# Hibiscus



## The Barbarian (Jul 21, 2012)

IMO, HDR is to make the image look as real as possible.   I enjoy the over-the-top images, but I don't care to do them, myself.


----------



## Jrmdb3 (Jul 21, 2012)

It's a bit noisy on the right side. What ISO were you using? How many different exposures were taken for this HDR?

Good contrast in colors otherwise though! Not bad!


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 21, 2012)

Was very early in the morning, and ISO 1000.   Probably should have denoised it before doing HDR.


----------



## Jrmdb3 (Jul 21, 2012)

Ah gotcha. Upping the ISO will increase the noise. Try using an ISO lower than 400, this might achieve better results!


----------



## that1guy (Jul 21, 2012)

1000 iso :O

you post process this? i can see ghosting in the center


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 22, 2012)

> you post process this? i can see ghosting in the center



That would be really odd, since the five exposures were obtained from a single RAW image.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 22, 2012)

> Ah gotcha. Upping the ISO will increase the noise. Try using an ISO lower than 400, this might achieve better results!



Might.  But underexposure will also increase noise.


----------



## Jrmdb3 (Jul 22, 2012)

That's why compose a slower shutter speed so you don't have all under exposed pictures. It's all about compensation


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 22, 2012)

> That's why compose a slower shutter speed so you don't have all under exposed pictures;-). It's all about compensation



Or in this case a tripod.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 22, 2012)

this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR...........


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 22, 2012)

> this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR



An HDR doesn't have to look over the top.   It's purpose is to increase the dynamic range of an image.    If you do it right, the first thought of a viewer 


isn't "an HDR" but "hey, nice shot."



All the action HDRs you see were done using RAW to make bracketed images.    It's not a difficult process.   And it's quite possible to make those overcooked images, if that's what you like.   There's even a bit of haloing here.   The real advantage in shooting flowers is the improved definition of texture in the flower itself.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 22, 2012)

I believe the reason it is not a real HDR is because you used a single raw file. 

It's also pretty boring compositionally, but that doesn't have anything to do with the processing style. However it is vital to have a good composition to make a pleasing image.


----------



## that1guy (Jul 23, 2012)

The Barbarian said:


> > this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR
> 
> 
> 
> An HDR doesn't have to look over the top.   It's purpose is to increase the dynamic range of an image.



theres no dynamic ranges ... thats what we're trying to say... its like you tone map your image then finish ur post processing


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

> theres no dynamic ranges ...



There is, and it's considerably greater range than you'd get from a simple shot.   It's just more subtle than you like.  Look at the HDR of the night heron.    Then look at the finished image.


The finished image may not be an obvious HDR (although most people who understood the process would know what it was) but it looks better than the RAW image or the HDR.   Notice that the shot was heavily backlit.   In the HDR, the bird is well-exposed, but the sky, which would have been blown out in a normal image, retains the clouds (albeit OOF, due to a very close shot with a long lens).



> thats what we're trying to say... its like you tone map your image then finish ur post processing



Often I do, if the HDR doesn't give me what I want, by itself.    HDR is supposed to support your vision, not replace it.  It's a tool, not an end in itself.


----------



## that1guy (Jul 23, 2012)

ok good luck!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 23, 2012)

The Barbarian said:
			
		

> There is, and it's considerably greater range than you'd get from a simple shot.   It's just more subtle than you like.  Look at the HDR of the night heron.    Then look at the finished image.
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=14579"/>
> 
> The finished image may not be an obvious HDR (although most people who understood the process would know what it was) but it looks better than the RAW image or the HDR.
> ...



The finished image of your heron is a totally inefficient use of HDR. The sky is still totally blown out. 

You could get a similar finished product with 1 raw file and some fill light.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

There's room for everyone's work, after all.   I even enjoy extreme HDR images, if they are well done and have a purpose to be extreme.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jul 23, 2012)

Best HDR is take with multiple shots. It's not like the flower was running off anywhere. Why didn't you take multiple shots?

Edit: the original heron looks better than the "hdr" one because it's closer to properly exposed. (on my phone anyway)


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 23, 2012)

The Barbarian said:
			
		

> There's room for everyone's work, after all.   I even enjoy extreme HDR images, if they are well done and have a purpose to be extreme.



I don't think you are getting what HDR is. It's for a HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE. So when part of the dynamic range is clipped according to the histogram, it doesn't fully encapsulate the entirety of the dynamic range in the photograph. 

You can't really call it an HDR if the single raw file you are using doesn't fully encompass the dynamic range of the scene.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 23, 2012)

prodigy2k7 said:
			
		

> Best HDR is take with multiple shots. It's not like the flower was running off anywhere. Why didn't you take multiple shots?
> 
> Edit: the original heron looks better than the "hdr" one because it's closer to properly exposed. (on my phone anyway)



No, the best HDRs aren't taken with multiple shots, rather ALL HDR's are made with multiple shots. It is impossible to extend dynamic range with only one shot. You can sort of make one shot LOOK HDR-ish and tone mapped but it is still NOT an HDR nor will the dynamic range ne increased


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jul 23, 2012)

You say tomato I say tomato. Wait that doesn't work well for text lol. That's what I meant. Lol


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

> The finished image of your heron is a totally inefficient use of HDR.



