What is HDR?

[candidrachel]

I keep seeing folks posting pics HDR. What is it and what does it mean? Can someone explain?

Thanks!

[Bluenoser]

Good definition at Wikpedia - High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[candidrachel]

Thanks for the link. Still can't get my head round it. Sounds complicated!

[Bluenoser]

Basically you're taking a number of exposures (3 or more) and combining them. Each shot is taken at a different exposure, one underexposed, one overexposed, one correctly exposed. This allows you to get better detail in highlights and shadows.

I've heard of HDR being done with 1 exposure, but haven't seen it. You can do more than 3 exposures as well, in some cases people have done 5, 7 or more.

[arlon]

HDR is simply a way of taking the best exposed parts of several photos and sticking them togather. I use a software called photomatix to do the sticking togather.

With my D90 I almost always bracket my shots so it's easy to generate HDR later if I want. Set the camera on 3 shot bracket (-2, 0, +2 stops), set on repeating shutter and it clicks off three exposures in about a second..

Another option is to shoot a RAW file and use PS to make some lighter and darker copies.

Here is a shot combined from three images created from one RAW file:

LARGER VERSION

Here is a cheesy image created from 3 seperate bracket .jpg files:

LARGER VERSION

[arlon]

Originally Posted by CanonRebelz

HDR is cheesy, because most people "overcook" it (where it's really oversaturated and so unnatural). But some HDR is great, if done right

I wouldn't call HDR "cheesy". If someone likes it CHEESY then they can make it CHEESY. It's called personal choice or artistic license. Because you don't like something that doesn't mean it's cheesy.. It just means it's not your style.

I don't like Picasso, but that doesn't mean he's a cheesy artist. Not everyone (myself included) is trying for "photo realism". There is an impressionistic side (as well as a realistic side) that is fun to explore in HDR processing.. I have seen a lot of both styles that I've really liked.

A few more hdr:

LARGER VERSION

Here's one I'd call "over saturated" and maybe even on the cheesy side.. But I still like it. (-:}


LARGER VERSION

[arlon]

Originally Posted by candidrachel

Thanks for the link. Still can't get my head round it. Sounds complicated!

This might help. Here is a gallery of 4 seperate images I used to make the "HDR" image at the end. You can look at all 4 of the originals and see what parts where used in the final.

Specifically, look at the area behind the arched door ways in the first photo and the sky in the last. Best parts of both are combined in the final image.

hdr_inputs_example Photo Gallery by Arlon at pbase.com

[kencaleno]

Basically, if someone viewing an image says,"Wow, that's a good HDR!" then you have failed.
True HDR is just opening up the range to 10 ev stops(Roughly as the eye sees) instead of the camera's range,(latitude) of 5 stops. Most people abuse the reality and produce comic book images, as you have seen. You can get HDR from just two jpeg images, without all the mystique and comic book fluffing about.

Here's how it's done, properly:

(Camera on tripod )
Expose for highlights-take a shot
Expose for shadows-take a shot
Add highlight image to shadow image as a new layer (hold “shift” and drag move tool)
Select> Color Range, Click “highlights” check “invert”, click “OK”
Add layer mask.
Filter> Blur> Gaussian Blur 250 pixels.
Flatten and save.


And that's true High Dynamic Range-Ken

[inkista]

Here's a link to a post I wrote a while back, explaining HDR.

Myself, these days, since I prefer a naturalistic look to the exploding skies/supersaturated thing, I tend to use Enfuse instead of going the wholehog HDR/Photomatix route (also, I am cheap. I like open source software). No tedious mucking about with tonemapping. The thing here is how the dynamic range has been compressed to what the display technology can handle: the mirrored panels on the entry way and shadow detail aren't lost in the black, as they are in the mid-range and underexposed frames, but the sky isn't blown out, as it is in the overexposed frame.


Three shots, bracketed at ±2EV, combined in ImageFuser, with exposure, saturation, and contrast all set to the same value (no bias).

[candidrachel]

Wow thanks guys! Such stunning photos you've got there. I will definately give it a go and follow your tuition I'm not sure whether my first attempts will be anywhere near as fantastic as yours You have all given me inspiration!

Photography is a very personal choice. Just like any art. Horses for courses. I don't like "cheesy" portraits of babies and children dressed up in silly costumes like bunnies or minature Little Lord Fauntleroy complete with frilly shirt and knickerbockers!