;)
|
Makes plenty of sense to me. My normal workflow now is RAW to tone mapping to CS2. I don't always USE the tone mapped version as my base in CS2, but I nearly always give it a whirl in Photomatix before moving on to final post-processing. In my experience, tone mapping is a quick and intuitive way to create subtle-but-integrated changes in how an image is perceived. IN cases like you have shown, one could certainly do the same thing with CS2 and a suite of adjustments, but tone mapping integrates a lot of variables into one interface and works very smoothly once you've learned it.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/16/2007 09:09:07 PM · #18 |
How about this one? A spade is a spade, I am just a silly old man trying to learn something new. |
|
|
|
03/16/2007 09:47:39 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gibun:
How about this one? A spade is a spade, I am just a silly old man trying to learn something new. |
love it..
would like to see the original for comparison |
|
|
|
03/18/2007 11:39:40 PM · #20 |
Just in case anyone is interested, I have a new tutorial on Tone Mapping in the "Tutorials" section here on DPC.
Please provide feedback, comments, etc. using this forum thread.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2007 11:46:22 PM · #21 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 06:10:54 PM EDT.
