• Learning HDR + Postprocessing, results.
    35 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25094227]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] 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] I still think that's you're blind for not seeing the obvious difference.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse I see the difference in small details, but it's nothing you couldn't do if you just processed it with RAW. The difference is so small, making a HDR out of it wouldn't even make sense. If all you do is make HDR's out of pictures that really, really don't need it then I suggest you stop with photography
[QUOTE=Pocket Rocket;25094682]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. [/QUOTE] In my opinion those details are worth it. Just a matter of taste. [QUOTE=Pocket Rocket;25094682]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).[/QUOTE] Thank you, is there any detailed in depth information about how/when/where/why using HDR? [editline]11:31PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Spetzaz;25094907]Did you actually shoot three different images with exposure bracketing, or just use a single image?[/QUOTE] 3 pictures with +2 0 -2 exposure.
I actually wrote a section about HDR in my thread, you might want to take a look at it [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1001898[/url]
[QUOTE=Jack Trades;25094042][img_thumb]http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6636/64392282.jpg[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6584/53379756.jpg[/img_thumb] HDR vs. Upped Contrast[/QUOTE] I don't think you realize just how remarkably similar these two are. The only things you've gained in HDR are minor blue tones in the reflections of the cloud in the upper-most circular window, and [I]marginally[/I] brighter shadows. Otherwise the photo really doesn't need HDR. You could obtain the same result using Curves and Selective Color adjustment layers. Take note, a lot of us are saying the same thing. It's not just one person. This photo did not need HDR, accept this criticism and try again.
On a histogram those are almost the same. I see a crisp clear difference, but TBH one isn't much better than the other.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;25094988]I actually wrote a section about HDR in my thread, you might want to take a look at it [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1001898[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.