# HDR is a self esteem booster with me.



## Vic Vinegar (Dec 6, 2015)

I started doing photography in February and really started HDR in April. I'm completely self taught other than a few online tutorials on Youtube that taught me what buttons do what in Photoshop and Lightroom. I follow photographer Trey Ratcliff because we're both big on post processing and my opinion is that being good at post processing is just as artistic as taking the photo in the first place. It requires just as much skill to make a really great photo in Photomatix and Lightroom as it does having the photographic eye out in the field. And it's just as challenging as well. What I do is I take 3 bracketed shots, load them into Photomatix Pro, and then export them into Lightroom. Because every photo is edited differently based on nothing more than just how I felt like editing it in that moment, what I thought looked cool at the time, I won't get into exactly what the Lightroom sliders are or anything like that because this is an individual thing and if you do it like I do then you won't have the same results and you'll get disappointed. I wanted to upload the original unedited photo just to see how much it transformed from the original to the final but there's a file size limit on here and I don't know how to get around that. But here's the final one. This is the birdhouse in my backyard. Honestly the original doesn't look very good at all. The aspect ratio and angle are off. The original isn't even straight. But I like to think that I'm good enough with post processing to turn a mediocre image into something that people like. And I think that should be a person's goal with editing. To take an image that would otherwise not be that great and to turn it into something great (not saying my photos are great or anything  ). And as you can see I don't always go for absolute realism here. Sometimes I like to make mine a bit abstract which is really fun to do. I actually did a project for family and friends with all my HDR photos and they love them. That's such a good feeling to have as a self taught amateur photographer.

EDIT: I just uploaded a much better photo I got done editing just now. The first one was a phone background. This one is more suitable for actually sharing. Birdhouse 1-edit is the better version. I wanted to make the light hit the side of the tree so I made the right side brighter and the left side darker. And then I included a landscape I did right as fall hit. #1 is the closeup of the birdhouse. #2 is the new edit, and #3 is the landscape. I like the landscape because like I said I don't always go for realism or accuracy. I think it reminds me of an enchanted forest in fall.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 6, 2015)

I agree 100% with pretty much everything you're saying about processing, artistic vision, etc.  HOWEVER, unless you are photographing ONLY for yourself, avoid falling into the trap of "I like this, it's good".  This is usually a recipe for not getting any better.  If you're happy with where you are, and you are satisfied with what you're doing, that's fine, but most photographers want to improve.  Friends & family are NOT a barometer of skill.  They will like what ever you do because they're friends & family.

With respect to the image you've posted, I honestly don't find it very appealing for several reasons:  (1)  The trunk is almost perfectly centered and you're square to the birdhouse, rendering it almost one dimensional; (2) the contrast in the centre area of the image (along the trunk) and the specular highlights are (IMO) excessive; and the lighting appear un--natural.  Had you shifted over a bit so that we could see some of the depth to the birdhouse, and been perhaps a little less aggressive in Photomatix, I think this would be a MUCH stronger image.


----------



## Vic Vinegar (Dec 6, 2015)

tirediron said:


> I agree 100% with pretty much everything you're saying about processing, artistic vision, etc.  HOWEVER, unless you are photographing ONLY for yourself, avoid falling into the trap of "I like this, it's good".  This is usually a recipe for not getting any better.  If you're happy with where you are, and you are satisfied with what you're doing, that's fine, but most photographers want to improve.  Friends & family are NOT a barometer of skill.  They will like what ever you do because they're friends & family.
> 
> With respect to the image you've posted, I honestly don't find it very appealing for several reasons:  (1)  The trunk is almost perfectly centered and you're square to the birdhouse, rendering it almost one dimensional; (2) the contrast in the centre area of the image (along the trunk) and the specular highlights are (IMO) excessive; and the lighting appear un--natural.  Had you shifted over a bit so that we could see some of the depth to the birdhouse, and been perhaps a little less aggressive in Photomatix, I think this would be a MUCH stronger image.



Actually this is a phone background I made. I probably should have clarified that. I usually don't perfectly center things in my photos though. You're right that it's one dimensional and everything. I'm editing a new one to show a different method I use. I'll upload it too. But yeah I'm not perfect by any means and I think by networking with people especially on the forums I think I can learn a thing or two.


----------



## Vic Vinegar (Dec 6, 2015)

I also use Topaz Adjust which I forgot to mention. It's a great addition to Lightroom


----------



## tirediron (Dec 6, 2015)

Vic Vinegar said:


> ... I think by networking with people especially on the forums I think I can learn a thing or two.


Spot on!  There's a LOT of knowledge here, and it's a great place to learn.


