Anyone into HDR?

[surfy]

I was just wondering what program(s) any of you use to create and adjust dynamic range. I know a lot of people use photoshop, but it's a little complex and time consuming, at least for me anyways. So I was looking at http://www.integrated-color.com/photomatix/

Anyone here personally use this program?

 

[MrSandman]

Here is the program that i use. Best of all, its free.

http://mmm.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

 

[surfy]

I'll give that a shot Thanks for the link!

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

If you want it done right, Photoshop is the way to go IMO.

 

[RichK]

I use Photomatix Pro. IMO, it does a great job. Just don't overdue it. Here's an example:

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

can you show us the origional shots of that one RichK?

 

[RichK]

It was made from 5 bracketed exposures. I'll see if I can find the 0EV exposure on my HDD. FWIW, this was shot with HDR in mind.

 

[surfy]

That is a beautiful photo, Rich! Have you had any issues/problems with Photomatix Pro?

 

[NikonGuy]

Photomatix, Artizen, and FDR are by far superior to any other high dynamic range based specialty programs. There's also many styles and freedom of creativity involved. Here are some examples I have.

1. These were at the aviation museum from Charlotte, NC by magicnikon over at miranda's (great friend of mines) and its a great idea of how HDR should be in today's modern time.

2. Now these 2 are taken from me doing more of a "commercial look" for certain clients in the entertainment industry. They are more exaggerated, but develop a unique energy behind them.

I haven't seen any HDR shots done on any reef environments yet, so I'm curious to explore its ranges. Its definitely capable of producing promising photos. I dont have too much time as I'm always traveling, but lately I've been in the small town of Dartmouth enjoying my buddy's reef tank.

 

[surfy]

Yeah, I am curious as to how a coral or FTS would look with the help of HDR. I like the exaggerated. Of course, I am doing this for me and not selling my services, so I can afford to experiment and exaggerate the image. Very cool stuff, guy!

 

[Iostream]

HDR for an FTS would be difficult because of fish movement, but I am sure it could be done. Would certainly make for an interesting experiment.

 

[IPT]

WOw - this is pretty cool. I am not too familar with it though. In fact, not at all .

Amazing images Nikonguy and Rich. Love'em!

 

[Slakker]

Back when I did a lot of 3D stuff I remember mapping HDR images to giant spheres and using it as a background...gave great reflections and was a good ambient light source. Not entirely relevant, but sort of

I love the two shots of the planes...the one in the hangar looks a lot more like some extremely high quality CGI than a photo!

 

[IPT]

Rich - I would still love to see the original with no compensation. I am interested in this style of image but don't know much about it. Actually, this is the first I've heard of it. I just love high detail high contrast images.

Anyone else care to share thier knowledge or expereinces about using this technique?

 

[BlueCorn]

I've played with it but mostly don't care for it because it looks unnatural. I do think that it can be an interesting tool when used to go "over the top." At that point it feels okay since it's obvious that the intent wasn't to be natural.

Here's an example:

 

[Recty]

As always, your pictures are stunning.

 

[Blazer88]

I've done quite a bit of HDR over the past few years but prefer to just manually blend in PS rather than using Photomatix now. Here is a quick example from a few summers ago in Hawaii.

The three exposures I used (tough to capture much detail when shooting directly into the sun):

Blended in Photomatix:

I've had good luck using Photomatix for real estate though:

 

[IPT]

I like all those images.

I had this "discussion" on Photo.net once - like Doug was saying about over the top, have we moved away (with PS and digital imaging) from the reality of what we're seeing when we take an image? (spawned because with digital the Northern Lights came out an eire green and I felt I almost had to desaturate it at times to make it look the way it really did (not the color of nuclear waste). I missed film because then if some one questioned it I could just whip out a slide and show them the "truth" of what it looked like (or more acurately what was captured). WIth digital - the final rendering was left to my tastes and recolection). The overall response was that we never really did capture what was really there. Most chose overstaurtaed films like Velvia for exactly that reason. How far we want to take it is another issue all together and digital has smashed that door wide open.

Blazer - aside from the increased cloud contrast that is the way I like to do things (if the need arises). I've ditched my ND grad filters a long tme ago. The architechture shot looks amazing.

Photography is art - open to interpretation for "our vision". It seems like this technique does make it a little more like a painting and you can take it "over the top" pretty quickly. It might be fun to play with though. Blazer - how does blending manually differ from what the program does (or is it essentially the same?)

For me RIch's waterfall image looks almost like Velvia to me, Contrasty and saturated. A subtle exageration of reality. Generally that is where I like to be. At the same time I really like the feeling if Tom's image with the two kids on the couch. WOuldn;t have nearly the same effect shot with something like the typical film portrait photogs used to use. Anyway, I'm babbling now, sorry. This is interesting.

 

[juniormc8704]

thats crazy...

I love HDR pics.

I know what im going to be doing this weekend.

So basically your taking the same exact picture with over, correct, and under exposure, and then running them through an HDR filter, or program?

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13914821#post13914821 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
I like all those images.

I had this "discussion" on Photo.net once - like Doug was saying about over the top, have we moved away (with PS and digital imaging) from the reality of what we're seeing when we take an image? (spawned because with digital the Northern Lights came out an eire green and I felt I almost had to desaturate it at times to make it look the way it really did (not the color of nuclear waste). I missed film because then if some one questioned it I could just whip out a slide and show them the "truth" of what it looked like (or more acurately what was captured).

I really depends on the frame of reference. I'm not a journalist; my pictures are my artistic representation of a scene. The problem is in the notion that "film is real and digital is not." The camera, no matter what format, simply doesn't see the world the same way that the eye does. Filters, and HDR, are methods to reconcile the differences between the two. Even a polarizer does things to the light that isn't "real." While I rarely do HDR in software (and have none of it in my portfolio) I, basically, do HDR in hardware on a regular basis. This image:

http://images.hopdog.com/monterey_5856-Edit.jpg


is recording 11 stops of information in a single frame. The camera, by itself, couldn't see that without manipulation. Likewise there's the aspect of stopping, compressing or accumulating time that they eye just can't do.

Ansel Adams manipulated his images very heavily in the darkroom yet no one questions it because it was film. He used the analogy that the capture/negative is like a musical score. The real performance is the print and your interpretation of that score. If he were alive today, he'd be shooting digital and working in Photoshop.

When it's all said and done, it's really just a matter of personal taste. Photography is art so, thankfully, everyone has a different preference. Ultimately you need to decide what appeals to you and what method achieves the goal that you're trying to obtain.