# Fake HDR's



## tedgtfan (Oct 31, 2007)

I was intrigued with some of the HDR threads and l)V8 very nicely referred me to some web pages(thanks again l)V8). While reading the how to's I came across an article on "Faking an HDR in Photoshop". The article explained how you could do an HDR with one exposure instead of multi. So I followed the directions and here's what came out. To all you experienced HDRer's please give some C&C and all others also. Let me know if your experienced eye sees it as being true to the HDR form or if indeed fake looking. Thanks

1. Original






2. Fake HDR







Thanks all


----------



## DSLR noob (Oct 31, 2007)

Sorry but it looks like cr@p. Want to see a good HDR? Find soemthing by Woodsac, you NEED multi exposures. I can't make a good HDR I know it, I need to keep refining until I can pull it off, I think that's where you stand too.


----------



## tedgtfan (Oct 31, 2007)

DSLR noob said:


> Sorry but it looks like cr@p. Want to see a good HDR? Find soemthing by Woodsac, you NEED multi exposures. I can't make a good HDR I know it, I need to keep refining until I can pull it off, I think that's where you stand too.


 
Thanks Do you think it's too contrasty, bright ,dark, unsharp etc. what makes it look like crap to you?


----------



## jon_k (Oct 31, 2007)

My attempts at a "fake hdr" never turn out as good as the tutorial examples. They always look like yours. I prefer real HDR's, although doing it without all the brackets would be nice.

If cameras had 100 stops of DR, it'd be easy to do "fake hdrs" I think.


----------



## DSLR noob (Oct 31, 2007)

tedgtfan said:


> Thanks Do you think it's too contrasty, bright ,dark, unsharp etc. what makes it look like crap to you?


sorry I came off as an @$$, I was a little upset by another thread in the discussion section about "convincing someone else that their gear sucks and needs an upgrade". Personally, I think that the imge doesn't get the extra detail that an HDR gets by overexposing shadows and underexposing highlights. The other thing is that it is WAAAY too saturated, that red is now a bright neon pink! Something a flower never represents itself as in the real world. Hey like I said though, I am in the same boat, so don't take it as an attack. Here's my attempt.

one of the originals:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n15/eastermonkey/IMG_0078.jpg

My crappy HDR(mine is WAY undersaturated but the red came out as REALLY RED instead of maroon):
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n15/eastermonkey/240SXHDR2.jpg

but do you see the texture and detail I'm talking about? Look at the road, the front bumper, etc.


----------



## tedgtfan (Oct 31, 2007)

DSLR noob said:


> sorry I came off as an @$$, I was a little upset by another thread in the discussion section about "convincing someone else that their gear sucks and needs an upgrade". Personally, I think that the imge doesn't get the extra detail that an HDR gets by overexposing shadows and underexposing highlights. The other thing is that it is WAAAY too saturated, that red is now a bright neon pink! Something a flower never represents itself as in the real world. Hey like I said though, I am in the same boat, so don't take it as an attack. Here's my attempt.
> 
> 
> one of the originals:
> ...


 
I didn't take it that way. I took it as an honest opinion. That's why I asked the what ?, to learn from opinions. Yeah once I got your pics side by side I could see. My thoughts too on the saturation. But I didn't know if was just me.
 Thanks again


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 31, 2007)

Is it possible to tell me in short words (without sending me to that tutorial) how the "fake HDRs" are being made in Photoshop alone? All I know (and do - but it is considered "fake", too) is shooting in RAW, creating three or five exposures in the RAW-converter programme, saving those three or five exposures, and later have Photomatix merge them for me so I can tone-map them. After that I usually go back into Photoshop with that new picture and further work on it. But the outcome of your attempts suggests you are going yet another way? (One that so far does not convince me, from what I see here).

Oh, and I moved the thread, as you can see, as it seems to have become a lot more general and no longer is only about the rose-photos, but about this method of pp as a whole.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 31, 2007)

I don't think it's as much fakeing a HDR as it is about applying the tonemapping method. This has nothing to do with HDR really as tonemapping works on normal 8 bit images too. The advantages of HDR come in as it gives the tonemapper extra dynamic range to work with.

I'm going to leave this discussion there because this topic has a lot of really good and terrible advice. A google search will yield lots of great tutorials on the subject and equally as many from people who must have hit bumped their heads while opening photoshop. And as I'm not very fond of the tonemapped effect (unless truly done well like Woodsac's and some others around), or done really subtly, so I can't really provide any more comment as I'd be making it up.


----------



## kalmkidd (Oct 31, 2007)

ya i think its horrible looking not sharp at all, contrast is way off. basically look at ur pic. then look at this. A REAL HDR.


----------



## zendianah (Oct 31, 2007)

I fake HDR's. I shoot people. AND they are moving targets. Naturally a moving target would not work as a "true" HDR. I call it HDRish because I apply the tonemapping. I'm not saying that my pictures are great but I think they are "ok".. Its just fun to experiment. !!  

My next experiement will be infrared.. JUST looks COOOL


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 31, 2007)

I still don't get it: *are* we talking about the multiplied RAW-files here - or is THIS "HDR in Photoshop" out of a single jpeg-file?


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 31, 2007)

I believe the "fake" HDR that is being mentioned is the process of taking one image, generating 3 different exposures from it, and then using those 3 images for the tone mapping.  The "proper" way to make an HDR is to physically take 3 photographs at different exposures and use those for the tone mapping.

