1st go at HDR useing the free Dynamic Photo HDR trial, pic isnt anything too exciting just the view from my bedroom window.

Still not sure if i like HDR's or not

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9805/hdr01jq7.jpg

looks like some sort of post-apocalyptic photo :)

Hmm - looks like a bit of wildly enthiusiastic 'shopping to me! :huh:

I quite like it,but I thought the idea of HDR was to combine photos,but this is also from a single
http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk356/daveyre_2008/XH558/DSC_2181.jpg

Can you HDR-ise the sky but leave the Vulcan as-is, or at least, with a reduced HDR effect? I suspect that might look better.

Hmm - looks like a bit of wildly enthiusiastic 'shopping to me! :huh:


I think that why i dont really like HDR's

I quite like it,but I thought the idea of HDR was to combine photos,but this is also from a single
http://i308.photobucket.com/albums/kk356/daveyre_2008/XH558/DSC_2181.jpg

Now im no expert on the subject but i think to get a true HDR you need at least 3 images taken at different exposures.

I know the free trial HDR software im useing lets me edit one single photo and will make it look similar to a HDR but will not be a true HDR image.

Can't you just use the exposure bracket thing that takes 3 pics, the correct one then one each under and over the correct exposure?

Can't you just use the exposure bracket thing that takes 3 pics, the correct one then one each under and over the correct exposure?


Thats what i did for the pic i posted, set exposure bracket to +1 -1 and 0, set camera to rapid fire and wacked off 3 frames in about 0.5 secs.

Not too sure how that would work with a fast moving object because dont each photo have to be near enough identical to make a HDR.

Can't you just use the exposure bracket thing that takes 3 pics, the correct one then one each under and over the correct exposure?

That's more or less what I thought HDR was all about and tried it here (http://www.impinabox.co.uk/photography-for-fun.php?pic=13). Still not totally convinced about HDR but sometimes they look quite spectacular even if a bit unreal.

HDR can look really great, and give an interesting depth and colour range to landdscape shots especially, as well as (old) buildings... Best with three or more bracketed photos.

Thats what i did for the pic i posted, set exposure bracket to +1 -1 and 0, set camera to rapid fire and wacked off 3 frames in about 0.5 secs.

Not too sure how that would work with a fast moving object because dont each photo have to be near enough identical to make a HDR.

You can get round this (if your camera allows it) by shooting in 1 picture in RAW format. I do this on my 400d, then use a RAW image editor (adobe photoshop) to adjust the image, saving 5 different copies of the same image with different exposures - then use a HDR maker to compile the image.

For anyone looking into proper digital photography - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_format

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

I'll do a basic how-to at some point if i can every get off Football manager.

You can get round this (if your camera allows it) by shooting in 1 picture in RAW format. I do this on my 400d, then use a RAW image editor (adobe photoshop) to adjust the image, saving 5 different copies of the same image with different exposures - then use a HDR maker to compile the image.

For anyone looking into proper digital photography - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_format

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

I'll do a basic how-to at some point if i can every get off Football manager.


I still dont think editing 1 RAW image would be a true HDR image, as wouldnt the image would still have the same EXIF data. Doesnt a true HDR have to be done with say 3 totally different images ( exposure / shutter speeds )

Heres one i took the other day, 3 JPEG's useing a Canon EOS 40D http://flickr.com/photos/astanaimages/2665674550/ correct exposure gave me a shutter speed of 1/125, +1 1/60 & -1 1/250

I still dont think editing 1 RAW image would be a true HDR image, as wouldnt the image would still have the same EXIF data. Doesnt a true HDR have to be done with say 3 totally different images ( exposure / shutter speeds )

Heres one i took the other day, 3 JPEG's useing a Canon EOS 40D http://flickr.com/photos/astanaimages/2665674550/ correct exposure gave me a shutter speed of 1/125, +1 1/60 & -1 1/250

I honestly don't know - I've always been taught HDR was supposed to give you a perfectly exposed image by blending the best exposures from each rendering of the image.

Not sure if I've just drunk too much wine, or am tired from trudging round Tall Ships today - but I really like that over-green tree in that image. More please :thumbsup:

I honestly don't know - I've always been taught HDR was supposed to give you a perfectly exposed image by blending the best exposures from each rendering of the image.

That was my thought too. Isn't the aim of HDR to reduce the large scale contrast in a pic so practical display methods can cope, while maintaining local contrast to keep the 'punch'? Trying to 'HDR'ise shots that don't really need it produces weird surreal results and wild contrast. OK in their own way - striking in fact - but not what HDR is about. There's a backdrop image in Windows Vista that shows HDR off well - a sunset over a beach with rocks. There's detail in the sunset sky and on the beach and in the shadow areas for the rocks. I'll post a screenshot when I get back to work on Monday if anyone hasn't seen it.