My Feeble Attempt at HDR

[JanJan]

This is my first time trying HDR. It’s not the greatest shot, but at least I didn’t take one shot and over-saturated it, bumped up the clarity to 100%, or even remotely made it look like it’s radioactive. I just simply took 8 separate shots on a tripod with different exposures, and merged it with Photoshop’s “Merge to HDR Pro”. I did some tweaks to lower the saturation, but it still has some saturation.

Please be gentle and let me know if I’m heading in the right direction with experimenting with HDR, or should I just simply forget about it!

http://www.anjanette365project.tumblr.com/image/56112004937

 

[JanJan]

I forgot to mention that the sky was VERY gloomy, gray, and bland.

[Worst Case Scenario]

It’s not the worst HDR I’ve seen (by a long way) but the halos around the trees are dead give away. There’s not much shadow detail either, did you do any HDR work in the dark areas? Also the colours  look a bit off, unless you really do have blue roads where you live.
I’m mostly a portrait photographer so don’t really have any need so HDR but I have  dabbled and found the PS version to be quite hard to use. If there’s anyone out there who does now how to USE any HDR programs I’d like to know. Everyone I’ve every asked has no idea what the sliders are doing they just fiddle with them till they get what they like.

[cameraclicker]

Mostly tiles instead of shingles, yet no sidewalks!  And, short driveways!  It looks like you were getting into the blue hour just before dark.  There may be one early in the morning but I am never up early enough to see it.

Trey Ratcliff is the guy for HDR.  His blog is here:  http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

[JustAndy]

You know, take it or leave it, but I think the HDR train may have just about run its course.  Be careful in your application of it, I’m finding more and more people who not only loathe it, but find it to be the mark of an amateur (I tend to disagree, but it’s like so many other things, people remember the truly awful and forget the ones that succeed through subtly…).

If you enjoy it, then please, by all means pursue it!  Just don’t use it as a crutch like so many others.  Halos and over saturation do not make it artistic, it makes an image a mess.

Also, please, please, please, do true HDR by bracketing images vs. tone-maping a single image and presenting it as a an actual HDR, man I hate that…

[nesgran]

I’m not a fan of the automatic HDR, I much prefer if you manually blend the photos. Usually two is enough, one for the sky and one for the rest. It won’t look fake and the resulting image looks like real world. It is also a bit easier to deal with than gradual ND filters while out shooting

[unholygrail]

I agree with the previous posters that the bright areas around the trees are a dead give away. Otherwise it’s not too bad, it looks good on the cars. Personally, i’d duplicate this layer over the original one and bring the opacity of the HDR sky down to 50%…it’s just “too much” here imo.

I agree with another poster who said HDR is running its course. I think it is at the point of becoming associated with fauxtogs. Lately ive been hearing more derogatory things about it. I just read a blog of one well-known photographer who said something along the lines of “you don’t want to be one of those photographers who do tacky things like railroad tracks, vintage suitcases, HDR, etc..” And I was surprised to see HDR on that list because it was so huge and (apparently) accepted a few years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you shouldn’t use it just because some photographers think it is passé. I still think it can look good when subtle. I just think what people are saying about it is worth noting because reputation management is so important for professional and aspiring photographers.

 

[ebi]

HDR is stupid. Instead, shoot at dusk and take beautiful shots the way nature intended things to look. You don’t see HDR work in magazines because it’s hokey and gimmicky.

[cameraclicker]

HDR is stupid.

I disagree.  Photos which are the result of bad HDR technique might be stupid.  I could agree with that, I think.  HDR is just a tool, like split and graduated ND filters.  Done well, the result gets “Wow!  How did they do that?” or no one notices HDR was used because it is just a really well exposed photo.  Done for effect you get a cartoon look which I have seen done exceptionally well only a few times, so it is a bit like a fish eye lens in that respect.  Certain aspects of it get old quickly.

If you shoot fashion, you can plan (and probably frequently have to plan) days, weeks or months in advance.  You choose the locations, get permits, hire models and make up artists, and perhaps have the luxury of choosing the time of day.   If you shoot events, news, travel, or do street photography, you have the location, light and scene as it is, and in a second it will be different so you either deal with it, or you miss the shot and it is gone forever.  Different styles, perhaps different tools, different budgets, different results.  Apples vs oranges in lots of respects, but light is still light.

[emf]

I agree with you CC, while it can be totally overcooked, the actual technique is interesting and if done without being ‘evident’ can produce beautiful results, imo.  Maybe I don’t know too much what I’m talking about as I am a noob but I imagine it’s used a lot in magazines in such a way.

It’s just unfortunately been hijacked by quite a few colour blind people who wanna make everything go ‘POP’!

[ebi]

it’s not used in magazines much at all. it’s surrealistic and not appealing. There are some photographers that use it to varying results. Gary Land tends to overdo it sometimes, but he’s successful nonetheless: http://www.garylandphotography.com/  But his work is very commercial/advertising. You’d not see these in the pages of magazines (unless they were advertisements)

[emf]

Thanks ebi, that is interesting.

[Author]

Posts