# HDR before and after process



## panos_adgr

Hi to all

I would like to post some of my recent HDR works presenting the prototype shots as well.

I'd like to start with a winter photo shot by the sea a really windy and cold day.

This picture was shot with flat settings on camera. What I mean is that the image setting was standard without any customization on contrast, sharpness or anything else.





Here is the HDR Image that was made out of seven copies of the above picture with different exposure setting made on the pc.




Temeni Beach in Winter (HDR) by Panagiotis Adamopoulos, on Flickr


----------



## that1guy

I really want to like this picture ... I really do

but in my honest opinion and I'm not trying to be mean, but I do not see a specific subject in this photo that needed to be tone mapped. (assuming that this was a single exposure)

again this is just me and I'm not trying to put your work down its well processed.

but you have a lot of sky, what looks to be muddy gravel in the bottom right corner. some waves.

It's hard for me to pick a subject in this photo that needs to be tone mapped. possibly a different composition or a different crop.  possibly if there was a tree in there some where.

again sorry if I, coming off harsh it's not my intention.


----------



## 407370

.[/QUOTE]


that1guy said:


> *It's hard for me to pick a subject in this photo that needs to be tone mapped*. possibly a different composition or a different crop.  possibly if there was a tree in there some where.


Does there need to be a subject in the photo to be tone mapped?
The scene looks fine to me as I am not a member of the _"landscapes need a focal point"_ gang. The scene is what it is.
The processing is limited by the scene itself and to add any more processing would spoil the scene. My tolerance for processing is waaayyyyy higher than the average TPF member but this particular scene would not be improved by _"sliders to the right"_ Photomatix up the wazoo.
I think golden hour would have made a huge difference to this scene so next time you are planning to go there get up early or stay late and see the difference it makes.

I just noticed a distortion on your processed picture. I was comparing a version I did from the original to your processed version. See below:


----------



## manaheim

I wondered if I could do it so I took your image and tried to see if I could make the same end result as you without an HDR... not quite, but boy it was close. And I think it was because the one you posted was one of the more underexposed ones. I bet I could have done it with a better exposure, and even better... a RAW.

Yes, you can get something more from an HDR in nearly any scene, but what you have here is a very flat-light situation with very little in the image outside of the tonal range afforded by a single exposure. In other words... you don't really need an HDR to make a great technical image with this situation.

Can you? Sure. Again, you will get SOMETHING more... and if nothing else, if you like it, you can do whatever you like. It does seem, however, like a bit of a waste of time, and maybe a misunderstanding of the technology (which is common... and tends to drive folks crazy here).


----------



## panos_adgr

Very interesting answers. 407370 got the point. It is a nice landscape and I wanted to give some drama doing it HDR and giving an impact in the sky and cloud detail. The original was shot in raw with flat setting in order to do it HDR later. Process in photomatix was indeed low. The settings were the defaults with some extra detail contrast. I didn't want to make an overprocessed image. I just wanted to enhance the sence of bad weather and rough sea.

The distortion is corrected by use of dxo optics pro.


----------



## dennybeall

In my opinion taking multiple photos in raw to capture all the available tones and creating an HDR photo is very different from taking one photo and then manipulating that single exposure with sliders and merging those to make a single picture. The outcome just isn't the same IMHO.


----------



## manaheim

Don't go down that road.  The moment you say "in my opinion", it's basically irrelevant, because someone else's opinion nullifies yours.

From a purely technical perspective, you can get more dynamic range from an image by doing what the OP did. Can you get as much as you can get from 3-5 exposures? No. But more.


----------



## 407370

dennybeall said:


> In my opinion taking multiple photos in raw to capture all the available tones and creating an HDR photo is very different from taking one photo and then manipulating that single exposure with sliders and merging those to make a single picture. The outcome just isn't the same IMHO.


Which is different from taking a single image and then creating more under / over exposed versions and combining them in Photomatix. This method is much more suited to landscapes as things move about with wind or in this case the sea will change between exposures.


----------



## Watchful

Its a nice pic. That HDR doesn't do it for me,  but some brightness levels and contrast would work nicely.


----------



## panos_adgr

dennybeall said:


> In my opinion taking multiple photos in raw to capture all the available tones and creating an HDR photo is very different from taking one photo and then manipulating that single exposure with sliders and merging those to make a single picture. The outcome just isn't the same IMHO.


Make an experiment first and thrn tell me again. If you have a camera with great dynamic range capabilities the results are equal.


----------



## dennybeall

If I have a scene with very bright areas that could be blown out by settings on the camera and another area that would be totally black by settings on the camera, the good dynamic range can't get both with one shot. Blown out is BLOWN OUT, no picture info there, just white. If I set for the dark area then white out. Dynamic range is very helpful and allows one shot to get a lot more but can only get so much, raw can't fill in blown out I don't believe.


----------



## manaheim

panos_adgr said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion taking multiple photos in raw to capture all the available tones and creating an HDR photo is very different from taking one photo and then manipulating that single exposure with sliders and merging those to make a single picture. The outcome just isn't the same IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> Make an experiment first and thrn tell me again. If you have a camera with great dynamic range capabilities the results are equal.
Click to expand...