As to the question of the OP, the image looks pretty bad.  I think the main problem is the original picture isn't a very good candidate for an HDR type photo.  Generally the whole reason for shooting an HDR is when the scene has too many stops difference between the highlights and the shadows for the camera to properly capture the whole range of detail.

Your starting picture looked great to me, a well exposed shot of a flower isolated against a nice clean background.... perhaps with just a bit to shallow depth of field.  My suggestion to you would be to try the HDR thing again, but with a different starting picture... one better suited to the technique.


----------



## kalmkidd (Oct 31, 2007)

JHF Photography said:


> I believe the "fake" HDR that is being mentioned is the process of taking one image, generating 3 different exposures from it, and then using those 3 images for the tone mapping.  The "proper" way to make an HDR is to physically take 3 photographs at different exposures and use those for the tone mapping.
> 
> As to the question of the OP, the image looks pretty bad.  I think the main problem is the original picture isn't a very good candidate for an HDR type photo.  Generally the whole reason for shooting an HDR is when the scene has too many stops difference between the highlights and the shadows for the camera to properly capture the whole range of detail.
> 
> Your starting picture looked great to me, a well exposed shot of a flower isolated against a nice clean background.... perhaps with just a bit to shallow depth of field.  My suggestion to you would be to try the HDR thing again, but with a different starting picture... one better suited to the technique.



exactly..


----------



## Lucas_L (Oct 31, 2007)

I know photoshop HDR is pretty difficult. I was searching around one day for some HDR help and i found some cool programs. 

Photomatix- it actually compresses all of your exposures automatically, and gives you freedom to select saturation, brightness, WB, and a whole slew of other things. It's pretty cool. 

The other program i would recomend for HDR is Aperture. I think it is a little easier to use than Pshop, but thats just me.


----------



## Joxby (Oct 31, 2007)

kalmkidd said:


> ya i think its horrible looking not sharp at all, contrast is way off. basically look at ur pic. then look at this. A REAL HDR.



The intention of HDR is to _accurately_ represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to the deepest shadows.



JHF Photography said:


> I believe the "fake" HDR that is being mentioned is the process of taking one image, generating 3 different exposures from it, and then using those 3 images for the tone mapping. The "proper" way to make an HDR is to physically take 3 photographs at different exposures and use those for the tone mapping.



Whats the difference between 3 seperate exposures, and 1 exposure shot in RAW and adjusted with exposure bias in a RAW editor.
That sounds like an argument....its meant to be a question I dont know the answer to..
I'm not deep in digital..


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 31, 2007)

Joxby said:


> Whats the difference between 3 seperate exposures, and 1 exposure shot in RAW and adjusted with exposure bias in a RAW editor.
> That sounds like an argument....its meant to be a question I dont know the answer to..
> I'm not deep in digital..


 
That was in no way, shape or form meant to be an argument. If you look a little closer at my post, the terms "fake" and "proper" are in quotes; other peoples words, not mine. I am not implying that either are better than the other, I was merely taking a stab at deciphering what people were referring to as "fake" and "real", as LaFoto asked what they meant. I may be off on my interpretation, but this is what I gathered the OP was talking about.

As for the question about the difference between 3 shots, and 1 shot adjusted 3 ways, I do think there will be a difference (although I would love to hear the input of someone with more HDR experience than me). The reason I think there will be a difference, however slight it may be, is the fact that you can't pull back details that aren't there in the original shot. 

For example, if you had a sunset with incredible depth of colors and textures, but your single shot blew out most of the sky, you're not going to be able to get those details all back by merely adjusting the exposure after. It would have been better to make an exposure for the sky seperately.

Again, this is just my opinion.... and I'm fairly new to HDR myself.


Jason


----------



## Joxby (Oct 31, 2007)

I meant _my_ question sounded like _I_ was looking for a fight

I dont know much about digital processing short of the basics or what the requirements are for a true bonafide HDR, but in Nikon Capture or NX for that matter, I can take an image down 2 stops and up 2 stops from 1 good exposure...so a 4 stop spread.
I'm not sure how much a difference there'd be between that and 3 seperate exposures on site with similar bracketing.
Or infact using a greater number of exposures over a bigger range, cant help thinking theres a point where no advantage is gained at a certain quantity.


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 31, 2007)

Joxby said:


> I meant _my_ question sounded like _I_ was looking for a fight


 

LMAO!!   :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Sorry, my bad.... there's that whole "interpretation" thing.


Jason


----------



## tedgtfan (Oct 31, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> I still don't get it: *are* we talking about the multiplied RAW-files here - or is THIS "HDR in Photoshop" out of a single jpeg-file?


I did see the phrase tonemapping in the article. Yes it processed from a single exposure and adjust the shadow/highlight, then duplicate the layer apply color dodge and mask out the black, then duplicate the base again and apply linear burn and mask out white, then colorize into red tones red tones, then tweak all the adjustments and flatten image. I found it hard to do because they must have been using an older version of photoshop. Anyway I know you said you didn't want web site but I'll leave it here in case anyone else does. Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I learn from these 
http://www.nill.cz/index.php?set=tu1


----------



## RKW3 (Jan 5, 2008)

I have been shooting a lot of HDRs lately. The proper seperate-exposure way is great (of course), but the single-exposure tonemapping can be good as well at bringing out detail etc.. Here is one of my threads from a long time ago, when I used one JPEG re-photoshopped into three different brightness levels. I must say it worked a bit (although there are major errors with it still). P.S. the sky is fake, but everything else is real

A lot of times single exposure HDR's turn out horrible, it all depends on the original shot. (ie. if the original file has blown highlights, it's likely that tonemapping won't recover it still)


----------

