My thought for the HDR forum.

I see that HDRI has rocketed off the scales. How about when posting your HDRI image you also post along with it the original 0ev image to show where the dynamic range was brought out of the original image? In other word to see the difference and how much of an improvement was made from the original shot. I always wonder what the original looks like on a lot of these images. What are your thoughts?

S.E.V. wrote in post #7416559
I see that HDRI has rocketed off the scales. How about when posting your HDRI image you also post along with it the original 0ev image to show where the dynamic range was brought out of the original image? In other word to see the difference and how much of an improvement was made from the original shot. I always wonder what the original looks like on a lot of these images. What are your thoughts?

Are you talking about posting a 0ev image where a single image was used to create a Low Dynamic Range tone-mapped image (via photomatix, etc.), or are you talking about posting the 0ev image of a set of different exposures (where the 0ev is the "middle" image) that were used to create a true high dynamic range image?

He's talking about posting the original, unedited version of the image, which seems like it would be helpful.

Toeslider wrote in post #7417665
He's talking about posting the original, unedited version of the image, which seems like it would be helpful.

Yes, I understood that. I don't think you understood my question.

I have been doing (and encouraging) this:

kirkt wrote in post #7417977
I have been doing (and encouraging) this:

from the thread:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=639742

for example.

I agree with your suggestion and I have asked some of the previous posters to post thumbnails of the sequence they used, to help us get a sense of the dynamic range in the scene. I think it is instructive in helping everyone understand the HDR creation process and the tonemapping techniques used to get the final image.

Kirk

Yes, like this, I actually meant all the shot used to make the HDR image.-2,0,+2 or any others used. They can be a smaller size then the final. Does not have to be as technically assembled as the photo above. Also I wonder if half the people here no the difference between 'HDRI' & 'Psuedo HDRI' You should state if the shot was created from a single raw image or 3-7 images taken through the camera. Posting a images is all good but give some info on how the images was taken or created. I think this might also help cut down on questions is stated in the OP. Guys these are just thoughts that might help out others when they look at these HDR Images and to see how they were created.

CannedHeat wrote in post #7417195
Are you talking about posting a 0ev image where a single image was used to create a Low Dynamic Range tone-mapped image (via photomatix, etc.), or are you talking about posting the 0ev image of a set of different exposures (where the 0ev is the "middle" image) that were used to create a true high dynamic range image?

Sorry I meant to say all the images.

S.E.V. wrote in post #7416559
I see that HDRI has rocketed off the scales. How about when posting your HDRI image you also post along with it the original 0ev image to show where the dynamic range was brought out of the original image? In other word to see the difference and how much of an improvement was made from the original shot. I always wonder what the original looks like on a lot of these images. What are your thoughts?

I agree, I would also like to see from where the pictures come.

kirkt wrote in post #7417977
I have been doing (and encouraging) this:

from the thread:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=639742

for example.

I agree with your suggestion and I have asked some of the previous posters to post thumbnails of the sequence they used, to help us get a sense of the dynamic range in the scene. I think it is instructive in helping everyone understand the HDR creation process and the tonemapping techniques used to get the final image.

Kirk

This is a perfect example of how I believe HDR should be used. The detail is all there, from the highlights to the shadows and it still looks very realistic. None of that overprocessed, dark ominous sky look or oversharpened glows around objects. Thanks for sharing how you got there. I can still use all the help i can get.

IMO, the best HDR being shown on POTN is being done by rustyjaw

^ Wow, he does have some pretty good stuff. I'm amazed by his HDR night images, using multiple long exposures. Interesting effect.

Thats a lot of work.

canonloader wrote in post #7436623
Thats a lot of work.

Whats a lot of work? Posting the small photos of the the shots used to create the image or the above images layout? Maybe a little bit more work but its at least helpful.

Yes, adding the originals. I mean, it's a lot of work just creating the original group of shots to make an HDR, but then to have to edit each of the 3 or more originals can take enough more time that it becomes a J. O. B. by the time your done.

Sure, it can be helpful, if your making a tutorial, but for me, it would be distracting if every HDR image posted here included a tutorial on how it was made.

canonloader wrote in post #7443993
Yes, adding the originals. I mean, it's a lot of work just creating the original group of shots to make an HDR, but then to have to edit each of the 3 or more originals can take enough more time that it becomes a J. O. B. by the time your done.

Sure, it can be helpful, if your making a tutorial, but for me, it would be distracting if every HDR image posted here included a tutorial on how it was made.

Well I guess it all comes down to personal preference then.I just hate it when LDR are posed as HDR just because they used the merge and tonemap technique. At least state that you took a single image and made 2 exposures out of it. I love seeing people walking in HDR images???? Does you camera take 3FPms? Its clasic, I guess its an uncontrloable style of photography.