# My first HDR try, please rate me hard and tell me how it looks



## BLD_007 (Feb 16, 2010)

Picture is of my Fraternity house...



1.









2.






What do you think?


----------



## bazooka (Feb 16, 2010)

Whoa.


----------



## mdtusz (Feb 16, 2010)

They aren't your typical HDR that's for sure. A little overdone some might say, but they look nice. Try to tone it down a bit though. IMO.


----------



## TylerF (Feb 16, 2010)

bazooka said:


> Whoa.



this is exactly what i said lol.

i think it is way over done imo.


----------



## BLD_007 (Feb 16, 2010)

mdtusz said:


> They aren't your typical HDR that's for sure. A little overdone some might say, but they look nice. Try to tone it down a bit though. IMO.




What do you mean by "not your typical HDR?" This was my first shot at HDR.

What am I looking for in post processing? I have the 3 pictures +2 0 -2 but after that what do I do to make it your "typical HDR"?

thanks


----------



## BLD_007 (Feb 16, 2010)

What about this one?

3.


----------



## MrRamonG (Feb 16, 2010)

I think the first one looks pretty cool, almost like a drawing.  But you should work on removing the hallo around the structure.


----------



## Tulsa (Feb 16, 2010)

defiantly not how I prefer HDR!!

take the revised version above and edit it some, add some contrast and brightness and play with the levels


----------



## burnws6 (Feb 16, 2010)

*sighs*


----------



## BLD_007 (Feb 17, 2010)

is my lighting just wrong or composition?


----------



## Tulsa (Feb 17, 2010)

READ MY RESPONSE. It says what you need to do.

Here, this is what I was talking about... now I did this real quick, might be too saturated, but you get the idea...


----------



## rallysman (Feb 17, 2010)

try shooting 1 stop apart. The result will be more subtle.


----------



## BLD_007 (Feb 17, 2010)

I did do -1 0 + 1. I just have not yet played around with them.

I like it but I also want to make it so others like it as well.

Do HDRs work better when there is low light? This was shot at 4pm with somewhat overcast. It was bright out so I only used 100iso.

Lower light+more colors= better HDR?


----------



## rallysman (Feb 17, 2010)

A good HDR is one that's questionable if the HDR process was even applied. If you can look at it and see the surreal over saturated colors immediately it's not necessarily bad, but a lot of people don't like it. It all comes down to personal preference. I like a little mix of the surreal look with realistic details.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 17, 2010)

good HDR=




In your photo, there isn't really a need for HDR, as the light levels appear to be pretty consistent across the whole field of view.


----------



## Provo (Feb 17, 2010)

Wow this hdr almost looks like it game from a game on the sega 32bit gaming console or sony ps1 back then we thought the graphics where wow the future of gaming now we look at it as what the * 

Weird hdr approach but hey someone here will like it im sure.


----------



## rallysman (Feb 17, 2010)

Here's an example of where I use HDR. 







If I didn't use some sort of post processing in this shot I would have lost the detail in the ceiling and in the windows. I know it's not a perfect shot, but it would have been a lot worse without the HDR process. I could have used a RAW file and achieved similar effects, but Photomatix makes it too easy. It also makes it too easy to over do.


----------



## CNCO (Feb 18, 2010)

i think the problem is the photo. the hdr should show more detail and contrast. you took the image from too far of a distance.


----------



## CNCO (Feb 18, 2010)

btw, nice house. what college?


----------



## BLD_007 (Feb 19, 2010)

CNCO said:


> btw, nice house. what college?



William Jewell College: Lambda Chi Alpha


----------



## BLD_007 (Feb 19, 2010)

CNCO said:


> i think the problem is the photo. the hdr should show more detail and contrast. you took the image from too far of a distance.



I'm going to redo it this weekend, Its a big house, I had to take it from across the street. 

My two glasses are 70-200 2.8L and some stock cheap 18-65 glass?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 19, 2010)

A single exposure shot with the 70-200 would look way better than the HDR that you posted.


----------



## bazooka (Feb 19, 2010)

I say this having never tried HDR, but your 3rd attempt is much more practical. It's still strange looking because of uneven processing across the house, and the tree seems to be causing problems, but it almost looks "normal". If you're going for an artistic crazy processed shot, and you like it personally, then that's ok. But to get most people to like the shot, it seems that it's best to make it not look like it's been processed at all, like someone else suggested.

As for myself, I feel HDR is a tool to be used when lighting varies greatly across a scene, where you want to capture the entire scene instead of recomposing tighter to remove areas that are too bright (often the sky), or too dark (often backlit).


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

Here is an example of an HDR that I consider to be alittle overdone, but I really like that effect... 






The point of HDR is to bring out the highs and the lows in the tones... Your first 2 photos are really trippy but not what is expected out of HDR...

If you want, click the link in my sig, there is a tutorial there on how I did the above photo... Good luck and keep posting...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 19, 2010)

Sirashley said:


> Here is an example of an HDR that I consider to be alittle overdone, but I really like that effect...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That one is misaligned.  And the clouds definitely moved between exposures.


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 19, 2010)

I'll try an stay away from beating a dead horse, BUT the reason your photo doesn't work for most of us is, you went overboard on the tone mapping (dragging those sliders). We probably all have experimented with it, but you really have to learn where to use it, and under what conditions it works best.

I happen to think a perfect place for it is inside a building with areas of shadow, and light outside filtering in (rallysman's photo for example).

I would imagine that you are looking for a photo with some decent range, color, and detail. You CAN use something like a mild HDR conversion, but honestly I prefer to do it myself in Photoshop. I would personally break that single photo up into a few different parts and edit them independently, and then merge them back together into a photo with more range, and more pop where you want it.

If you check out the thread I linked in my signature (topic #3) you'll see an example.


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 19, 2010)

I do not think that field "HDR" works either.


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Sirashley said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an example of an HDR that I consider to be alittle overdone, but I really like that effect...
> ...



What makes this misaligned? The clouds did move but it was really windy so not much can be done about. I don't see where its misaligned anywhere else. If it were misaligned, you wouldn't be able to read the signs right?  Can you point that out, maybe I'm just missing it?

and I agree with Dominant that the HDR doesn't really work for this image, I just happen to like the image and I can't post the one I did later in that evening with a different scene because its in a challenge that has to remain anonymous, so I can't post it until March 8...


----------



## loki05 (Feb 19, 2010)

Here's my version:


----------