No.  The definition in the feathers, scutes, beak, etc. is much better than in the original RAW image, even after processing.



> The sky is still totally blown out.



Those big, OOF dark things in the sky?   Clouds.  "Blown out" means there's no information whatever.   Blank white.



> You could get a similar finished product with 1 raw file and some fill light.



Nope.  Set aside, for the moment the impracticality of a telephoto fill light in wetlands photography, you'd never get that kind of definition and clarity in a non-HDR image.   This is what HDR was conceived for.

The reason you can use one RAW shot to do HDR has to do with the nature of the data received by the sensor.   A JPEG has already been edited, and the dynamic range inherent in the shot is lost.   The RAW image retains that information, and can be used to several images with different EVs.   And that's what you need to make an HDR.    Try doing this with one JPEG, even with all the manipulation in the world, you won't get more dynamic range.   

There are methods like AutoHDR, which can kinda sorta simulate HDR.    But it wouldn't have worked with the heron shot, because greater dynamic range was exactly what was needed.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 23, 2012)

The Barbarian said:
			
		

> No.  The definition in the feathers, scutes, beak, etc. is much better than in the original RAW image, even after processing.
> 
> Those big, OOF dark things in the sky?   Clouds.  "Blown out" means there's no information whatever.   B
> 
> ...



Whatever you say. 
Bottom line.... you can't capture 9 or 10 stops of light that can only capture 4 or 5 stop.  But it sounds like you have some secret formula for that. Good luck.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 23, 2012)

The Barbarian said:
			
		

> No.  The definition in the feathers, scutes, beak, etc. is much better than in the original RAW image, even after processing.
> 
> Those big, OOF dark things in the sky?   Clouds.  "Blown out" means there's no information whatever.   Blank white.
> 
> ...



You are hopeless, and most likely destined for photographic failure. 

Sorry to break it to you, but you are simply wrong on so many levels, it's not even worth my time to respond to everything that you said that is incorrect. Perhaps this is why you've been registered since 2005, yet still shoot and process images like you've been shooting for a week. 

Good luck on your adventure. Maybe some day you will understand.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

> Bottom line.... you can't capture 9 or 10 stops of light that can only  capture 4 or 5 stop.  But it sounds like you have some secret formula  for that.



It's not difficult to do at all.   Nine stops would be at the upper limit, though.
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1050/how-many-stops-can-a-digital-camera-capture

Edit; note the sticky on HDR for beginners.  It estimates 8-11 stops for a camera sensor. 


> Good luck.



It's not about luck.  It's about learning what you can do with the equipment you have.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

> You are hopeless, and most likely destined for photographic failure.



Well, you know how ignorant Barbarians are...



> Sorry to break it to you, but you are simply wrong on so many levels,  it's not even worth my time to respond to everything that you said that  is incorrect.



Perhaps there's an "ignore" feature here, so you don't have to look at my images any longer.



> Perhaps this is why you've been registered since 2005, yet  still shoot and process images like you've been shooting for a week.



I'll defer to your leaned judgement on that, then.   But I still kinda like it.  Before you write me off entirely, perhaps you can show me one of your wildlife shots from which I can take instruction.   Or you can look at my Stop 'N Go shot and show me a better way from your photos.    I can always learn something new, and I'd be pleased to see how you do it.



> Good luck on your adventure. Maybe some day you will understand.



Possibly not.  If I haven't learned since 2005, what hope is there?   Still, I'm certainly open to seeing your images.   Show us.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 23, 2012)

I don't shoot nature or wildlife. I shoot people for money and get paid quite well.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

> I don't shoot nature or wildlife. I shoot people for money and get paid quite well.



That's certainly a big plus if you're a real professional; I am truly impressed.  No sarcasm intended.   Especially the "paid quite well" part.  Shooting wildlife probably isn't all that different than shooting people, except you get wet and dirty, and the subjects tend to run or fly away from you. 

So do you have any HDRs from which I could learn a better way?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 23, 2012)

The forum members Trever1t and  are quite good with HDR images. There is a sticky at the top of the forum that has a great guide. I don't shoot HDR images in my line of work because it's generally too fast paced. That, and I don't really like the time consuming process of shooting HDRs.

Also, weddings can get quite wet and dirty depending on the venue. You'd be surprised.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jul 23, 2012)

No problem.   I don't have any wedding pictures to show you, either.   Wouldn't know how to begin, and you couldn't pay me to try.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 23, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> this picture fails in all aspects of HDR, heck its not even an HDR...........


----------

