File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/

Post some fuckin HDR you've made.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:26 02:22:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1296Image Height1936
>> Anonymous
what in the heck is HDR???

nice pic by the way...
>> Anonymous
HDR: High Dynamic Range.

When applied to photography, it refers to using a bracketed set of photographs (one normal, one over, one under) and using software like Photomatix or Photoshop CS3 to combine the 3 pictures. What ends up happening is the final image has a more dynamic range than a regular photograph, with more detail in highlight regions (do to the underexposed shot) and the shadow regions (do to the overexposed shot). Usually they also take on a strange quality that makes them looks like they're out of a videogame or are just bizarrely surreal.

People on /p/ don't like HDR because they think any retard with a camera that brackets can take a series of 3 shitty photos and make an HDR photograph that looks good. They think it's the easy way out. I try to use good composition when I decide to make an HDR photograph instead of just taking shitty pics, which is win-win.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here again.

Fuckin post some. I know someone has some.
>> Anonymous
>>71597>People on /p/ don't like HDR because they think any retard with a camera that brackets can take a series of 3 shitty photos and make an HDR photograph that looks good.


That's not it at all. It's because they do it wrong. Proper HDR doesn't "take on a strange quality that makes them looks like they're out of a videogame or are just bizarrely surreal" as you put it.
>> Anonymous
>>71604
true. its supposed to produce a photo with a dynamic range like you would see it with your eyes since normal photos have a limited dynamic range that the camera can capture.

when it looks surreal or like its out of a video game, they're doing it wrong. it's supposed to look as close to real lighting as possible on your screen.
>> Anonymous
>>71597
>(do to the underexposed shot)

Im going to guess that you are American.

The word you are looking for here is "Due" not "do".

They may sound the same with the american accent, but they are not the same word.

Other than that, very informative post.
>> Anonymous
There's no "right" way to make an HDR picture; the surreal quality is one of the draws that it has for many people (me included). Increasing the dynamic range in any photograph will make it look somewhat surreal anyways, because your eyes do not see like that despite their 550 megapixel glory.

And sorry for the do/due fiasco. I do know the difference, but my fingers go faster than my brain.
>> Anonymous
>>71855

Well, as far as right and wrong go, I'm just going to hit on one pet peeve of mine.

HDR involves three separate shots. The thing I hate is when some kid takes one RAW shot and just changes the exposure settings digitally, then calls it HDR. True HDR shots requite three separate shots to be taken. After all, if you have highlights or shadows, dropping the exposure in photoshop isn't going to do diddly shit for something that has achieved pure white.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I got sum HDRs

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:04:22 23:51:35Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2000Image Height3008
>> Anonymous
>>71858

I mentioned using 3 seperate shots. That's what I do for all of mine. I tried doing a single shot HDR with modifying exposure values, but it looked like shit. So fuck it, how damn hard is it to bracket?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i was trying to HDR the clouds, but my ancient fucking camera doesnt support bracketing in RAW mode... Tried to do it by hand but the clouds move too fast -this is what happened.
>> Anonymous
I take 7 shots for my HDR. Are those 4 extra shots redundant?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>71888
Not necessarily. More shots will give you a better sample set to work with. Technically you could do HDR with as little as two, but there's no upper limit.
>> Anonymous
>>71862
Nice. How did you take these shots in quick enough succession?
>> Anonymous
>>71888
I've found that getting moar shots reduces the noise in the final image. In Photomatix at least.
>> Anonymous
>>71599
>>71592
>>71862
These are the first HDR shots I've seen that I've liked.
>> Anonymous
>>72096

OP here. Is that so? I use Photomatix so that's interesting to hear. I might try it.