File :-(, x, )
HDRs Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Hmmmm so i tried to use the 'Tone Compressor' option in Photomatix to try and avoid the cartoonish HDRs that you always see... got this...

I'd like to think it aint bad for a first effort
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:18 02:17:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width911Image Height603
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
     File :-(, x)
Here's the regular ol HDR

Both are composed of 3 images at -0.7, 0, 0.7 ev

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:18 02:17:54Image Width911Image Height603
>> Anonymous
I really appreciate the effort. Now teach this skill to the world.
>> Anonymous
>>84518
shit

>>84517
damn good
>> Anonymous
>>84517
That's good, I'll have to try it if I can be bothered to install that software again.

I tried using Photomatix and hated the results it came out with. I prefer using Photoshop to manually create a subtle HDR, as 'true' HDR images look horrible imo.
>> Anonymous
>>84517
Post original pic or GTFO!
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>84623

huh? are you asking me to post the 3 original shots or the original high res? or is that a critique saying i need to be more original?
>> Anonymous
>>84660
Could you post the originals? Your first shot actually looks really natural, it's awesome. I'm curious to see the scene without HDR.
>> Anonymous
photoshopped!
>> Anonymous
Being I've missed this whole "HDR" /p/hase (I'm still doing macro, always will be) I want to know. HOW? I know it's layering but... how? over expose? regular and under expose layers? or what.. I don't quite get it
>> Anonymous
>>85118
Pretty much.

You take a number of shots at different exposures (I like 5, but others just do 3), then run it through a program which will take the detailed areas of each and combine them.

The overexposed picture will grab the detail from shadows, the underexposed picture will grab the detail from highlights, and the normal exposure gets the rest.

That's the gist of it anyway. Pretty fun stuff.
>> Anonymous
It's one way of getting a better dynamic range from the camera than otherwise possible. Useful if you don't have something like the Fuji DSLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>85136
Something I've wondered: if the highlights are blown on the shadows shot, and the shadows are crushed on the highlights shot, will it still work?
>> Anonymous
>>85169
thats...kind of the point. it pulls details from areas that are blown out or completely black and puts it together.
>> Anonymous
>>85169

As someone else pointed out, that's the point.

Wikipedia has a good article on the basic premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDR_example_-_exposure.jpeg

On the first image, see how the clouds are visible? The second is your normal exposure, and the last you can start to see details in the shadows.

The software just takes all the detail info and combines it into a single image, then attempts to match the tone range appropriately. Sometimes it fails or the user tries to overpower the image and you get a look that basically looks like a painting. It just comes off as fake. That's what a lot of photographers don't like because it's a bastardization of photography. It's just electronic art.
>> Anonymous
>>85170
Okay. I knew what it did, but I didn't know if it needed a little bit of detail everywhere in each image, so one would have to make sure that the highlights weren't totally blown, etc., or whether it can do it with none.