My Home at Sunset - should I go HDR?

Then show me an HDR that is 'more realistic than a single image'.

Roy Mathers wrote in post #11094856
Then show me an HDR that is 'more realistic than a single image'.

There are some HDR ones in my Germany 2010 set - http://www.flickr.com …m/sets/72157624​249860917/ - mainly Kettwig - and one from Hattingen.

Try to spot them without looking at the name or maybe it doesn't give them away - the description possibly will though.

Your HDR pictures are very well done, but I still maintain that they are not 'more realistic than a single image'.

Why wouldn't you just try it, it's free

I won't wade into the "more realistic than a single image". That debate will never be resolved as it's entirely subjective.

There is a lot of misinformation here!

The problem is you and most people associate horribly tonemapped/overcooked HDRs as HDR photography. It's not. It's just butchered HDR images.

HDR done right in will look more realistic then non-hdr....where HDR is needed.

I posted a link to a good article about HDR that is worth reading here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=941320

Here is a scene that had such a HUGE dynamic range I needed to shoot 6 exposures @ 2stop increments to capture the scene with out blowing highlights or shadows. The result, is an image that is as close to being there as possible. No blown highlights, noisy shadows, just a very true representation of how I saw the scene. This would not have been possible with a single exposure. Maybe with medium format film but even then I am doubtful as the dynamic range of light from the darkest shadows to the sky was large.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/thereal7/507546​0558/

Roy Mathers wrote in post #11094303
I don't think that I 've ever seen an HDR image that is 'realistic'. Certainly not 'more realistic than a single image'.

I don't agree with this statement at all. Problem is, we've all become accustomed to seeing really bad HDR images, which really don't do the image justice. A properly processed HDR image should reflect what the viewer's eyes have actually seen, not all of this overcooked nonsense that folks call HDR...call it what it is...digital art. The same goes for those that post "my first HDR" threads, only to find out that the HDR (what the poster is calling HDR) is actually nothing more than a tonemapped image made from a single exposure. Bunch of nonsense if you ask me, and probably the main reasons why folks like yourself believe that its not possible to have a "realistic looking" HDR image. On the contrary, it is possible...just that most of the folks posting HDR images have no idea how to go about it.

argyle wrote in post #11095389
I don't agree with this statement at all.

You can't disagree with that statement, as you don't know what I have seen

More interesting views and food for thought.

As a few poster have suggested, my view on HDR has largely been based on shots - quite often "MY First HDR" stuff on here and other places, as someone suggested - that, to me, have often looked over-processed, over-saturated and plastic. Now I'm not saying this is wrong in any way but just that it's not my cup of tea, although I accept others like this and see it as art. Consequently, I think it's very much a case of what I've seen, I have not been super-impressed with, which has put me off it a bit.

However, I suspect a number of people use HDR very well - and may not broadcast the fact that their shot has been HDR'd - but I am not really informed enough to judge how good/bad it is in comparison to single shots.

Another problem I have with it is that it's yet another stage in the processing chain. I only ever use DPP then Photoshop and I find this quite tiresome because of the time it takes, so introducing another level doesn't really appeal to me. In saying that, if it's the only/best way to get a decent shot, then... no option really.

Thanks to all who have contributed here - interesting stuff!

Go for a swim...you might get a better angle
A chilly suggestion up there in Scotland eh?

poloman wrote in post #11096520
Go for a swim...you might get a better angle
A chilly suggestion up there in Scotland eh?

...not at all Poloman. Auld grandad Jock Mcrae used to ditch his kilt, wade through the snow and dive into the loch every morning, swim a few miles and still have time to toss his caber before breakfast! None o' this wetsuit nonsense!

You tell 'em Jim!

DPP is very clunky to me, and then going from there to Ps would be a little more cumbersome. Photomatix and other HDR software is no more difficult than DPP, and you get more "bang for your buck" in the processing effort to boot. It's definitely more trouble than processing one image in Lightroom, but shooting a 3-shot burst of +/-2 EV exposures and then processing an HDR image from the mix is no more trouble than fiddling with your camera and settings and taking multiple exposures on site to try to get one "good" one, digging out the filter(s) and taking more shots, etc.... Tough situations require extra effort, no matter which route you go. Blending multiple exposures (HDR) can be the easiest way to go, actually.

Roy, I was once up there, shivvering with 5 layers of mountaineering clobber on and a local walked passed in just a t-shirt and said, "Nice day eh?" I think he was having a wee chuckle about the poncey lowlander!

Pixelhack, I find that really interesting. The trouble with being self-taught is you get into routines and often are not aware of alternatives, which may be glaringly obvious to others. I've always used DPP since I got my camera a few years ago, and photoshop. I've used Neat Image for noise reduction and GIMP in my work, but that's about it. I'll need to look more into this. Thanks.

JimMcrae wrote in post #11097166
Roy, I was once up there, shivvering with 5 layers of mountaineering clobber on and a local walked passed in just a t-shirt and said, "Nice day eh?" I think he was having a wee chuckle about the poncey lowlander!

Pixelhack, I find that really interesting. The trouble with being self-taught is you get into routines and often are not aware of alternatives, which may be glaringly obvious to others. I've always used DPP since I got my camera a few years ago, and photoshop. I've used Neat Image for noise reduction and GIMP in my work, but that's about it. I'll need to look more into this. Thanks.

Photoshop CS has a nice HDR plug-in - one that gives very realistic images and doesn't try to direct you into excessive tonemapping.

And DPP - it's very good for high ISO images - I can't decide whether CS4 or DPP is actually better for high ISO shots...

JimMcrae wrote in post #11097166
Roy, I was once up there, shivvering with 5 layers of mountaineering clobber on and a local walked passed in just a t-shirt and said, "Nice day eh?" I think he was having a wee chuckle about the poncey lowlander!

I've heard, though, that the people from Edinburgh are a cut above the rest!