HDR Photography

[Mercia Blackcat]

High Dynamic Range.

Has anyone tried this?

I was shown it the other day for the first time. Photoshop CS2 had a single HDR tool that was limited but CS3 is much more versatile apparantly.

In the simplest form you bracket the main shot either way for exposure 2 stops above and below then merge the three into a single image with each layer being transparent.

In the more professional form you take 7 bracketed shots for merging.

It brings out detail in the dark areas and retains detail in the bright areas.

Never tried it myself but the results are interesting.

http://www.digitalapoptosis.com/arch...al/001538.html

[not spavin]

I think it looks great on cityscapes like the one you've just posted, but generally speaking I don't like it. I've seen a few chaps on Flickr who HDR on everything they do - don't really see the point, personally.

What I do like though is tilt shift images. There's basically 2 ways of doing them - buy a specialist lens for a tonne of money or cheat it in Photoshop (there are a load of tutorials online).

The effect is has is to make aerial photography of real places look like they're miniature models. Here's an example.


Haven't tried it myself like, but I'd love to give it a whirl.

[taipeisafc]

I've dabbled a little bit in it - the thing you need to do is get a really static subject. It can look brilliant when done well sadly none of my pictures quite fit into that category yet. There is also Pseudo HDR where you can process the RAW files on Photoshop and ad or take away a couple of stops to get a a range of exposures that you can then HDR together - again works OK. This site is pretty interesting:-

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/t...rocessing.html

[Mercia Blackcat]

Originally Posted by taipeisafc

I've dabbled a little bit in it - the thing you need to do is get a really static subject. It can look brilliant when done well sadly none of my pictures quite fit into that category yet. There is also Pseudo HDR where you can process the RAW files on Photoshop and ad or take away a couple of stops to get a a range of exposures that you can then HDR together - again works OK. This site is pretty interesting:-

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/t...rocessing.html

Or a still day if you're outdoors with no breeze at all.

Thanks for the link.

I'll probably get round to giving a go sometime but there is something unnatural in a way about the pics. Looks good though but couldn't get into it all the time.

Originally Posted by not spavin

I think it looks great on cityscapes like the one you've just posted, but generally speaking I don't like it. I've seen a few chaps on Flickr who HDR on everything they do - don't really see the point, personally.

What I do like though is tilt shift images. There's basically 2 ways of doing them - buy a specialist lens for a tonne of money or cheat it in Photoshop (there are a load of tutorials online).

The effect is has is to make aerial photography of real places look like they're miniature models. Here's an example.


Haven't tried it myself like, but I'd love to give it a whirl.

I thought that was a model and had to look close.

Good technique for illustration etc

[not spavin]

Originally Posted by Mercia Blackcat

I thought that was a model and had to look close.

Good technique for illustration etc

Yeah, it's a cool effect like. A bit gimmicky mind you, certainly not enough for me to go out and buy a specialist lens.

Here's another example - again, you have o examine it before you can tell it's real.

[taipeisafc]

This is a quick play with what I talked about when you HDR a single exposure :-

The original shot (untouched or processed on photoshop)



And HDR processed all from the single shot above(done nothing other than muck around with the exposure - hence the fringing around the face)

The point of HDR is to bring out detail in the shadows and the highlights by extending the dynamic range that the picture can display.

It's really popular for taking picture inside of cathedrals, and should work well in other high contrast situations.

[Floyd]

Originally Posted by not spavin

I think it looks great on cityscapes like the one you've just posted, but generally speaking I don't like it. I've seen a few chaps on Flickr who HDR on everything they do - don't really see the point, personally.

What I do like though is tilt shift images. There's basically 2 ways of doing them - buy a specialist lens for a tonne of money or cheat it in Photoshop (there are a load of tutorials online).

The effect is has is to make aerial photography of real places look like they're miniature models. Here's an example.


Haven't tried it myself like, but I'd love to give it a whirl.

What's the point of that like? i can see the point of making models look real but not vice versa

[Mercia Blackcat]

Originally Posted by Paul

The point of HDR is to bring out detail in the shadows and the highlights by extending the dynamic range that the picture can display.

It's really popular for taking picture inside of cathedrals, and should work well in other high contrast situations.

I suppose in the olden days you would have to have some lighting setup to get anywhere near that kind of detail inside a large building using multiple flash maybe.

I was talking to a couple of lads the other day, one of which is studying illustration at Uni and the other graphic design and illustration combined. The one studying illustration is suberb and very imaginative and creative and the other one doing the combined course is the same regarding graphic design and photography.

What surprised me is that the guy doing illustration was open to other ideas and was saying he thought photography should be used more for illustration even though it ain't his thing so the model technique will be interesting to both of them as they never mentioned it.

[littlened]

I've seen a canon camera attached to a 360 lense, which takes 3 pictures and merges the 3 together. Is that similar to what you lot are talking about?