# Two HDR photos



## robertwsimpson (Jun 8, 2010)

C&C is welcome...  A little back story: This is Jaguar's newest car, which just became available to the public last week.  Hope you enjoy!


----------



## blatty86 (Jun 8, 2010)

Nice car that first pic has alot of dark spots and blotches. I like the second one but u can't see much hdr in it


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 8, 2010)

What do you mean, "you can't see much hdr in it?"


----------



## blatty86 (Jun 8, 2010)

The only par of the picture standing out is the front fascia of the car


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 8, 2010)

I agree the first image is a good candidate for HDR.  How did you make it? Did you use multiple exposures or multiple files of the same exposure?

I think there's a lot more to be had.  I've only just started doing HDR in my architectural shots.  It's taking me a bit of time, but I think each try brings me closer to what I want.

-Pete


----------



## McNugget801 (Jun 8, 2010)

The scene did does not need to be HDR... you could of just used a single exposure.


----------



## Provo (Jun 8, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/40483547@N07/4681750379/
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/40483547@N07/4682381132/
> 
> C&C is welcome... A little back story: This is Jaguar's newest car, which just became available to the public last week. Hope you enjoy!


 
#1 image if you look at the top of that corner you can't deny the halo now don't tell me it's the sky because it's not, It does have some very dark areas.

#2 looks like a standard image, why is the exif data removed on both images?:er:


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 8, 2010)

blatty86 said:


> The only par of the picture standing out is the front fascia of the car



The front fascia of the car is kind of the whole point of the photo, so I guess I did my job!



Christie Photo said:


> I agree the first image is a good candidate for HDR.  How did you make it? Did you use multiple exposures or multiple files of the same exposure?
> 
> I think there's a lot more to be had.  I've only just started doing HDR in my architectural shots.  It's taking me a bit of time, but I think each try brings me closer to what I want.
> 
> -Pete



multiple exposures.

I don't know what you mean by the second part... what more can be had?



McNugget801 said:


> The scene did does not need to be HDR... you could of just used a single exposure.



Isn't that usually the case?  I used HDR to bring out a little more detail in the shadows and highlights.



Provo said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/40483547@N07/4681750379/
> ...



#1, I don't understand what you're talking about.  I don't see any halo in that photo.

#2, I am glad it looks like a standard image.  That means I'm doing it correctly.  I am guessing that the exif data is removed because of photomatix.  That is the program that I use to create the HDR image.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 8, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I don't know what you mean by the second part... what more can be had?



Oh, you could get a bunch more in the shadows...  a bit of "pop."  And the signage looks a bit muddy.

And yeah...  there's definitely a halo/glow goin' on around the top of the building.  It's quite apparent.

-Pete


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 8, 2010)

I kind of see the halo now.  I must say that I dodged the heck out of the signs and the sky.  I am sure that is why that halo is there and the signs look a bit muddy.  I will spend more time on them next time


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 8, 2010)

I should have just layered and masked instead of dodging.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jun 8, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I must say that I dodged the heck out of the signs and the sky.




Hmmm....

Now remember, I'm new to this too.

Did you _dodge_ or _burn_ the sky and signs?

But why would you have to do either with an HDR image?  Help me understand.

-Pete


----------



## Provo (Jun 8, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> blatty86 said:
> 
> 
> > The only par of the picture standing out is the front fascia of the car
> ...


 
All I did was invert the image to show you the halo don't know about you
but on my monitor I can clearly see the halo, and no my monitor is just fine. 

I know you were going for that natural look hell I must have hundreds of standard hdr images then that have been done so well. Don't gas up your head bro how you expect people to respect you if you&#8217;re going to criticize peoples work but when you&#8217;re own image is criticize you treat as perfection I can&#8217;t respect that there is nothing indicating in the #2nd indicating HDR on it. You can disagree all you want to but you asked for critique so I gave it.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 9, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > I must say that I dodged the heck out of the signs and the sky.
> ...



I used photoshop tool "dodge."  This lightens portions of the photo that you want lightened.  Most people will pull a photo out of photomatix and upload it right away because they are done.  I think that creating the HDR is just the first step.  I still put it in photoshop afterward and give it a little more help.  I must admit, I'm not the best person to ask about HDR, as I am not very good at it.  I still like to try, though.



Provo said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > blatty86 said:
> ...



I guess I need to learn whatever language that is, because I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## TheSolicitor (Jun 9, 2010)

What he's saying is that when you have multiple people telling you the same thing about a photograph, in this case the halo around the top corner of the building, (which was evident to me in a standard viewing but also in an inverted color viewing) those people aren't likely to be yanking your chain.

If you didn't see it and didn't know where to look, you could have asked one of the posters who saw it rather than claiming that your photograph was fine and that there was no halo.

The issue here is one of lowest common denominator.  When you have lots of people telling you something about your photography, whether it be how to improve, how to avoid an effect, or asking you how you did it...it's probably not them.  It's you.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm not sure why you think I'm denying the halo...

look at post numbers 8 and 10... at no point did I say "there is no halo, my photos are perfect."  In post number 8, I said that I didn't see a halo, and in post number 10, I said that I could see the halo.  I even explained why it was there, and in post number 11, came up with a solution for next time.  

Not sure why you guys think I'm tooting my own horn or whatever...


----------



## Bynx (Jun 9, 2010)

McNugget801 said:


> The scene did does not need to be HDR... you could of just used a single exposure.



You really dont  have a clue, do you?


----------



## ajkramer87 (Jun 9, 2010)

You do have a little lens flare in the first picture. Maybe you could try to clone it out. How many exposures did you use?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 9, 2010)

Yeah, the sun is actually JUST out of the frame... I tried to move around to avoid the flare, but unfortunately, to no avail.  I used 3 exposures with +-2EV spacing.


----------



## ajkramer87 (Jun 9, 2010)

Next time try 5 exposures and you might be able to pull a little more out of the shadows. If you need anyone to take your job Id gladly do it. Some beautiful cars you get to deal with on a daily basis.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jun 9, 2010)

lol I think I'll keep my job, thank you!


----------



## NateS (Jun 9, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> What do you mean, "you can't see much hdr in it?"



What that means is that these to not have a High Dynamic Range.  Whether you used 2 or 50 shots to create them, the actual dynamic range is not very high on these photos.  Maybe tonemapped, but they aren't HDR just because you combine 3 images and tonemap them.

Look at the sky in 1...it is all blown out. There is plenty of detail in the shadows and midtones, but there is not good detail in the highlights.  I can achieve that with a single image.....getting detail in the shadows, midtones AND highlights is where you often need to multiple images and create an HDR.

Also, I do not see a halo...you can see clearly on the side of the "halo" that there is still some ever so slightly blue next to the building...wouldn't be there if it was a halo.  I think the bottom line is that you overexposed your lowest exposure (the exposure for the highlights).  I wouldn't be shocked but what that single exposure could be dropped in post before tonemapping to bring back out the sky...just didn't happen in these edits.

That second shot.....well, I could almost garuntee I could make that same shot with only the middle exposure (the correct exposure).....that said, I like the shot and if you used three shots combined....doesn't really matter...the final shot is nice.


----------

