HD Pictures

I have been playing with a trial HD software package and have come up with a few interesting results.
I would like your comments please.
Sorry about the watermark, that will go if I decide to buy the software.
Thankyou
Robert

 

The colours look false.................They just don't look natural......IMHO.

 

Hi, I know what you mean, but they look quite hypnotic to me.

On those increasingly rare days in your life where there is absolutely nothing to do but watch the world go by your eyes blur a little and this is a bit reminiscent of that.

I don`t really take photos for art, I paint rather but if I did I would be tempted by it.

They look a bit "trippy" to me.

 

Thanks guys.
It does seem that pictures some how lose the sparkle on conversion from PB.
When I look and these direct from drive they have more go.
Also I am short of pictures to use at the moment.
Ideally a minimum of three braketed exposures are required to carry out the exposure blending and tone mapping.
What it appears really good at is exposure blending.
I need to start shooting a few more braketed exposures.
I think my first efforts dont really do it justice. as I have seen some amazing pictures on flickr using this software.
Robert

 

HDR is not a case of buying the software and getting the results first time.Its an art in itself.I have photomatix,and although i dont use it much,i wouldnt be without it.
You really have to sit down and play with the settings,then,when your happy,open the HDR image in photoshop or whichever you use,and make more adjustments.eg brightness and contrast.
Maybe try

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/

Its a free HDR program.I've not tried it myself,and its probably not as good as photomatix,but it'll be perfectly ok to learn on and find out if you'll justify forking out for the better software.

Some of your images do have problems.With HDR,any bright areas will be multiplied,and can cause areas to look white,its also easy to get whats known as haloing,which is lighter areas around the tops of trees or houses etc.This is caused by excessive hdr work.

By far the best image you have is the one of the trees.3rd one down.Theres no apparent haloing or brightness problems,and all it needs is a bit of work in PS.

Stick with it,and if you have any questions or problems,feel free to message me.

Joe

 

Hope you dont mind.

 

Thanks Joe
Really good advise. I must admit I did not consider using photoshop after the HD process.
I shall try that free software you suggest and get a stock of pictures to practise on before going for purchase option.
Thanks again.
Watch this space..
Robert

 

Can't stand HDR myself, always strikes me that the majority of examples one sees are way overdone and as Roders says completely un natural to the point of often being bluddy awful. I'm sorry but I wouldn't even bother saving any of the above images.

There is no substitute for getting it right when you press the shutter. Even if it's not quite right then a few simple tweaks in Gimp or other photo processing package should be more than enough to make it an acceptable image.

There is no way to recover detail in overexposed blown highlights, nor to cure out of focus pics or those blurred by camera shake. Concentrate on curing these problems when taking a picture before wasting time and money on gimmicky software.

 

I totally agree Mike.HDR is one of those things that if you get wrong,then its a mess.If its done right though,it can bring life to a flat and uninteresting picture.A true and properly done HDR image should look like a normal picture.Unfortunatly,a lot of people either dont realise this,or they like the ovedone effect.
HDR to me,is a case of personal preference.You either like it or loath it.
Another mistake that people make,is believing that any picture will work.This is not true.For the best effect,you need a picture with the right lighting.One of the best,imho,places for getting hdr images,is insides of churches.The low light and stone seem to work almost perfectly together.

 

Heres not the best of pics for an example,but one that shows that HDR can be subtle.
The first is a normal pic,the second is the HDR version




HDR


This is a slightly better example than the one i previously uploaded.
The only real difference between the two is that the hdr software has brought out the detail.Apart from that,they are pretty much the same

 

Hi wiseowl.
You can use it with portraits,but as i said before,its not everyones cup of tea.So,if your doing a portrait for someone,make sure they like the effect first.I personally wouldnt.The above shot was done in HDR purely for this thread.
Why dont use the link above,and have a play around yourself.You'll soon find out what can and cant be done,and more importantly,what you do and dont like.
Joe

 

I have gone back to basics with HDR and made some more subtle adjustments.
First three pictures are the three original bracketed followed by HDR.
What do you reckon guys.
Robert

First pic at EV -1.0


This pic EV +1.0


This pic EV 0.0


This is the final HDR processed to my liking
Your comments of this please.

 

capney
Its not so easy is it

Try this.

http://tutorialblog.org/hdr-tutorials-roundup/

Joe