# Tutorial: Fake HDR photo



## Nill (Mar 23, 2007)

I have published tutorial about making fake HDR photos in photoshop. If you are interested visit -> http://www.nill.cz/index.php?set=tu1 .

I will glad answer your question about procedure in discussion below tutorial


----------



## droyz2000 (Mar 24, 2007)

Your link is not working.


----------



## ashfordphoto (Mar 24, 2007)

it's true - not working.  and I'd really like to see it :thumbup:


----------



## Nill (Mar 25, 2007)

There were some problems with hosting, I hope that it's all right now.


----------



## M-O-S (Mar 25, 2007)

How's it fake? Lol

Looks cool


----------



## Nill (Mar 26, 2007)

M-O-S:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

I have use just one JPEG


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 26, 2007)

Awww :cry: - my ancient PS doesn't have many of the things referred to in the tutorial :cry: ... it is too old...


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 26, 2007)

If the tones in the photo cover a large dynamic range, then it's an HDR.  It doesn't matter how you did it.  It's not "Fake", just like a raw file is not "fake" when compared to a negative.


----------



## Nill (Mar 26, 2007)

But original photo doesn't cover high dynamic range, whole scene is within dynamic range of standard digital sensor. Sky is overexposured and it was made in Photoshop (render clouds). One single photo from digital camera could not give HDR image. 

Acording to wikipedia:  (HDRI) is a set of techniques that allow a far greater dynamic range of exposures  than normal digital imaging techniques.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 26, 2007)

Nill said:


> But original photo doesn't cover high dynamic range, whole scene is within dynamic range of standard digital sensor. Sky is overexposured and it was made in Photoshop (render clouds). One single photo from digital camera could not give HDR image.
> 
> Acording to wikipedia:  (HDRI) is a set of techniques that allow a far greater dynamic range of exposures  than normal digital imaging techniques.



from one RAW you can extract usually at least two jpegs, of which one is exposed properly for the clouds, and one is exposed "properly" for the foreground ... after you pulled the shadows up a bit in the raw conversion process.

Those two images can be combined to a sort of HDR image.


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 26, 2007)

I don't really go to Wikipedia to find facts.  HDRI is a fancy name for an image that encompasses a higher dynamic range than the medium can normally capture.  This has been done with film for years, without the need for multiple photos.  Ansel Adams used the zone system to compress the dynamic range to fit his medium.  The use of neutral density filters has allowed landscape photographers to capture high dynamic range scenes with slide film, which has a very narrow dynamic range in comparison.  I'm not knocking your technique.  It's another way to do things in photoshop, which is always cool, and your end result is good.  There is nothing fake about it though.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 26, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> Ansel Adams used the zone system to compress the dynamic range to fit his medium.



But AA never called it HDR or even High Dynamic Range.  Sure, it's just arguing over the definitions of words and phrases, but if someone says HDR to me I would assume that there was a 32 bit HDR file created from multiple files involved in the process at some point.  

When I saw the title of the post "Fake HDR Photo" I knew exactly what he meant:  that it was going to be some sort of local contrast manipulation without using multiple exposures.

Can anything that exists in reality actually be fake?  I think the word "fake" is a fake!

Looks like an interesting tutorial; I'll be checking it out when I have more time.


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 26, 2007)

I know the term High Dynamic Range has only come about because of digital.  The reason I always comment about it like I do is that people don't realize what the technique really is for.  If you search TPF, you'll see dozens of posts like "1st HDR attempt", and the photo enclosed doesn't even show off the effect.  I think educating people to the fact that HDR is not a new thing, and not a digital thing, is important.  In my opinion, in order to get a successful result, you have to have the proper intent in the first place, and not just the intent of "trying out this new photoshop function".  When you run into a scene with a dynamic range that exceeds your medium, and you know what you want to do with the scene, then you can create a resulting picture that depicts a high dynamic range, the way you intended it.  If you don't know what you are doing, it usually shows in the end.  Letting software decide where to place your tones is missing the point of the technology.


----------

