# been practicing realistic HDR's



## marmots (Apr 21, 2012)

so here's what iv've got


this first one is just a room in my house, comprised of 5 bracketed exposures
it was very unevenly lit



this was a set of exposures i took a long time ago, and made into one of those over done HDR's
this is my third attempt with that set, this time i went for realism
a also had to do some levels adjustments on different areas of this one in the end


----------



## Crollo (Apr 21, 2012)

I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.

That being said I see absolutely nothing in either of those two images that would exceed the dynamic range of a DSLR sensor OR the human eye so I'm assuming HDR is being used to an artistic effect, which is so ironic given that you're going for 'realistic'.


----------



## marmots (Apr 21, 2012)

Crollo said:


> I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.




ok fine...

here are my realistic "bracketed, composited, and tone mapped" images

but just to be concise im still going to call them HDR's
plus most beginners only know that term out of all the terms listed


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 21, 2012)

Not sure I know what you are going for... I love both images, but realistic? Photographs are about as close to "real" as one can get in the business of copying reality. Bracketing etc doesn't make them less real... Unless your trying to get them to be HDR without looking like they are HDR... in which case I'm not sure I see the point!! 

Like I said, Love the images though :thumbup: Maybe just a bit more explanation as to what you were trying to achieve?


----------



## marmots (Apr 21, 2012)

the point of bracketing them was to get an even, proper exposure, without using any artificial lighting


----------



## marmots (Apr 21, 2012)

here are the middle exposures from each of them


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 21, 2012)

Love the second one. Phenomenal shot!

Only minor quibble would be to get the whole chair legs in the frame next time.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 21, 2012)

Crollo said:


> I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.
> 
> That being said I see absolutely nothing in either of those two images that would exceed the dynamic range of a DSLR sensor OR the human eye so I'm assuming HDR is being used to an artistic effect, which is so ironic given that you're going for 'realistic'.



I pick on people all the time on this forum for unecessary HDRs, but this statement is absolutely false.  Both of those images show more than you could get in a single exposure AND he's not exceeding what the human eye can see, he's just exceeding what can be had with a single exposure.

To OP... ignore this guy.

Also, marmots, I think you did a pretty good job.  They look a LITTLE overcooked... try backing down the saturation a little.  Other than that, I think you did a nice job.

BTW, also always be mindful of all things composition.  I know that wasn't your primary concern here, but the tilt in the first shot is pretty significant and easily fixed.

Keep at it.


----------



## fenderjaguar (Apr 22, 2012)

I agree with manaheim. I don't know what some of the others were talking about. Nice pics.


----------



## Bynx (Apr 22, 2012)

The only problem I see with your shots is they are too vibrant. In Photoshop if you make the Vibrancy about -24 the over saturated reds and blues will be toned down to a more realistic look. Other than that these are both great examples of good HDR.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 22, 2012)

I agree. They don't really show realism in my opinion but they are well done. I say that because they have that shimmering effect that HDRs sometimes have between the light and dark values. 

They're not overcooked though. No haloing as far as I can see.


----------



## Dillard (Apr 22, 2012)

I agree, maybe a tad on the cooked side, but very nice overall!


----------



## marmots (Apr 22, 2012)

thank you


----------



## Crollo (Apr 23, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I pick on people all the time on this forum for unecessary HDRs, but this statement is absolutely false.  Both of those images show more than you could get in a single exposure AND he's not exceeding what the human eye can see, he's just exceeding what can be had with a single exposure.





> _HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic [range] is less then the human eye_


 .


----------



## Judobreaker (Apr 23, 2012)

Ehm... lol.
How do I put this...
That's just bull****. xD

First of all, the human eye can probably never be compared to any photo as it's way more complex than a camera sensor.
It's dynamic range doesn't work the same, the human eye is a cheater on all fronts. It can correct what you see by using your own memory, the brain is way smart. 

Second, HDR means the dynamic range is simply higher than what you could achieve with a single exposure.
This means that instead of completely dark areas in the shadows and/or completely white areas in the highlights you will also see details there.
In other words: _A good HDR photo does not look like it needed a HDR shot if you only look at the HDR photo!
_If you look at the individual photos that were used for that HDR though you will see dark shadows or white highlights (exactly like in the middle exposure shots marmots posted).

