# HDR???



## SabrinaO (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't really know too much about HDR but I know it involves bracketing and some special HDR software. I decided to do these shots in "HDR", and thought of a different way. I just boosted clarity to the max, sharpening and contrast... and increased the black. Do these look HDR to you? If so, why do people go through all the trouble with the bracketing, layering, stacking, and the software?






















Also.. these arent THAT sharp... flickr just oversharpened them....


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 24, 2011)

Did you know there is an HDR discussion forum here?


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 24, 2011)

That's because you shot these in a studio with controlled lighting. Try getting a well balanced and exposed shot against the sunset.

You can definitely get tone mapped images out of single RAW file, but the dark areas will lack detail and when the software tries to make it brighter, it will have a lot of noise. Bracketed shots will capture the right amount of details at the respective exposure.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 24, 2011)

The purpose of HDR is to achieve a High Dynamic Range (hence HDR ) that is impossible to capture with your camera in a single exposure. Think of a simple scene where if you expose for the ground, the sky blows out or you expose for the sky and the ground is underexposed. This is a simple example of what HDR would achieve ( although in that simple example a split ND filter would work as well ). Most people have come to associate HDR with the effects that can be achieved by pushing the process. However, you cannot achieve true HDR without multiple exposures. You can however, fake the effect.


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 24, 2011)

> I don't really know too much about HDR but I know it involves bracketing and some special HDR software. I decided to do these shots in "HDR", and thought of a different way. I just boosted clarity to the max, sharpening and contrast... and increased the black. Do these look HDR to you? If so, why do people go through all the trouble with the bracketing, layering, stacking, and the software?


If you don't know much about it, why don't you first go to google for an advice?? These aren't HDR, you didn't increase dynamic range at all. 
Don't confuse overprocessed images for HDR!


----------



## jake337 (Sep 24, 2011)

So, what is the dynamic range of these images?

Or perhaps, what was the dynamic range of these scenes?

Take care when you say you like the "look of HDR photography" as it's purpose has been smeared by grunge. Many believe bracketing or "HDR" should be used when ones sensor or film cannot capture the scenes luminosity in a single exposre.

Others opinions vary.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2011)

Let's see you do the same thing with this shot:


----------



## pathoulihan1 (Sep 24, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> I don't really know too much about HDR but I know it involves bracketing and some special HDR software. I decided to do these shots in "HDR", and thought of a different way. I just boosted clarity to the max, sharpening and contrast... and increased the black. Do these look HDR to you? If so, why do people go through all the trouble with the bracketing, layering, stacking, and the software?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The difference is that in the studio you're able to use many different lighting techniques to make sure that there are no portions of your photo that are not going to be under/over exposed. Try doing what 480sparky has suggested. It's an interesting exercise (I tried it myself to no avail). No matter what you cannot make this single exposure look like it really covers the entire range of light in the image. You can certainly lighten the dark areas, but it won't look right. In your case the post editing did give you an interesting effect yes, but it's not HDR, nor would it be an effective use of the technique. However, I stand by what I've said in the past. If you like the effect that this technique gives your shot, then to hell with anyone elses opinion, but as for understanding the uses of HDR I think a little more research is required here.



480sparky said:


> Let's see you do the same thing with this shot:




A good example, well played.


----------



## tevo (Sep 24, 2011)

I would suggest looking into what HDR images actually are, before spending any more time overprocessing single exposure photos... :S


----------



## Kerbouchard (Sep 24, 2011)

I think you succeeded.  They look like most HDR images I have seen...Overprocessed with a cartoon-like effect.  

Btw, that's not a good thing.


----------



## SabrinaO (Sep 24, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> The purpose of HDR is to achieve a High Dynamic Range (hence HDR ) that is impossible to capture with your camera in a single exposure.* Think of a simple scene where if you expose for the ground, the sky blows out or you expose for the sky and the ground is underexposed. This is a simple example of what HDR would achieve* ( although in that simple example a split ND filter would work as well ). Most people have come to associate HDR with the effects that can be achieved by pushing the process. However, you cannot achieve true HDR without multiple exposures. You can however, fake the effect.



Thanks! Now I understand why you have to bracket... especially for scenic shots


----------



## SabrinaO (Sep 24, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Let's see you do the same thing with this shot:



Im gonna try this! I mean I don't think anyone would try to do this shot in HDR even if they did bracket, but I think taking a single exposure of a scene that is exposed properly can be turned into an _HDR like_ effect with that one image.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Sep 24, 2011)

I think you might be missing the point of HDR, it's not a look you're trying to achieve...   I think the better you are at HDR the harder it is to tell it is done.  I think Sparky posted a great picture for HDR, I do kind of like the cartoony effect you can get from HDR but I don't think it's what it's really about.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 24, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Im gonna try this! I mean I don't think anyone would try to do this shot in HDR even if they did bracket, but I think taking a single exposure of a scene that is exposed properly can be turned into an _HDR like_ effect with that one image.



The window - HDR by Margall | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## SabrinaO (Sep 24, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Im gonna try this! I mean I don't think anyone would try to do this shot in HDR even if they did bracket, but I think taking a single exposure of a scene that is exposed properly can be turned into an _HDR like_ effect with that one image.
> ...



Nice! So I tried to convert your photo to an "HDR" look and its not working at all.  It looks really bad I guess because of how underexposed the foreground is... so I see the point in bracketing. 
Would I get the same result if i didn't bracket but just took a properly exposed image,  and made a overexposed and underexposed copy in photoshop?


----------



## shootermcgavin (Sep 24, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...



Probably not, you want to take a couple under exposed and a couple over... or in simplistic terms you just want to make sure everything in your picture is exposed in one of the shots...  I still am waiting for the right opportunity to use HDR, if you push it you end up just getting a weird looking photo.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see you do the same thing with this shot:
> ...



Then your challenge will be to take it and make it look like this:







Let us know how you're going to bring out the details in the windowsill when it's 100% pure white.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 24, 2011)

I wish you people who dont understand what HDR is or means please read up. Its expanding the visible image, giving details in overexposed areas as well as in underexposed areas. This cartoonish look you mention is NOT HDR it is tone mapping. You can tone map a single jpeg file to look cartoony but thats NOT HDR. At the worst a good HDR should look like you can reach out and touch it. Beyond that it is simply the ineptitude or purposeful actions of the photographer.

Excellent example Sparky.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 24, 2011)

Bynx said:


> I wish you people who dont understand what HDR is or means please read up. Its expanding the visible image, giving details in overexposed areas as well as in underexposed areas. This cartoonish look you mention is NOT HDR it is tone mapping. You can tone map a single jpeg file to look cartoony but thats NOT HDR. At the worst a good HDR should look like you can reach out and touch it. Beyond that it is simply the ineptitude or purposeful actions of the photographer.
> 
> Excellent example Sparky.



My take on HDR is if a scene has more dynamic range than a given sensor can capture, then HDR is one of the easiest ways possible to capture the range present.

For instance, if the scene has 14 stops of dynamic range, and the camera sensor can only record 7 stops of range, then you'll need _at least_ 7 exposures to record the entire range of the scene.  Taking one 'correct' exposure will result in either shadows with no detail in them (0:0:0) or highlights that are totally blown out (255:255:255), or, mostly likely....both.  In any case, there is _no_ data present in the 0:0:0 or 255:255:255 areas, and therefore no amount of post processing is going to magically recreate it.


----------

