Couch/Sea Shell HDR

Hello guys this is first attempt using Photomatix trial version.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

There is no high dynamic range in either of these images.

I think there is. He said it was his first try.

C_Heath31 wrote in post #13627219
I think there is. He said it was his first try.

I could be wrong.. only assuming here, but I think you may have misunderstood him. I think what he is saying is that there is no NEED for hdr - that there is no range of light in these scenes that could not be captured in a single image.

About the images: you've got quite a bit of haloing along the couch and the plant. You can eliminate this by (1) adjusting the settings for a better image, or (2) output two images from photomatix - one for the overall scene, then the other specifically adjusted to eliminate the halos. Layer them in PS, create a mask and brush the halo away.

Hey guys, yes these are hdr, both pictures were done with 3 shots _1,0,+1, using 50mm 1/8, using macro ext. Tube for sea shell. I used photomatix 4.0 trial version to see which one I will end up buying, I am new to photography and love hdr. I dont have photoshop yet, but do have a trial version of lightroom ( I think thats whats its called), but anyways I have more to learn, and will keep at it till I get it, any input is greatly appreciated, on improving my skills. Thx

Plus and minus 1 really isn't HDR.

trancein1 wrote in post #13629055
Hey guys, yes these are hdr, ...

The point of confusion here is the lack of distinction between the dynamic range of the scene and the technique you used to capture it. The remark that "there is no high dynamic range" in either image refers to the scene itself, not the technique you may have used to produce the image. While it is certainly no violation of the law to capture any scene with any technique you want, the scenes that you posted could be captured in a single exposure - thus, their dynamic range is not "high" in the sense that they require HDR imaging techniques to fully realize the image.

Folks often use HDR imaging workflow where it is not "necessary" but produce images that they find pleasing or interesting. Others may find the results not so. Aesthetics aside, the images you posted appear to be of scenes that do not contain a particularly excessive dynamic range (except for maybe some of the detail in the illuminated lamp next to the couch), and that would be the reason for the comment. I would interpret the comment as an referential observation, not a criticism, per se. However, consider trying for your next shot to produce an image sequence of an interior with a window view to the daylit exterior - this type of scene contains a much larger dynamic range that requires multiple exposures to capture the entire scene-referred luminance- this kind of scene is a good experiment to start one's exploration of tonal capture and compression.

kirk