Has anyone tried HDR (High Dynamic Range) proccessing photography, i had never heard of it before until i've just seen a photo on my nephews Flickr page..
Here's a website about it.
Often overdone in my I M H O. It can work for some scenes.
I don't like it either - it has to be subtle or it looks dreadful
Can be useful in high-contrast scenes (church interiors, cityscapes, etc.) and can look good if done subtly. Can also look good (artistically, not naturally) if overdone. BUT... it's very difficult to do well and a bad HDR shot is, well, a bad HDR shot!
Ditto to all the above. A silly fad. The sooner it passes the better , but unfortunately another just as silly will follow it. Proper photography goes on forever.
I've tried HDR on some of the more colourful birds, such as Blue Tit, but it just never looked right. I agree with the sentiments above, it works well on architecture. I am more indifferent to it .. a good picture is a good picture regardless of it is a HDR one or not.
The original reason for the use of HDR post shot processing was to cater for the fact that camera sensors had a limited exposure range to that available to print and discernible to the human eye.
As sensors continue to improve there is less "need" to use HDR, though with extreme contrast situations it can still present a better representation of a scene.
This of course assumes that it is done well on a suitable subject
The idea of HDR is that you 3 or 5 pictures of the same scene under and over exposed by 1 or 2 stops, then blend together to bring out the highlights and shadows that a single shot doesn't capture. The real art is the toning of the image which can make or break a picture.
This works well with subjects that stay still unlike most birds. The HDR process is getting better but still need a lot of work. Most single images can be given an HDR look by using Highlights and Shadows in photoshop.
Hope this helps...
I use HDR occasionally. Here;s one that worked quite well.
LOL you made it invisible!!!!
Try again Trugga. The gremlins have eaten it.
Hmm, photos didn't upload, therefore tried to delete my post.
Oh well, I'll try again later
HDR , or Tonemapping as it ought to be called , is a special effect and like all special effects it should be used sparingly and only when it works really well. Otherwise it becomes commonplace and no longer special.
True HDR requires 32bits per color channel, JPG has 8 bits per color channel thus cannot display HDR. Tonemapping is used to somewhat visualize the 96 bit High Dynamic Range on LDR peripherals like monitors and printers or LDR image formats like JPEG via compression . Certain tonemapping compression settings / formats also create large color/highlight/shadow shifts which has nothing to do with the dynamic range realism HDR was created for which is all the more reason not to call such "Artists impressions" as HDR.
Taking EV bracketed frames of a scene with little brightness/contrast difference that could have given a correct exposure with a single picture and merging the bracketed frames is not HDR
Aha, photos are now uploading.
Here's a HDR's image:
Made up of the following:
1. Exposed for the sky:
2. General scene exposure:
3. and one for the stone work:
If I recall, these were actually hand held. In hindsight, I should of used a tripod and re-thought the composition.
HDR does not have to be over done, in fact in some instance, it can be a very usefull tool.