Is there enough HDR in this?

[irishman]

This is my first attempt at HDR. Does it even look like an HDR? I used 5 different images.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/hibernian1/HDR.jpg

[northernlight]

the fact that it looks unHDR is not an flaw... that´s the way it should look imo :)

[bieber]

Was there any need for HDR compositing in the scene? Either way, it doesn't look HDR, which is a good thing.

[irishman]

Compositing? I just followed the instructions in the tutorial. It was very easy---which makes me think I did something wrong. It doesn't look as deep as other HDR's I've seen.

[bieber]

That's how you get an HDR image: compositing multiple exposures together. And the scene doesn't need an extended dynamic range, it doesn't look like. HDR is meant to allow you to capture a larger dynamic range and tone-map it to something that looks natural, not create garish "modern art"-looking bastardizations of photographs.

[simwells]

What was your range of bracketing?

[irishman]

My range was -2,-1,0,+1,+2. I just popped out in the front yard mid-day after reading the tutorial.

[irishman]

OK--for comparison purposes, here is the "0" with the amount of normal PP I would usually do. I guess there is quite a difference. The HDR looks like I used a CPF.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/hibernian1/IMG_3125_edited-1.jpg

[Picture North Carolina]

I will agree with those saying the levels of light in this scene probably did not necessitate a HDR photo. In my experience, I have noticed that when HDRing images that do not really need it, photomatix seems to add "pop." However, there are other ways to achieve that in photoshop.

As to the HDR itself, I do see one slight flaw. Photomatix is infamous for producing halos, specifically where dark objects such as tree branches, mountains, etc. meet a lighter sky. There is a very slight halo along the edge of the mountain top that can be clearly seen when comparing it to the non-HDR photo. Although I will admit you did a good job there because I have seen photomatix produce some really atrocious halos. This one is rather well-controlled.

If your goal is to use photomatix to achieve a real-looking image in a scene that is inherently beyond the range of the sensor, keep a special look out for the halo effect. In my experience, it will be your biggest battle with photomatix. /Dan

[irishman]

Dan, thanks for the info. Is the halo problem inherent in HDR or just with Photomatix? Would another program be better?

[Picture North Carolina]

Dan, thanks for the info. Is the halo problem inherent in HDR or just with Photomatix? Would another program be better?

I can't answer that because of the following limitations of experience. But this may help: I only have CS2. In my experience, photomatix is so superior that there's no contest. Tho CS2 doesn't create the halos as far as I remember, there are so many other photomatix advantages that I haven't used the CS2 function in quite a while.

On the other hand, I have read that the CS3 HDR option has been greatly improved. But I've never used it so I cannot say. So sorry, I cannot supply a very useful solution.

Perhaps somebody who has lots of experience with photomatix's capabilities and who also has CS3 will chime in here and offer some advice. /Dan

[blackcap]

I noticed the halos in the first pic straight away. Looking at the original, I don't see any reason why HDR was needed in this instance. If the cactus was too dark, or the sky too bright, then it would've made heaps of difference.

[FZ1dave]

I like it. Doesn't have that "painting" look to it. If I were to ever try HDR, I would hope mine turned out like that.

[irishman]

Dave--give it a shot, its much simpler than you imagine. Download the free trial software and follow the tutorial.

[Glenn NK]

In this case, the major difference between the HDR and the original seems to be the sky.

I discovered a trick to darken a sky without using a CPL; in CS or Lightroom, lower the Luminance of the blue channel a bit.

The area where you live is where I want to spend at least part of next winter - warm and things are growing. Where is it?

[irishman]

Glenn---I live in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ. Warm is an understatement. Eight months a year are fabulous, 4 are hell on earth with temps around 115F. It's a dry heat, but once it gets above 110 its very uncomfortable.

[Glenn NK]

Glenn---I live in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ. Warm is an understatement. Eight months a year are fabulous, 4 are hell on earth with temps around 115F. It's a dry heat, but once it gets above 110 its very uncomfortable.

Thanks for letting me know - my uncle live in Mesa for six months a year.

When I saw your picture and the scenery, I thought, "I'd better go and visit him".

[tiziano]

This is my first attempt at HDR. Does it even look like an HDR? I used 5 different images.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/hibernian1/HDR.jpg

Yes, it looks like an HDR, because there is the word "PHOTOMATIX" written everywhere! :lol: