# Is it just me or...



## citjet (Sep 28, 2009)

..are HDR photos so pleasing to the eye because it is what the eye see's naturally in most cases?  There are several images that I look at and think that Im actually in the image and viewing it in the flesh.  I love this effect and am now working on some ideas and attempts.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 29, 2009)

it's quite the opposite.

the reason they look nice is because the range of detail is more than what the eye sees.


----------



## John Godwin (Sep 29, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> it's quite the opposite.
> 
> the reason they look nice is because the range of detail is more than what the eye sees.



How does that work then?


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 29, 2009)

you shoot multiple shots.
say you shoot 3...
1 is the right exposure.
1 is over exposed
1 is under exposed.

when you combine the 3, you will see details in all areas of the photo.

you overexpose to get details in the darker areas that would not show detail at the right exposure...same thing for grabbing details in highlights by underexposing (so you get details in areas that might be blown out in a good exposure).

i suck at explaining stuff, but id like to refer you here:

this is by FAR the best HDR thread on here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/176231-hdr-not-hdr-guide.html


----------



## John Godwin (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks, I know how to create HDR images, I'm questioning your logic.

You say the reason why HDR photos are so nice to looking is because they contain more detail than the eye can see. How does that work? If it was because of that, they wouldn't be as pleasing to look at because the eye wouldn't be able to pick out the extra detail.

Do you mean that a HDR photograph contains more data than a computer monitor is able to produce, so the image is tonemapped to give an approximation of the true detail range? Because then you would be right.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 30, 2009)

i dont mean that it;s more detail than the eye can register...i mean that an HDR image presents details in all areas of the shot...in the shadows, in the highlights...areas that would be left without detail if taken with the 'proper' exposure.

did you have a read at the link i pasted in above? that would likely explain it much better than i could.

take a look at the images posted in that thread...the HDR image would not be seen by the eye with out the exposure combining.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 30, 2009)

citjet said:


> ..are HDR photos so pleasing to the eye because it is what the eye see's naturally in most cases?



Never seen that before in any HDR. They're almost all cartoonish. And even when they're almost not, the color is always nuclear.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 30, 2009)

In a 1 exposure picture (we're talking about shots other than studio shots or lighting controlled shots) it is nigh impossible to have an even exposure across the frame.  There is always something that is too dark or too bright or both.  I think HDR is nice to look at because even though our brain says that there should be shadows and highlights that we would be squinting to see, it's a very relaxed looking, evenly exposed photo, which means our eyes don't have to squint.  Good pictures are all about putting an emotion into the onlooker.  with HDR, the exposure is less of a distraction, so the audience is able to look more at what is actually captured in the photo itself.  

just my 2 cents.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 30, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> citjet said:
> 
> 
> > ..are HDR photos so pleasing to the eye because it is what the eye see's naturally in most cases?
> ...



calm down.


----------



## McNugget801 (Sep 30, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Never seen that before in any HDR. They're almost all cartoonish. And even when they're almost not, the color is always nuclear.



Err... Think you are talking about tone mapping and HDR is not always cartoonish or has nuclear colors silly.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 30, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > citjet said:
> ...


Show me an example of an HDR that looks "realistic"!


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 1, 2009)

Sigh. HDR done right, looks nice because it comes *closer* to what the eye would perceive. Your pesky eyeballs have a dynamic range of around 20 stops or so. No camera today can hope to match that. Biggest problem, is that we can't bloody well print or display 20 stops of range anyway, so we tone-map it. And that's where the funkiness starts happening.

HDR made funky looks...funky. Either through a lack of expertise, or the intent of the creator.

And then there are patently wrong things like the amplification of noise, CA, flare, vibrations, ghosting...the list goes on. If you thought creating a decent single image was hard, try taking three and putting them together successfully. Then you're in for a world of hurt.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 1, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> the reason they look nice is because the range of detail is more than what the eye sees.



Do you realize that you're saying it is nice because we can't see some of the picture? If the range of details is more than the eye sees, we don't see those details. You may want to re-read the thread you linked to so that you can explain it correctly.

HDR is actually a way to put back in the photo the details that the human sees but that a camera (film or digital btw) cannot see/capture because of the limitations of its dynamic range.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/176231-hdr-not-hdr-guide.html




Sw1tchFX said:


> Show me an example of an HDR that looks "realistic"!



Look at the link below, the same given above btw, to see an HDR photo that is realistic. I would be much better to say you don't like "cartoonish" HDR than to claim something untrue.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/176231-hdr-not-hdr-guide.html


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 1, 2009)

exactly... the picture in that thread looks slightly surreal, but there is no picture that would show the same amount of data (detail in bright spots and dark spots) as that HDR job.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 4, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Look at the link below, the same given above btw, to see an HDR photo that is realistic. I would be much better to say you don't like "cartoonish" HDR than to claim something untrue.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/176231-hdr-not-hdr-guide.html



Maybe if I was on LSD, shrooms, or meth. Does that HONESTLY look real to you?

No. Of course not. It looks fake. That's actually a GREAT example to FURTHER my point that automated HDR's do not replicate accurate color and tonality.


----------



## phocus78 (Oct 4, 2009)

dont try the meth bro, its highly addictive i heard


----------

