# HDR Shots



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

If you're using Photoshop CS6 then the HDR is good. Photomatix is the leader in the software for HDR. The tone mapping is good in Photomatix. 
I think Photomatix did the plug in for Adobe. Prior version stunk at HDR. 
It's a matter of playing with the settings until you get what you want.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Ask yourself - what is HDR? Why should I use it?

With HDR you are trying to reduce the dynamic range of your subject, because it is too large to be captured with a regular sensor. This happens often with night shots, sunsets, backlight situations, etc. It helps to prevent blown-out highlights, while maintaining some detail in the deepest shadows.

Now if you start with an image that is already low on contrast, the results will be atrocious, as you show in your examples. :icon_mrgr

In your 3 shots, the mid exposure (first one) is fine - you want to use that as your starting point for further image editing, to reduce the flatness etc. Merging the over- and underexposed variations into this won't really do any good. Generally speaking, apart from the situations mentioned above, there are astonishingly few photos that gain a lot by applying HDR.


----------



## samee (Oct 14, 2011)

Wasserpest said:


> Ask yourself - what is HDR? Why should I use it?
> 
> With HDR you are trying to reduce the dynamic range of your subject, because it is too large to be captured with a regular sensor. This happens often with night shots, sunsets, backlight situations, etc. ...there are astonishingly few photos that gain a lot by applying HDR.



Yea thats what I thought  Even with taking HDRs of random things I saw very little difference. Then I checked google images and many of them go along a certain theme you could say (sunsets, backlight situations...)


What I dont get is this pic. I clears out the blur, in my pics, its the opposite. Its taken during a cloudy day too. I guess its playing with photoshop settings.











Also, thanks for the response guys.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

That's not "true" HDR... as in, merging several shots to get something looking fake :red_mouth

Starting with CS5 Photoshop has an HDR filter (HDR toning) that can be applied to a single image. Most of the options totally destroy the photo, but there is one called local adaptation that is pretty good in faking a fake HDR look. Like you said, it is playing with the settings, but keep in mind that this is actually the opposite of what HDR is about: artificially increasing the dynamic range by combining bracketed shots.

IMO the best cure for flat pictures is in the Curves command, but that needs some experience. Less subtle ways include increasing saturation, adjusting levels, and applying various filters (Soft Light, for example).

None of this is true HDR...


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

Wasserpest said:


> That's not "true" HDR... as in, merging several shots to get something looking fake :red_mouth
> 
> Starting with CS5 Photoshop has an HDR filter (HDR toning) that can be applied to a single image. Most of the options totally destroy the photo, but there is one called local adaptation that is pretty good in faking a fake HDR look. Like you said, it is playing with the settings, but keep in mind that this is actually the opposite of what HDR is about: artificially increasing the dynamic range by combining bracketed shots.
> 
> ...


CS5's "tone mapping" sucks though. 6 has much better algorithms. 
HDR tries to expand the range. And in many photos is the only way to achieve the right look. The sensor can't capture any where near what the human eye sees. HDR done right looks good. Your trying to pop the color and get detail in the highlights and shadows. Some images I see HDR would have been better by double processing instead.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

GraphicGr8s said:


> HDR tries to expand the range.
> 
> The sensor can't capture any where near what the human eye sees.


I guess its semantics... The sensor can't capture it all because the dynamic range of the subject is too wide/large/big to start with. So you are taking several shots to effectively reduce the existing dynamic range of the subject and fit it in one image. Looking from the subject POV you are trying to reduce the range, as a result you effectively increase the range that the sensor would not have been able to capture in a single image. 

My point is that HDR is for high contrast pictures, not to fix flat ones (which one might conclude from "tries to expand the range").

Well now I need another coffee.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

Wasserpest said:


> I guess its semantics... The sensor can't capture it all because the dynamic range of the subject is too wide/large/big to start with. So you are taking several shots to effectively reduce the existing dynamic range of the subject and fit it in one image. Looking from the subject POV you are trying to reduce the range, as a result you effectively increase the range that the sensor would not have been able to capture in a single image.
> 
> My point is that HDR is for high contrast pictures, not to fix flat ones (which one might conclude from "tries to expand the range").
> 
> Well now I need another coffee.


Mmmmm Coffee.

Although I do a lot of HDR for clients I personally don't like 9 out of 10 that I do. They love them. Makes me ill to do but money is money. 
Like you said, you need shots that are taken specifically for HDR post and good shots at that. (People takes shots specifically for HDR but they aren't worth a tinker's dam.)
I get this really strange vibe that we might, just might actually agree on this HDR crap. But I could be wrong. It happened once. In 1809.


----------



## shift (Jan 7, 2013)

Im more of a fan of the realistic HDR shots.. where its brings out the details in highlight/lowlights but doesnt push it to far as to look fake


----------



## IWANNAGOFAST (Jan 14, 2008)

Here's a few I took using the HDR function on my d7100. I really really like the fake HDR look



















Haven't tried out photoshop yet


----------



## samee (Oct 14, 2011)

Dang 1st pic looks epic. Mind posting the original with normal saturation?

Yes I agree with the "fake". My goal is to get a sunset shot of a street after a rain storm (roads all wet). The one pic I saw on google was epic. But in the end, after fiddling with photoshop settings, the pic looks better.


----------