----------



## spiralout462 (Dec 6, 2015)

I am glad you are happy with your "accomplishment".  This image is not very easy to look at though.  It makes my nerves bad .  I won't make the mistake of opening it twice!  As long as you're satisfied with it, good job.


----------



## Designer (Dec 6, 2015)

Vic Vinegar said:


> EDIT: I just uploaded a much better photo I got done editing just now. The first one was a phone background. This one is more suitable for actually sharing. Birdhouse 1-edit is the better version.


Hi, Vic, and thanks for the post.  I'm confused about which one you did the editing to.  I think if you had numbered them, it might be easier to talk about them.  So numbering them as they appear; #1 upper left, #2 upper right, and #3 lower left is how I would number them.  I like #2 better than #1, and #3 looks like it could be out of level (just my way of seeing it).


----------



## Vic Vinegar (Dec 6, 2015)

Designer said:


> Vic Vinegar said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT: I just uploaded a much better photo I got done editing just now. The first one was a phone background. This one is more suitable for actually sharing. Birdhouse 1-edit is the better version.
> ...


Sorry I guess you guys can't see the names of the photos. I just edited the description to clarify it. #1 is the closeup which is the phone background, 2 is the new one I just made, and 3 is the enchanted forest.


----------



## Peeb (Dec 6, 2015)

spiralout462 said:


> I am glad you are happy with your "accomplishment".  This image is not very easy to look at though.  It makes my nerves bad .  I won't make the mistake of opening it twice!  As long as you're satisfied with it, good job.


This is precisely the kind of comment that WON'T help a beginner get better.  I suggest you look at what Tirediron did: pointed out some specific thing to work on, rather than just expressly (or by implication) saying that his images stink.

OP:  Take what Tirediron said to heart- he knows of what he speaks.

EDIT: And no, I'm not advocating that this board be a sunshine-pumping station: just be constructive.  Don't like something?  Fine.  Tell the author why- and how to get better.


----------



## Designer (Dec 6, 2015)

Vic Vinegar said:


> 2 is the new one I just made


Well, then, #2 it is!  That's the one I like best.  

I still have no idea which one is your #2, and whether it matches with my #2, but what the heck, one of them is good, so we're in agreement, even though we may or may not actually be on the same page.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 6, 2015)

OP Quote: ._..But I like to think that I'm good enough with post processing to turn a mediocre image into something that people like. And I think that should be a person's goal with editing. To take an image that would otherwise not be that great and to turn it into something great (not saying my photos are great or anything..."_

Think of how much better your final results would be if the original was not mediocre.  It's a good idea to focus on taking the best shot.  Things like content, composition, angle the shot was taken out, good lighting, etc, mostly cannot be repaired in post processing.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 7, 2015)

Vic Vinegar said:


> ...being good at post processing is just as artistic as taking the photo in the first place.





> Honestly the original doesn't look very good at all. The aspect ratio and angle are off. The original isn't even straight. But I like to think that I'm good enough with post processing to turn a mediocre image into something that people like.



You basically said it yourself: You can't ignore the basic fundamentals of what makes compelling images and then go and assume that post-processing is going to solve the problem.



> And I think that should be a person's goal with editing. To take an image that would otherwise not be that great and to turn it into something great (not saying my photos are great or anything  ).



It's great youre enjoying what youre doing right now, but I honestly believe with this goal/view that you'll never improve your photography.  Please look up where the HDR Hole falls into the stages of a photographer.

Being good at post-processing is a great skill to have and can definitely improve images.  But I'd also argue that throwing images into Photomatix is not good post-processing skills.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 7, 2015)

Honestly none of these images needed the HDR treatment. The dynamic range in the images is not high enough to need to use High Dynamic Range techniques.


----------



## killerseaguls (Dec 7, 2015)

I have to agree that #2 is the better picture. I'm curious about HDR myself as it makes some pictures really great.  Unfortunately for me I'm so new that I just try and take good pictures because my editing skills suck as I have never went in depth with settings and how it works. I simply take an image. Edit it to where I think it looks good. These guys tell me why it doesn't and I learn that way haha. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2015)

killerseaguls said:


> I have to agree that #2 is the better picture. I'm curious about HDR myself as it makes some pictures really great.



If a picture has the dynamic range you'd except to see with your eyes, then it's HDR. If you simply take a photo and apply some shadow recovery to bring out more detail where the sensor under-exposed -- due to limitations of a sensor vs. an eyeball/brain -- you've just done HDR.

