My kind of HDR

I took this in Maui while on Vacation. In print its just amazing. Was done in Photomatix about 5 years ago.
Granted... I have seen some great shots of this fence around the island and Internet but this one I feel is in the top 5. I havnt done an HDR Photograph in a while, just havnt had a scene jump out at me lately that says otherwise.
I wish that I would have shot this with my 5D3 and my Tokina 16-28 though...it was shot with my old 40D and Sigma 10-20...
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
these kind of HDR always make me feel sick i just don't know why? the first image is not to bad but the second one i just cant look at it to long.
 
Rat said:
Like it! Inspiration for all sorts of cartoon type shots in here. Thanks for sharing - want to share some settings? :)
Cool..settings wise depends on the program your using...I would just say to make sure that your scene lends itself to the kind of shot you are looking for...I wouldn't do a cartoon type HDR unless it was for creative/artistic purposes..this type of shot here was done with the 5D 3 (its original didn't have quite enough punch so I made this one out of the bracketed photographs it took. Vintage cars, the more weathered the better..interior shots looking at the dash can be great as well..
 

blaydese

EOS 80D
Jun 28, 2012
199
2
Iwakuni Japan
www.facebook.com
mycanonphotos you got my vote.

THANK YOU for posting these
picture, please post more.

I too like the extreme and
"within the nature of the art
that is HDR photography".

Please hang around and post
more, HDR section has this
strange problem of attracting
a large anti-HDR crowd that likes
to just poke the novice, or
anything different. :-\ ;D

Sheesh ! Not everyone can be
an expert right off the bat, but
we need someplace to post
and TRY.


......................If I wanted bland
pictures, I'd just mount my camera
on my car and drive around and take
pictures. :p ;D ;)




Again, thanks for the "My kind of HDR" it's a great start!

Peace! 8)
 

vscd

5DC
Jan 12, 2013
431
0
Germany
HDR pictures tend to look unnaturally, very often. Some like it as art, some use it as DR-enhancement, only. I think most of the hdr-pictures are shoot with a too wide aperture. Blurry pixels tend to get halos... nevertheless. Here are some lost places from germany:



(http://tf.weimarnetz.de/hdr1)
 

wayno

EOS RP
Oct 8, 2012
227
0
No comment.

Oops I just did. Sorry not my thing - but it's clearly yours which is all that matters at the end of the day.
 

JustMeOregon

EOS 80D
Sep 10, 2013
146
0
...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.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,341
21
jonrista.com
mycanonphotos said:
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
 
jrista said:
mycanonphotos said:
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.