# First attempt at HDR



## bassiusmaximous (Aug 19, 2011)

decided to play with some pictures I took last year let me know what you think... I think putting it into photobucket reduced the quality of the photos...


----------



## wlbphoto (Aug 19, 2011)

Not trying to be mean but that's doesn't really look anything close to HDR photos. Too me looks like all you did was bump up the saturation, which i might be mistaking. Search HDR images on Google, then Youtube videos on how to create them and you will see the difference.


----------



## Bynx (Aug 19, 2011)

I too dont see anything but poor color balance. No sign of HDR here.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2011)

I doubt you've got a camera that can bracket at least 3 frames THAT fast.


----------



## bassiusmaximous (Aug 19, 2011)

I just followed a tutorial on youtube and put it into photomatix pro


----------



## D-B-J (Aug 19, 2011)

These are not HDR.  They look just like photo's that need some work, and you bumped up the saturation..

Let me google that for you


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2011)

How did you get a Nikon D60 to bracket at least 3 shots that quickly?  I'm pretty sure those jets aren't on a stick.


----------



## Bynx (Aug 19, 2011)

Any shot at all even a jpeg can be put through Photomatix if you want to do some tone mapping. It wont give you an HDR, but will give you a beefed up shot compared to the original. I think you are mistaking tone mapping for HDR processing.


----------



## bassiusmaximous (Aug 19, 2011)

wow sorry guys I did think so many people would take offence to my noob photo skills... I followed this tutorial 



 I took those pictures over a year ago before I even knew what HDR was haha


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2011)

I don't think anyone's taken offense, but more like crying foul.

It may give you a 'better' image, but it's not really HDR if it's taken from a single shot, at least IMHO.


----------



## bassiusmaximous (Aug 19, 2011)

after a lot more reading I agree with you


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Aug 19, 2011)

You can easily do that with Topaz Detail, why bother making fake-HDRs?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 20, 2011)

The word "high" in "high dynamic range" is not clearly defined or classified, so technically you can create an HDR from a single image, but generally it is accepted that you need at least 3, and generally 5-7 is preferred and will give you far better results.


----------



## fauzigarib (Aug 20, 2011)

I thought with a RAW image you could get a HDR image with just one exposure... As in, the software would then make the up/down exposures for you... Am I right?

-Fauzi


----------



## ann (Aug 20, 2011)

No, if you can get the light range in one exposure there is no need for HDR. One can tonemap that image with is not the same. Taking one proper exposure in RAW and then making more than one file is still not HDR. It is again, tonemapping.

HDR is used when the light range is too broad for one exposure; meaning one needs details in the highlights and detail in the shadows, which the current cameras cannot support.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 20, 2011)

fauzigarib said:


> I thought with a RAW image you could get a HDR image with just one exposure... As in, the software would then make the up/down exposures for you... Am I right?
> 
> -Fauzi





ann said:


> No, if you can get the light range in one exposure there is no need for HDR. One can tonemap that image with is not the same. Taking one proper exposure in RAW and then making more than one file is still not HDR. It is again, tonemapping.
> 
> HDR is used when the light range is too broad for one exposure; meaning one needs details in the highlights and detail in the shadows, which the current cameras cannot support.



Both of you need to re-read what I said.  Ann, he is technically correct.

Since high is a relative term and not an objective definition, I could argue I have a high dynamic range image even if I turn on the dynamic lighting control on my Nikon... or even if my sensor happens to be slightly higher dynamic range than yours.  Some people call single-shot-RAW "HDRs" EDRs... _Extended_ Dynamic Range.

The point is that, technically correct or not, they're not going to get as much dynamic range out of an image with one exposure as they would with 2, 3 or more... so if it's HDR you want to do, then choosing to do it with one image is going to net you a fairly lousy HDR.

If you're going to do it, do it well.


----------



## ann (Aug 20, 2011)

They are making more and more head way with creating tools to extend the dynamic range of the sensor including d-lighting but it isn't the same.

Heaven only knows were we will be in 5 years, the need to make multi exposures to cover a 20 stop range maybe a thing of the past.


I don't come from the "school" that extended dynamic range is HDR. And i certainly agree , if one is going to do anything, including HDR, do it well.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 20, 2011)

ann said:


> They are making more and more head way with creating tools to extend the dynamic range of the sensor including d-lighting but it isn't the same.
> 
> Heaven only knows were we will be in 5 years, the need to make multi exposures to cover a 20 stop range maybe a thing of the past.
> 
> ...



I don't come from that school either, and I never said it was the same.  I'm merely pointing out that you said fauz was wrong, and that is an incorrect statement.


----------



## ann (Aug 20, 2011)

I am not here to create issues i never meant to say you did..


----------



## manaheim (Aug 20, 2011)

Me neither.  It's all good.  Just clarifying.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 20, 2011)

I remember reading somewhere that a true HDR image is a 32 bits per channel image (or was is bits per pixel?), called true colour images or something, that our monitors yet doesn't support, or are good enough so that we can make use of such images. Blending several exposures is merely a _reproduction_ of the true scene we wanted to capture. Our eyes can see details in shadows, midtones and highlights alike (unless the differences are extreme, such as black spots on the Sun), and what we want to reproduce is what our eyes perceive.

Or maybe I'm just embarrassing myself, here?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 20, 2011)

HDR is often used as shorthand (knowingly or unknowingly) for combining multiple exposures and tonemapping them... The latter usually is the key part since, as you said, monitors can't keep up.


----------

