File :-(, x, )
Anonymous!spleen
Hey /p/, what's your take on HDR, and what program do you use?
>> Macheath
Overused and many times not done properly. But it's beautiful when done right.

I don't do HDR but I hear Photomatix is good.
>> Anonymous
I don't get how it can be "overused." A picture is a picture and a good one is better than a bad one. If you see something that you want to capture and it needs to be HDR then how does that make it any less than a normal picture?
>> Macheath
It's overused when people take a picture and think the HDR is going to magically transform it from a boring picture into an awesome picture.
>> Anonymous
then the picture just sucks. You should just say that sucky pictures are overused.
>> Anonymous
What about when a perfectly good picture is made worse by poorly done HDR? HDR isn't a magical "make my picture more awesome" feature that some people seem to think it is.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this is an example of some BAD HDR.
>> thefamilyman
>>39331
shiny car is shiny
>> Anonymous
>>39331

kinda cool looking effect tho..
>> Anonymous
>>39331
This is a photograph? Are you sure it's not Gran Turismo 5?
>> Anonymous
>>39331
thats actually pretty cool looking if that isn't gt5. The shot itself isn't hot, butIt doesn't have to be ansel adams quality to show off hdr affects...
>> Anonymous
>>39331
there's three options to choose from when reducing your 32-bit hdr photo to normal, properly displayable/printable formats. one of the options keeps it looking 'real'. one of the options gays it up like this. (shrug)
>> Anonymous
>>39335
>>39336
I highly doubt you can use muddy black steelie rims in GT5 lol.
>> Anonymous
Pardon my high stupidity level, but what is this HDR yoy guys talk about?
>> Anonymous
>>39343
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
>> Anonymous
>>39325
3453671 hours in MSpaint
>> Anonymous
Any good hdr programs? I tried using that photomatix, but the free trial version isn't impressing me so far.
>> ????????
     File :-(, x)
HDR. Nice effect sometimes, but not all the time.

Most people misuse it entirely.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 (10.0x20061208 [20061208.beta.1251 02:00:00 cutoff; m branch]) WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:01:07 23:38:25Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width911Image Height604
>> Anonymous
Is there a tutorial somewhere on the interbutt about how to do HDR?
>> JFGI ac
>>39429
Maybe. Who can tell? If only there were some sort of web site that you could type search terms into--say 'hdr' and 'tutorial'--and have lots of web pages with the specified search come back to you.

But I guess technology just hasn't caught up to my mad crazy dreams yet.
>> Anonymous
>>39424
there's nothing HDR in this piece of shit, it's just a image with contrast and saturation turned up

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
>> Anonymous
>>39442
You don't know what HDR is do you?
>> Anonymous
>>39437

I was hoping /p/ already knew of a good one. Search engines can't make subjective quality judgments.
>> Anonymous
I've already tried the trial version of photomatix. It's easy. Just have three photos of the same picture with three different lighting conditions (one darkened, one regular (the original) and one lightened). HDR compiles all together into one photo to create that hdr effect.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>39449

Of course to make it work best, you really need an excellent camera that takes super-sharp cameras. Average-quality pictures end up not looking too good. Here's one I did of the San Ferando cathedral (the oldest cathedral in the US), and it doesn't look anywhere near as good as those two sample photos do.
>> Anonymous
>>39450
Photomatix [and probably other programs] say you should reduce the iso number to the lowest possible setting, that might be your problem.
>> Anonymous
>>39451

I used a basic $99 5mp digital camera. It's so cheap that I think they're full of shit with claiming it's 5mp, because it takes pics more like a 3mp. I don't think I have control over ISO.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's the original. I didn't do different exposures, made my own digitally with photoshop creating a lightened and darkened version. Maybe that's the problem?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height960SharpnessHard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>39453
>>made my own digitally with photoshop creating a lightened and darkened version. Maybe that's the problem?

most likely. Using the latest version of Photomatix, 2.3.1, you can load a single RAW file and generate a HDR image. Simply goto File -> Open and then select the RAW file. Photomatix will load the image and generate a HDR from it. You will still need to tone map the image after. I tried it but I didn’t really like the results. The image was too noisy and had some corruption in certain areas. The best method is still to take 3 bracketed images on site. [see image]

Based on my research, I've found Photomatix is just superior to photoshop, mostly because it gives you more control over the finished result. Whereas Photomatix is MADE for HDR photography, photoshop really just had this as an add-in for CS2. My guess is photoshop simply can't make HDR images from one file like Photomatix.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:04:01 16:09:03Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height401
>> thefamilyman
>>39458
i also like Photomatix, but i dont like how is puts dark gray areas in the wrong places.
for example on your pic, the building on the left has a gray tinge to it, it doesn't seem very 'high dynamic' the building, but more dull.
I hope you know what i mean, its too early int the morning here ^_^;;;
>> Anonymous
>>39459
saturation levels can be easily fixed
>> Anonymous
>>39331

Whoa even though you call it "bad" I think it's a cool effect. Makes it look like a video game.
>> Anonymous
>>39453
hdr isnt just combining a light and dark version of the same picture, its about taking overexposed and underexposed pictures to get the details in the dark and lights that are out of the range of the medium exposure. just darkening or lightening a picture in photoshop doesnt do that. the reason it can take a RAW and make an HDR is because RAWs contain more bits of data, so it can make artificial under/overexposed shots that have the detail in the shadows and highlights, not just darkened/lightened.
>> Anonymous
>>39501
I'll admit, the car does look cool, and when you zoom it the photo doesn't look half bad. But the background is insta-fail and the overall composition is amateurish.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> ac
>>39621
I really dig this. Better than reality.
>> Anonymous
>>39621
Looks shopped
>> Anonymous
>>39646
ITT anonymous states the obvious.
>> Anonymous
>>39621
wow HDR, quickly, someone submit this to DIGG!!
>> Anonymous
>>39621

I lold
>> ac
>>39621
I really like this image. I said it before and my post got deleted, which makes me think that some mod thought I was trolling, but I really do very much like it...
>> Anonymous
ITT flickr