December 21, 2014, 01:46:39 PM

Author Topic: My kind of HDR  (Read 15461 times)

Hendrik

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2014, 05:20:59 PM »
I like the HDR a bit more natural, as in the attachment.
It depends on the subject, of course.
Best regards
Hendrik

canon rumors FORUM

Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2014, 05:20:59 PM »

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2014, 08:31:10 PM »
Quote
...wide aperture. Blurry pixels tend to get halos...

+1 Bingo! You just nailed one of the more subtle issues I've experienced with "canned" tone-mapping HDR methods like Photomatix. I've long felt that shallow depth of field HDR bracket-sets should be combined by layering luminosity masks (or simply hand-blended) in Photoshop, or developed in Lightroom via one of the 32-bit merging methods as described here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19058.msg357002#msg357002.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 08:33:53 PM by JustMeOregon »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4814
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2014, 09:53:20 PM »
Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..


Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

This "classic" HDR "look" is effectively the result of a mistake, or a mistaken understanding of proper HDR processing when converting from "HDR" to "LDR". It is entirely fine if you are purposely doing this for the sake of art...but just to be correct here, calling it HDR is technically incorrect. The images here actually have very low contrast, and therefor very low dynamic range.

High Dynamic Range means exactly that. That the actual data in the image contains enough precision and information to represent a high dynamic range.

Personally, I find these kind of "HDR" images to be...well, not my kind of thing. They have issues all over the place that rub me the wrong way. They are relatively "flat"...no real contrast curve...and the lack of contrast actually means there is very little dynamic range in the results themselves. Terrible color in the bright sun highlights is common...I mean, it this case it turns PINK because of the processing. Unusual and unnatural color gradients are common, not just in the bright highlights, but also in the shadows and around areas that would normally have higher contrast. Halos exist around all edges, kind of like a "glow". These kinds of images tend to have this "soft noise" effect to them, which just feels a little weird.

From an artsy standpoint, these kinds of images certainly have artistic flare. I have no problem with people being artistic, and if this look is your artistic goal, more power to you! I just wish we could stop calling it HDR. It really isn't. :P

pdirestajr

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 776
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2014, 09:29:06 AM »
So HDR is just increasing saturation right to the edge of garish, and pumping midtone contrast so everything has the same  extreme "texture"? What an interesting technique!
7D | 5DII | EOS-3 | Nikon F3 | Mamiya 645 Pro-TL

mycanonphotos

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2014, 04:49:32 PM »
Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..


Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

This "classic" HDR "look" is effectively the result of a mistake, or a mistaken understanding of proper HDR processing when converting from "HDR" to "LDR". It is entirely fine if you are purposely doing this for the sake of art...but just to be correct here, calling it HDR is technically incorrect. The images here actually have very low contrast, and therefor very low dynamic range.

High Dynamic Range means exactly that. That the actual data in the image contains enough precision and information to represent a high dynamic range.

Personally, I find these kind of "HDR" images to be...well, not my kind of thing. They have issues all over the place that rub me the wrong way. They are relatively "flat"...no real contrast curve...and the lack of contrast actually means there is very little dynamic range in the results themselves. Terrible color in the bright sun highlights is common...I mean, it this case it turns PINK because of the processing. Unusual and unnatural color gradients are common, not just in the bright highlights, but also in the shadows and around areas that would normally have higher contrast. Halos exist around all edges, kind of like a "glow". These kinds of images tend to have this "soft noise" effect to them, which just feels a little weird.

From an artsy standpoint, these kinds of images certainly have artistic flare. I have no problem with people being artistic, and if this look is your artistic goal, more power to you! I just wish we could stop calling it HDR. It really isn't. :P

That's fine if this is not your "kind of thing". But you are dead wrong to say this is not high dynamic range. In this shot the original 4 images contain the one photos single image range. Being able to tone map the image while in Photomatix then further in Photoshop is an added plus for this kind of artsy shot. HDR is widely abused but when it comes down to it the final output was produced through HDR processing weather you enjoy the final outcome or not is in the eye of the beholder.

mycanonphotos

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2014, 04:53:56 PM »
I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

blaydese

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Mr. Blaydes Photography
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2014, 08:50:01 PM »
I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly


Very Nice !!   ;D


Peace! 8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2014, 08:50:01 PM »

Click

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3614
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2014, 08:52:58 PM »
I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

I really like this one. Well done Jason.

JumboShrimp

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2014, 09:42:33 PM »
The car interior ... to each his own, but it screams too much HDR that I can't really appreciate the subject. Perhaps in most cases, less is better. I have been guilty of this in the past, too, but now a more subtle approach fits my eye.

infared

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1006
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2014, 11:00:17 PM »
I HDR most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting  ::).....but it has already been said "to each their own".
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 04:07:00 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4814
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2014, 11:13:35 PM »
I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly


Very nice. I like the effect in the water on this.

TexPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1014
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2014, 11:14:24 PM »
Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..


Love it. 
Here is one I shot on the weekend.  Stolen burned out Toyota Yaris I found in the woods.
REX50132 2_3 2_4 2h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

JimKarczewski

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2014, 11:56:36 PM »
It's all about the software.  Some programs tend to allow the user to bake the image to a crisp showing absolutely no resemblance to what the scene would really look like. 

Others can't handle movement very well (subject, clouds, water)

So there is a fine balance trying to get the best image possible without making it look fake or over baked.  That's why I own 4 different HDR Programs.  Never have used the built in Canon option with any luck, nor have I tried Photoshops.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2014, 11:56:36 PM »

JumboShrimp

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2014, 12:45:08 AM »
Image below of autumn color in the Smokies (from 2011), is what I would consider a decent use of HDR, used to bring out the subtleties of both strong highlights and deep shadows. Of course, the original image had mostly midtones which were unaffected by the HDR program.

jhanken

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2014, 01:42:48 AM »
I HRD most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting  ::).....but it has already been said "to each their own".

I enjoyed these.  Subtle but clear examples of the occasional benefit of HDR processing.
5DIII, 60D, 24-105mm f/4 L, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4A, Jupiter-9 85mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2014, 01:42:48 AM »