HDR or Not?

[r/t]

Hi,

This is my first try of processing my photo using only iphoto edit settings. I am trying to achieve the HDR effect and I am wondering if this would be considered a HDR image? A bigger photo can be seen on this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4641143...30940/sizes/o/



Any other suggestions/comments are appreciated. Thank you in advance.

[UWPhotog]

It would depend on what you did with post processing.

Did you combine 3 or more exposures of the same shot, or did you take the Raw file divide it into three different light and dark images and then re-combine it ?

If you did one of these then its classed as HDR.

A good place to start for HDR is
Stuck In Customs HDR Photography

[BCampbell]

Where is the nonedited version to compare?

My first instinct is to vote "not" but I'd have to see what you started with.

[aspencade]

I dont think this is a true HDR image made up of three pics at different exposure settings...the reason is the train....it would have mooved too far in three shots in my opinion........Paul

[CaptainNH]

A well composed shot Richard. It looks tone mapped to me, but not truly HDR. It still seems lacking a little detail in the shadows and the sky looks "normal", which isn't generally an HDR characteristic

[r/t]

Originally Posted by UWPhotog

It would depend on what you did with post processing.

Did you combine 3 or more exposures of the same shot, or did you take the Raw file divide it into three different light and dark images and then re-combine it ?

If you did one of these then its classed as HDR.

A good place to start for HDR is
Stuck In Customs HDR Photography

Hi UWPhotog
Thank you for the critique and the link. I have to admit, I thought HDR was about just about making the contrast and exposure settings to a higher level. I haven't read anything about HDR except look at HDR photos. So to answer your questions, I did not combine 3 or more exposures of the same shot or even took the RAW file and divide it into 3 different images.

I sure have a lot of reading to do. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Where is the nonedited version to compare?

My first instinct is to vote "not" but I'd have to see what you started with.

Hi BCampbell,

I just uploaded the original file on my flickr account and here is the link if you want to compare it: original on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thank you for your comment and your vote.

Originally Posted by aspencade

I dont think this is a true HDR image made up of three pics at different exposure settings...the reason is the train....it would have mooved too far in three shots in my opinion........Paul

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your comment. As stated above, I certainly do not know what a HDR image is. I knew it was harder than it looks.

Originally Posted by CaptainNH

A well composed shot Richard. It looks tone mapped to me, but not truly HDR. It still seems lacking a little detail in the shadows and the sky looks "normal", which isn't generally an HDR characteristic

Hi Neil,

Thank you for your compliment about the composition. I guess I have a lot of homework to do about HDR.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by r/t

Hi BCampbell,

I just uploaded the original file on my flickr account and here is the link if you want to compare it: original on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Okay, so I see that as others have said this is not an HDR photo, just a photo edited ot "look" HDR.

I am not a fan of the HDR "hyperreal" look, so I don't see why someone would purposefully process a photo to look like that, but to each their own. I definitely like the original better, and I don't see anywhere where you're losing much in the shadows or blowing out highlights, though the overall exposure could be brought up a touch. So, I don't even see a need to use HDR for this. I'd have to be able to see larger sizes to really be sure though, you have that option locked out for us.

[r/t]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Okay, so I see that as others have said this is not an HDR photo, just a photo edited ot "look" HDR.

I am not a fan of the HDR "hyperreal" look, so I don't see why someone would purposefully process a photo to look like that, but to each their own. I definitely like the original better, and I don't see anywhere where you're losing much in the shadows or blowing out highlights, though the overall exposure could be brought up a touch. So, I don't even see a need to use HDR for this. I'd have to be able to see larger sizes to really be sure though, you have that option locked out for us.

Im fairly new to flickr as well so I wasnt sure how to set up the privacy settings but I got around to it yesterday and I think you can now view larger sizes of the original image.