If a picture looks like what the OP posted, it's not HDR but tone-mapping.



killerseaguls said:


> Unfortunately for me I'm so new that I just try and take good pictures because my editing skills suck as I have never went in depth with settings and how it works.



good; focus on taking better pictures.  Or at least stop worrying about "editing" photo, but learn how to do simply post-processing.


----------



## killerseaguls (Dec 8, 2015)

Braineack said:


> killerseaguls said:
> 
> 
> > I have to agree that #2 is the better picture. I'm curious about HDR myself as it makes some pictures really great.
> ...




So, most of these pictures that look like...paintings for lack of words is really tone mapping and not HDR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2015)

killerseaguls said:


> So, most of these pictures that look like...paintings for lack of words is really tone mapping and not HDR?



correct.

HDR is high dynamic ranging.

it's made to extend the dynamic range of film or a digital sensor to be able to more closely mimic reality instead of mechanical limitations.

I'll use cats as an example:




Pookie in Sun by The Braineack, on Flickr

in this shot I exposed for the sunlight, causing everything else not directly in sunlight to be underexposed.

The room actually looked more like this:




Hobbes with Pookie by The Braineack, on Flickr

In most situations a camera simply cannot capture an image how your eye sees.

Had I exposed the first so the room looked like the second image, Pookie's face/fur would have no detail whatsoever and just been completely white.


much like this:






But if I try to make it so his face is not blown out:





HDR would be trying to combine those to make something closer to this:





notice how it doesnt look like a cartoon or a "painting", but just a little more like what you'd probably see in real life.


----------



## killerseaguls (Dec 8, 2015)

Understood! I just always thought the "tone mapping" pictures (specifically nature pictures) looked interesting and wanted to play with it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2015)

Most of the time I see them I see poor photography coupled with a processing technique popularized like 10-15 years ago.

I dont find the processing interesting, quite the opposite, coupled with photography that would be sub-par without a gimmick. There are always exceptions to this rule.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Dec 8, 2015)

Braineack said:


> ............If a picture has the dynamic range you'd except to see with your eyes, then it's HDR. If you simply take a photo and apply some shadow recovery to bring out more detail where the sensor under-exposed -- due to limitations of a sensor vs. an eyeball/brain -- you've just done HDR.
> 
> If a picture looks like what the OP posted, it's not HDR but tone-mapping..........................


Personally, I would call this a poor qualifier of what HDR is.   There are plenty of scenes where the camera is perfectly capable of capturing the DR in one exposure.   That doesn't make the images HDR.   If you used one exposure to create the image it isn't HDR, it's just tone mapping.  HDR specifically deals with using multiple exposures to capture a range of light and shadow that can't be encapsulated by a single exposure of the camera.   Granted lots of people use HDR processing to tone map single images, often because they don't know any better; and many people use multiple exposures on scenes that don't require them, simply because it's easier for them to load 24 images at 1/3 stop intervals into an HDR engine than it is to learn how to process a single image.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 8, 2015)

HDR done properly looks good since, as the name implies, it increases the dynamic range of a photograph to more closely mimic what the human eye can see.  HDR done poorly looks like something from a comic book.  Poorly done HDR is usually easy to spot; over-saturated, high-contrast, gaudy, unrealistic colors.  But some people like it so more power to them.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 8, 2015)

Scatterbrained said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > ............If a picture has the dynamic range you'd except to see with your eyes, then it's HDR. If you simply take a photo and apply some shadow recovery to bring out more detail where the sensor under-exposed -- due to limitations of a sensor vs. an eyeball/brain -- you've just done HDR.
> ...



its like literally the definition of HDR.


end all from wiki:



> *High-dynamic-range imaging* (*HDRI* or *HDR*) is a technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques. The aim is to present the human eye with a similar range of luminance as that which, through the visual system, is familiar in everyday life. The human eye, through adaptation of the iris (and other methods) adjusts constantly to the broad dynamic changes ubiquitous in our environment. The brain continuously interprets this information so that most of us can see in a wide range of light conditions. Most cameras, on the other hand, cannot.




you cannot debate this.  its fact.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Dec 8, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


Read your original post, where you stated that "if a picture has the dynamic range you'd expect to see with your eyes, then it's HDR".


----------



## 407370 (Dec 9, 2015)

Who cares if it is HDR or Tone Maping????
The longer you spend taking photographs the better you will become at getting closer to the image you want. Sometimes you will achieve what you want 100% through the viewfinder, sometimes you will need to adjust the photograph by editing and that is where people will place personal limitations on the use of particular processes or software packages. Whatever processing limitation anyone sets is a personal choice and not right or wrong.
Find your own happy place for processing and change it whenever you feel like it.


----------