Having said that I think marmot pretty much nailed the HDR aspect of these photos.


----------



## Bynx (Apr 23, 2012)

This thread is an excellent one for two reasons. The middle exposures shown illustrate what we were used to accepting as 'normal' shots given the lighting conditions of each. We had to accept a choice of what we wanted. In the room shot, it is either the room or the window and lamp. In the deck scene its the background or the foreground, but not both. HDR works wherever there is highlights and shadows, period. If the lighting is flat with little dynamic range then its the tone mapping which will really make any change. While crollo's loud statement is somewhat true, you cant compare what the eye sees to what the camera sees, because they dont operate the same, not by a long shot. The eye makes constant adjustments as we look from light to dark and only sees small portions of the overall scene at a time, the camera can only shoot the total scene during that brief exposure, but it can accumulate light to produce what the eye cant even see, with a long exposure. I personally dont think there is a time when HDR has to be warranted to be used. Use it any time, any place you like. If it works, good, if it doesnt, so what. But if you dont shoot for it then the HDR moment is gone and you wont have the needed files to make a good one. If I see a good scene I always shoot my bracketed files to figure out later how Im going to use them. Its easier to throw away excess files than to have to go back and take more. And finally, HDR images do look different and can easily be spotted. The usual way is because of their bright colors, especially the greens and the skies. Thats from poor tone mapping. Another way is when people look at the image and go WOW because it looks so good. Both the images by the OP in this thread are WOW images. They are better than any single shot can produce without going to the extreme and setting up elaborte lighting to fill in the shadow areas like what is needed in the deck scene. The processing on those two images isnt perfect, but the problem of oversaturation that I see is easily fixed and just a matter of taste.


----------



## 18.percent.gary (Apr 23, 2012)

For what it's worth...

I use "realistic HDR" extensively for landscapes. In my eyes the 3 things that make HDR look "unrealistic" are A. over saturation of colors B. too much smoothing C. un-natural overall exposure (the foreground should naturally be brighter than the background, as our eyes see it).

I like both your renderings as well processed HDR yet I don't feel they come across as "realistic" based on my above criteria. Just my opinion though of course!


----------



## EDL (May 5, 2012)

I like them and I like a lot of what I'm seeing in HDR in general.  I've never, ever created an HDR (hell, I don't have a DSLR yet!), but I've been reading and looking and I like what I see.

If it makes any difference, and I hope that perhaps having an inexperienced opinion can somehow put a different perspective on things, it seems to me that the discussions on HDR and the things the pro and con sides of the argument bring up are really talking about 2 different things here.

What I see as utilitarian for HDR are 1) lighting control and 2) color saturation.  Certainly the patio shot has vastly benefitted by the HDR processing by getting the lighting, and thusly one being able to "see" the dark shadowed areas behind the chairs that are totally missing from the middle or, what I'll call the "normal" exposure.

Someone touched on it in an earlier reply here, but I like the comparison he made to the human eye and a camera sensor.  We only see what we're looking at at any given moment, whereas the camera sees the entire scene all at once (if that makes sense).  Just sitting here typing this, I look across the room at the wall where my fireplace is.  There are two small windows on either side. If I look at the window, the pupil in my eye gets smaller to adjust to the bright light and I can, very quickly see the details around the window, etc.  I can also see the oak cabinetry below the window, but there isn't much detail there because it's in darker shadow, but just as soon as I lower my eyes to it, my eyes make instant adjustments and the details are brighter and clearer.  I can't naturally see both areas in my field of vision that way simultaneously because my eyes aren't static, they constantly and automatically adjust to the light where ever I am focusing my vision.  To me, "realistic" HDR adjusts the lighting in an image to compensate for the human eye adjustment as if we were looking directly at any given potion of the photo...at least that's how I comprehend it in my brain...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

It's as if the entire scene had the "ultimate" natural lighting...and I have seen locations at certain times of the day that naturally provide that exact sense.

