HDR image: Processed enough? Tonality okay?

[plangereis]

This is one of my irst HDR photos. I was always a little hesitant to work in HDR, mainly because of the look of the over processed images I had seen. Then I saw some great examples of HDR processed photos that still retained the photo look, which is what I like. What do you think about the overall look of this photo in terms of processing and tonality. Do you think I was successful with Photomatix? The original photo before HDR was way too bright in the window area, and much of the detail in that area was lost. Anyway, I am blithering a bit, so tell me what you think about how I processed this image.

ISO 100/ 50mm/ f13/ 2 stop variance between auto-bracketed photos

[kirbinster]

Looks very realistic, I would not have known it was HDR had you not told us.

[TW0R]

x2. I wish I could do hdr like that.

[VegasMike]

Beautifully done.Most HDR images I've seen (and worked with) are tone-mapped until somewhat over-processed. It's not always bad, though. Your image does seem to capture the full luminosity range of the scene, which to my understanding, is what HDR is about.

[plangereis]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Looks very realistic, I would not have known it was HDR had you not told us.

Thanks for the compliment! This is exactly what my goal with HDR is....To make HDR not look like HDR. I like the idea of taking advantage of HDR's tonal range potential!

Originally Posted by TW0R

x2. I wish I could do hdr like that.

I don't know if I did anything special. I took photos using a tripod and remote shutter release. I also alowed for a 2 stop variance, and took these using manual mode. Part of look has to do with the character of the old house I took this shot in (100 years old), as well as the early morning light that was available. In terms of processing, I used Photomatix, and used the HDR setting, and then tone mapped the image. I finished it off in Lightroom 2.

Originally Posted by VegasMike

Beautifully done.Most HDR images I've seen (and worked with) are tone-mapped until somewhat over-processed. It's not always bad, though. Your image does seem to capture the full luminosity range of the scene, which to my understanding, is what HDR is about.

Hi Mike. Thanks for the input, and I know what you mean about some HDR processing being over done. Yet, there seems to be a good following in this area. Yet, when I read about people that have been doing HDR for quite a while, they seem to go through a transition that starts with over-processed images and shifts to realistic imagery/ photo-like. I tend to like the photo look vs. the "drawing/ sketched" look. HDR is a lot of fun, and I am finding the potential to be really exciting!

[FoG]

This is the type of HDR I like one that is photo real rather than the over processed halo'd ones you see nice job well done not much you could do to better it

[plangereis]

Originally Posted by FoG

This is the type of HDR I like one that is photo real rather than the over processed halo'd ones you see nice job well done not much you could do to better it

Thanks FoG. You comments are very appreciated as this HDR thing is very new to me. In some ways I wonder if doing HDR is worth it in terms of the time spent per photo, but I am finding you cannot beat how HDR deals with very contrasty situations. Thanks again for the kind comments.

[kencaleno]

Definitely a change from the cartoony,over tone-mapped, Dave Hill copies. Proper HDR is simple-you just need to combine two jpeg images-like so:

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.


Examples:

1. exposed for sky(highlights)
2. exposed for foreground(shadows)
3. The 2 shots combined-as described above