# First HDR Tips?



## laynea24 (Nov 21, 2012)

Please ignore the Photomatix watermark. I used the free trial to do this.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 21, 2012)

Not bad at all. You didn't "over-cook" it. Where was that taken in OK? (from OKC area myself).


----------



## christop (Nov 21, 2012)

The sky looks overexposed in the beige areas. This means you didn't bracket your exposures far enough in the "underexposed" direction to prevent the sky from blowing out.


----------



## BobSaget (Nov 21, 2012)

Looks good to me, mustn't have been very windy when you took it, I don't see any ghosting in the limbs. Also, no annoying Halos in areas where the trees meet the sky.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 21, 2012)

trees where the sky comes through are hard, if not impossible to get right, and you do see some halo-ing around these trees.  Exposure wise, and processing wise I'm more or less okay with how it came out.  The biggest issues I have with the picture have nothing to do with the HDR and more to do with the tilt and no real coherent sense of composition with the photograph generally.  

Basically you have a tilted picture of a tiny mailbox is how the picture reads compositionally.


----------



## laynea24 (Nov 21, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> trees where the sky comes through are hard, if not impossible to get right, and you do see some halo-ing around these trees.  Exposure wise, and processing wise I'm more or less okay with how it came out.  The biggest issues I have with the picture have nothing to do with the HDR and more to do with the tilt and no real coherent sense of composition with the photograph generally.
> 
> Basically you have a tilted picture of a tiny mailbox is how the picture reads compositionally.



Shoot! I got so excited about posting it that I forgot to crop it! Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## laynea24 (Nov 21, 2012)

Okay, so next time I'll go further in the underexposed direction. How far should I go in the other direction? Overexpose or correct?


----------



## laynea24 (Nov 21, 2012)

ronlane said:


> Not bad at all. You didn't "over-cook" it. Where was that taken in OK? (from OKC area myself).



This is at Lake Guthrie!


----------



## christop (Nov 21, 2012)

laynea24 said:


> Okay, so next time I'll go further in the underexposed direction. How far should I go in the other direction? Overexpose or correct?



It seems to have enough detail in the shadows as it is, but it wouldn't hurt to overexpose more if you wanted to get more detail in there. The blown-out portion of the sky is what really stands out to me.


----------



## laynea24 (Nov 21, 2012)

Thanks! That answers my question.


----------



## Red_John (Dec 4, 2012)

A good tip for shooting HDR, probably you already know it: Always photograph in Apperture Priority mode.


----------



## laynea24 (Dec 7, 2012)

Red_John said:
			
		

> A good tip for shooting HDR, probably you already know it: Always photograph in Apperture Priority mode.



No, I didn't know that. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## DannyLewis (Dec 7, 2012)

laynea24 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Not bad at all. You didn't "over-cook" it. Where was that taken in OK? (from OKC area myself).
> ...


I am on Lake Hudson. Border town on the Cherokee Rez....


----------



## laynea24 (Dec 9, 2012)

DannyLewis said:
			
		

> I am on Lake Hudson. Border town on the Cherokee Rez....



Oh, cool! I don't think I've ever been there.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 9, 2012)

Composition aside, the image is flat and lifeless.  An increase in contrast and maybe some more saturation.

And I agree with the beige sky.... it's not been rendered correctly.  All the frames probably had those areas totally blown out, even the under-exposed frames.


----------



## laynea24 (Dec 9, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> Composition aside, the image is flat and lifeless.  An increase in contrast and maybe some more saturation.
> 
> And I agree with the beige sky.... it's not been rendered correctly.  All the frames probably had those areas totally blown out, even the under-exposed frames.



Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time I try this.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 9, 2012)

This is better than a lot that I have seen.

I haven't tried HDR, yet - haven't come across a scene or situation where it would be beneficial.  I have read that you expose for the shadows and the highlights, then figure out how many exposures you need in between.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 9, 2012)

my advice for anyone interested in HDR is to just stop. :lmao:

... actually, in all seriousness, it's very important that you understand traditional post processing and exposure techniques before attempting HDR. I'm not saying you don't, but something to keep in mind. A lot of people kind of see HDR as a way to escape genuine skill. It isn't, HDR and from my experience adds another layer of complexity to get good results.


----------



## laynea24 (Dec 9, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> my advice for anyone interested in HDR is to just stop. :lmao:
> 
> ... actually, in all seriousness, it's very important that you understand traditional post processing and exposure techniques before attempting HDR. I'm not saying you don't, but something to keep in mind. A lot of people kind of see HDR as a way to escape genuine skill. It isn't, HDR and from my experience adds another layer of complexity to get good results.



I definitely don't think it's a way to escape genuine skill! It's very tough to accomplish a great HDR photo. I think that's why I'm interested in it.


----------