As for coloring, that perhaps is where things can get dicey with those that don't like HDR and those that do.  There are lots of HDR examples on the net I've seen that provide just enough color to make the image pop without over doing it and I think this area is probably the most contentious in terms of "taste".

I also think the term "realistic" is relative.  I think it's used to try to differentiate from the massively overcooked "cartoon" look is all.

I admit it saddens me a little to see some of the bickering in the threads because let's face it, photographs ARE subjective.  Not everyone is going to like what you consider your best work, but it's ok.  I actually like the fact that anyone, experienced or not can provide feedback and an opinion and they are ALL valid, if not from a technical point, a simple "I like it" or "I don't like it" perspective.  That's the beauty of this medium.  You don't have to have years of knowledge and experience to like or to not like something.  Regardless of the technique used, however simple or complex, it is the end result that matters.

What's the old saying?  "One man's trash is another man's treasure"...

I am so glad I found this forum and I "discovered" HDR.  In fact, I've already downloaded a free HDR application, have a fresh set of batteries ready for my "ancient" little Olympus C3030 and just anxiously awaiting good weather conditions to get out and and take some exposures and start playing.

My birthday is in June and I've already made it clear to the wife that I want a Canon T2i (because macro is still my love and I want an MP-E65 some day).  I can't wait!  So many cool things to do in digital photography today, it's very exciting!


----------



## jake337 (May 5, 2012)

Crollo said:


> I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.
> 
> That being said I see absolutely nothing in either of those two images that would exceed the dynamic range of a DSLR sensor OR the human eye so I'm assuming HDR is being used to an artistic effect, which is so ironic given that you're going for 'realistic'.



So you were there with the OP?  

How would you know if the dynamic range in those scenes exceeded the cameras ability to capture?


----------



## jake337 (May 5, 2012)

Bynx said:


> This thread is an excellent one for two reasons. The middle exposures shown illustrate what we were used to accepting as 'normal' shots given the lighting conditions of each. We had to accept a choice of what we wanted. In the room shot, it is either the room or the window and lamp. In the deck scene its the background or the foreground, but not both. HDR works wherever there is highlights and shadows, period. If the lighting is flat with little dynamic range then its the tone mapping which will really make any change. While crollo's loud statement is somewhat true, you cant compare what the eye sees to what the camera sees, because they dont operate the same, not by a long shot. The eye makes constant adjustments as we look from light to dark and only sees small portions of the overall scene at a time, the camera can only shoot the total scene during that brief exposure, but it can accumulate light to produce what the eye cant even see, with a long exposure. I personally dont think there is a time when HDR has to be warranted to be used. Use it any time, any place you like. If it works, good, if it doesnt, so what. But if you dont shoot for it then the HDR moment is gone and you wont have the needed files to make a good one. If I see a good scene I always shoot my bracketed files to figure out later how Im going to use them. Its easier to throw away excess files than to have to go back and take more. And finally, HDR images do look different and can easily be spotted. The usual way is because of their bright colors, especially the greens and the skies. Thats from poor tone mapping. Another way is when people look at the image and go WOW because it looks so good. Both the images by the OP in this thread are WOW images. They are better than any single shot can produce without going to the extreme and setting up elaborte lighting to fill in the shadow areas like what is needed in the deck scene. The processing on those two images isnt perfect, but the problem of oversaturation that I see is easily fixed and just a matter of taste.



Exactly.  I used to think bracketing was only for a scene with a wide range of luminosity.  I've changed my ways though as many have shown how you can use it artistically or to bring in more detail without heavy, heavy editing.

Only itch I have with HDR is that some think HDR is overcooked images in general and I tray to sway them away from that thinking.  It's another tool we have to create what we are envisioning.


----------



## marmots (May 5, 2012)

jake337 said:


> So you were there with the OP?
> 
> How would you know if the dynamic range in those scenes exceeded the cameras ability to capture.



i posted the middle image of both composites


----------



## jake337 (May 5, 2012)

marmots said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > So you were there with the OP?
> ...



Yeah I know, but that poster attacked you before they even saw that post.


----------

