Here is a little something something i made while i tried to learn to make decent HDR pictures.
Original Photo:
[img_thumb]http://imgur.com/Xzfcw.jpg[/img_thumb]
HDR Photo
[img_thumb]http://imgur.com/npnl6.jpg[/img_thumb]
Postprocessing
[img_thumb]http://imgur.com/ZeMEQ.jpg[/img_thumb]
I'm sorry for bandwidthraping size.
I love the clouds on the third one, but its to much.
Second one looks interesting tho.
[editline]04:48PM[/editline]
In my opinion, you could crop the bottom and top off the third picture, which might make it look better overall.
The clouds looks kinda cartoonish, which in my opinion ruins it.
Yeah, they don't fit in, but they look fancy :3:
Can't see your images :S
[QUOTE=Number-41;25090098]Can't see your images :S[/QUOTE]
Something fucked up, re-uploading, just a second.
[editline]07:13PM[/editline]
Re-uplodaded. Feel free to C&C.
Looks nice
How does this have anything to do with hdr
[QUOTE=Ollih;25090774]How does this have anything to do with hdr[/QUOTE]
The second picture is HDR. I took 3 pictures, one overexposed, one underexposed and one normal and put them together into one HDR picture.
The whole point of HDR is to have the picture evenly lit, your "HDR" picture looks like you just upped the contrast a bit
[QUOTE=Ollih;25091283]The whole point of HDR is to have the picture evenly lit, your "HDR" picture looks like you just upped the contrast a bit[/QUOTE]
[quote=Wikipedia]high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. This wider dynamic range allows HDR images to more accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]Tone mapping techniques, which reduce overall contrast to facilitate display of HDR images on devices with lower dynamic range, can be applied to produce images with preserved or exaggerated local contrast for artistic effect.[/quote]
Simply changing contrast.
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/StLouisArchMultExpCDR.jpg/800px-StLouisArchMultExpCDR.jpg[/img_thumb]
Tonemapped HDR Photo.
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/StLouisArchMultExpToneMapped.jpg[/img_thumb]
I made an HDR Photo, Tonemapped it and then post processed it.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25091191]The second picture is HDR. I took 3 pictures, one overexposed, one underexposed and one normal and put them together into one HDR picture.[/QUOTE]
So if I understand this correct, the first picture is just a normal picture, not a merge of 3 photos, just a normal picture.
If so, then why the hell did you make it into a HDR? It doesn't add anything at all.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;25093297]So if I understand this correct, the first picture is just a normal picture, not a merge of 3 photos, just a normal picture.
If so, then why the hell did you make it into a HDR? It doesn't add anything at all.[/QUOTE]
I took 3 pictures. Underexposed, Overexposed and Normal.
First picture in OP is the Normal one.
I merged them 3 into one HDR picture.
Second picture in OP is the HDR one.
Then i postprocessed it.
Third picture in OP is the postprocessed one.
Damn FP, what the hell is with your IQ?
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25093558]I took 3 pictures. Underexposed, Overexposed and Normal.
First picture in OP is the Normal one.
I merged them 3 into one HDR picture.
Second picture in OP is the HDR one.
Then i postprocessed it.
Third picture in OP is the postprocessed one.
Damn FP, what the hell is with your IQ?[/QUOTE]
goddammit
are you a retard
if the first picture is the normal one, then why the HELL would you make a HDR out of it? It doesn't add anything at all, it looks almost completely the same
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;25093628]goddammit
are you a retard
if the first picture is the normal one, then why the HELL would you make a HDR out of it? It doesn't add anything at all, it looks almost completely the same[/QUOTE]
Yeah exactly this
To you, maybe. I see a huge difference. Especially in lightning and reflections.
They are just questioning why it's an HDR photograph in the first place. Since HDR is meant to get even exposures in a situation where one exposure wouldn't suffice (overexposed sky to underexposed ground). Your picture is perfectly exposed without HDR so it really doesn't do anything. In fact the original is the best out of all the three (and a simple contrast/saturation adjust would make it even better).
[editline]03:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25093709]To you, maybe. I see a huge difference. Especially in lightning and reflections.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it looks different, but to be honest it looks worse. It's just overly contrasty and not exposed properly anymore. It doesn't add to the picture.
You could do better with the original RAW file
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;25093793]Yeah it looks different, but to be honest it looks worse. It's just overly contrasty and not exposed properly anymore. It doesn't add to the picture.[/QUOTE]
and that is what i call, a matter of taste.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25093949]and that is what i call, a matter of taste.[/QUOTE]
Yes you are absolutely right about that. But why make it a 'hdr' when you can just as easily adjust the contrast to get the same picture?
[IMG]http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6636/64392282.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6584/53379756.jpg[/IMG]
HDR vs. Upped Contrast
Yes but you used the jpg file, not the raw file
[editline]08:48PM[/editline]
and even then, I still don't see why one is better than the other
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;25094067]Yes but you used the jpg file, not the raw file
[editline]08:48PM[/editline]
and even then, I still don't see why one is better than the other[/QUOTE]
Your point being?
[editline]10:48PM[/editline]
P.S. You're blind.
My point being? RAW editing allows for better processing and has more options. And no I am not blind ok that's just mean to say
Good luck with your learning if you completely ignore/debate every advice you get
and calling people blind, don't forget that!!!
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;25094174]My point being? RAW editing allows for better processing and has more options. And no I am not blind ok that's just mean to say[/QUOTE]
I accidentally forgot to set up RAW + JPG setting when i took the photos, that's why they aren't in RAW originally, but that doesn't make HDR picture any less superior to the usual one.
[editline]11:00PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ollih;25094202]Good luck with your learning if you completely ignore/debate every advice you get[/QUOTE]
If any respectable source would say that my pictures were bad I'd consider to stop taking pictures in HDR, so far i see no reason for it since in my opinion HDR look just so much better that just upping the contrast and changing the saturation.
[editline]11:01PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;25094220]and calling people blind, don't forget that!!![/QUOTE]
I still think that's you're blind for not seeing the obvious difference.
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25094227]
I still think that's you're blind for not seeing the obvious difference.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;25093793]They are just questioning why it's an HDR photograph in the first place. Since HDR is meant to get even exposures in a situation where one exposure wouldn't suffice (overexposed sky to underexposed ground). Your picture is perfectly exposed without HDR so it really doesn't do anything. In fact the original is the best out of all the three (and a simple contrast/saturation adjust would make it even better).
[editline]03:37PM[/editline]
Yeah it looks different, but to be honest it looks worse. It's just overly contrasty and not exposed properly anymore. It doesn't add to the picture.[/QUOTE]
There are few differences, the clouds are slightly better separated from the sky and there' some more detail in the dark parts of the wall, but other than that the difference isn't visible enough to warrant the extra effort. Try using HDR in scenes which need more dynamic range, like strongly backlit scenes, scenes with deeper shadows, city landscapes at night etc. Partly overcast days like the one you shot don't have too much dynamic range so they don't benefit from HDR, because a huge portion of the shades fit in the dynamic range of a single photo (that's somewhere around 10-14 stops or less depending on the amount of noise that is a limiting factor). I hope you understand what people are trying to tell you.
Did you actually shoot three different images with exposure bracketing, or just use a single image?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.