Cameras are all, more or less, about the same in single-exposure dynamic range. At least at the moment. Some day that may change.


----------



## panos_adgr

manaheim said:


> panos_adgr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion taking multiple photos in raw to capture all the available tones and creating an HDR photo is very different from taking one photo and then manipulating that single exposure with sliders and merging those to make a single picture. The outcome just isn't the same IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> Make an experiment first and thrn tell me again. If you have a camera with great dynamic range capabilities the results are equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cameras are all, more or less, about the same in single-exposure dynamic range. At least at the moment. Some day that may change.
Click to expand...


I will not agree. I ve used many and with the older ones I had less dynamic range. You can check it out from charts of dpreview or dxo showing the dr of many cameras. The new ones are a lot better.

I'm using a d7200 and most of the times with I can go from +2 to -2 in raw files without clipping  highlights or lost shadows.

Whel this is something important. Now thing of shooting in the same cases, which happens for myself to have done it a lot of times, in +2 exposure and you lose highlighted in order to get the shadows the moment you can get them from the single moment of a very capable camera. Plus that you avoid deghosting and gain in sharpness. 

My final words are that HDR from a single shot is almost as good as doing it from multiple shots, but surely not the standard way.


----------



## Watchful

Of course using less data will always be inferior to using more data. More in-camera exposures are better than simulating that in post.


----------



## manaheim

I did leave out one key bit...which is "they are all about the same RELATIVE TO THE HUMAN EYE". A stop or two of difference between two cameras doesn't mean a hell of a lot when our eyes can see three times as much.

But by all means... disagree all you like.


----------



## panos_adgr

Let me get something clear about what I'm saying.
Doing HDR with multiple bracketed shots is surely the best way. What I'm trying to say is that you can do it also by one shot with equal but not the same results. I've used the phrase in my previous post as well.  My opposition is on the fact that all the cameras have the same dynamic range.


----------



## manaheim

Equal but not the same?

Sorry... scratching my head over that one.

And no, cameras do not have the same dynamic range... however...






You're talking about a difference of 2.5 stops between the top and the bottom. It's not nothing, but it's not exactly massive... esp when you figure you're likely to be talking about an average difference of somewhere around half that between whatever you're using... and whatever anyone else is using.  Not statistically significant.


----------



## panos_adgr

manaheim said:


> Equal but not the same?
> 
> Sorry... scratching my head over that one.
> 
> And no, cameras do not have the same dynamic range... however...
> 
> View attachment 120514
> 
> You're talking about a difference of 2.5 stops between the top and the bottom. It's not nothing, but it's not exactly massive... esp when you figure you're likely to be talking about an average difference of somewhere around half that between whatever you're using... and whatever anyone else is using.  Not statistically significant.


Of course they do not have the same dynamic.  I'm telling this posts behind.

Now about my comment equal. I used this word to describe the result of an hdr from one picture wanting to say that is close to an hdr made of bracketed shots. Equal means that something is almost the same right? If not then I'm not using English properly.


----------



## manaheim

No, equal means exactly the same.

1 equals 1
1 does not equal 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000001

Same and equal are ... well... the same. And equal.

Anyway, sounds like we have a language barrier here, so I won't go on arguing the point. Sorry I didn't catch that before.


----------



## panos_adgr

manaheim said:


> No, equal means exactly the same.
> 
> 1 equals 1
> 1 does not equal 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000001
> 
> Same and equal are ... well... the same. And equal.
> 
> Anyway, sounds like we have a language barrier here, so I won't go on arguing the point. Sorry I didn't catch that before.




It's ok. There is no reason I arguing about our hobby. Seems I'll have to be more careful with the words I'm using to be precise in want I want to say. 

Anyway I find the discussion very interesting.


----------



## Trblmkr

I'll skip the comments about HDR as I think they have already been covered.  What I do notice is it looks like your horizon is off, the right side is lower then the left. Looks like you tried to use the rule of thirds with the horizon and the water in the bottom 1/3. Although I see what you were trying to do with the rocks and beach, I don't believe you accomplished your goal as there's not much here that's "dynamic".  However, I do think had you done a long exposure you could have gotten some great results with this composition.


----------



## panos_adgr

Trblmkr said:


> I'll skip the comments about HDR as I think they have already been covered.  What I do notice is it looks like your horizon is off, the right side is lower then the left. Looks like you tried to use the rule of thirds with the horizon and the water in the bottom 1/3. Although I see what you were trying to do with the rocks and beach, I don't believe you accomplished your goal as there's not much here that's "dynamic".  However, I do think had you done a long exposure you could have gotten some great results with this composition.


Thank you for your interesting comments. I did use the rule of thirds here.


----------



## joecap

Ack...too much dissection. Does every photo need a focal point? It's just a nice scene with lots of atmosphere. And the clouds look great in the HDR photo, it feels like I am really there.


----------

