HDR Methods?

[wingnut225]

<div></div><div></div><div>Are the different HDR methods just a matter of preference? I can take several exposures, process them through Photomatix and get a nice picture with a high dynamic range or I can take a raw file and tone map it to get a more surreal effect. Is it just a matter of preference? </div><div> </div><div><div><a href="https://publish.comcast.net/wsb-cgi-bin/view.cgi/photo.html?wsbID=1027992&amp;SiteID=3429074" target="_blank"></a> </div></div><br><br>Message Edited by wingnut225 on <span class="date_text">07-28-2007</span> <span class="time_text">02:01 PM</span>

[canonist]

<div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr>wingnut225 wrote:<br><div></div><div></div><div>...to get a more surreal effect....</div><div> </div><div><hr></div></div></blockquote><br><div>I believe thats it, Im not an expert on hdr but the different ways to process images are for different looks or different effects.</div></div></div>

[SSAP]

<div>If it was all that simple, you would see many more &quot;WOW&quot; photos available. I don't see that many &quot;WOW&quot; HDR photos myself.</div><div> </div><div>True HDR requires multiple exposures regardless of JPEG or RAW shooting. A single exposure does not have the dynamic range to begin with, and thus computer manipulation does not create true HDR from a single exposure. Sure one can create incredible looking surreal photos from a single exposure by digital manipulation. But this is NOT true HDR imaging.</div><div> </div><div>When I look at the examples given on this forum, it is evident that scene selection, color contrast, and light direction still play a significant role in excellent HDR images. It seems most &quot;WOW&quot; HDR photos are shot directly into a rising or setting sun.</div><div> </div><div>In short, HDR still requires very skilled photography techniques. Not just manipulation of single exposure curves/levels abstract.</div><div> </div><div>I see some of the images on this website, I desperately want to be able to create something likewise with the dynamic range and beauty. I see others that look like most of mine, that makes me look like a wannabe HDR Image creator.</div><div> </div><div>Basically the way I see it, is that really fine HDR requires and certain eye for the shot from the photographer, along with excellent skill in tone mapping and color control. </div><div> </div><div>Just my humble opinion!</div><div> </div>

[kdude66]

<font size="4"><font face="Arial">I totally agree with both canonist and ssaps comments on hdr.i think you need a WOW image to begin with,composition,subject matter,angle of shot,and most importantly perfect lighting for the effect you want to create.with all that has been said then there are different levels or effects you can take a image too.a basic hdr that has an increase in dynamic range,opening up the shadows with detail and without clipping highlights,getting a image that only one frame can't.the next level tone mapped and color saturation boosted a little higher including more contrast in the scene.then going even more extreme giving a surreal look but not unrealistic,actually turning a mere photo into artwork.the next level i really don't know what to call it creates a unreal,possibly somtimes a sci fi look,but that does'nt means it's bad just diff. it just depends on what effect or look your trying to get in the end result.i will say it has made me a better photogragher and pixel pusher in photoshop,it is an excellant challenge taking picture making to a whole new level.i hope i helped you,thanks for posting.kdude66 </font></font><div></div>

[wingnut225]

<div></div> <div>Thanks for the input!&nbsp; I have processed a few that make one wonder if it is a photo or art work.&nbsp; Here's one:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><a href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1333/889991239_bbe0328609_o.jpg" target="_blank">http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1333/889991239_bbe0328609_o.jpg</a></div><br><br>Message Edited by JackHoward on <span class=date_text>08-02-2007</span> <span class=time_text>10:24 PM</span>