ChodTheWacko

You know, I just don't like photos that don't look like photos, like this one.
The boat feels like it's covered in felt or something, especially the front.

I've screwed around with HDR just a tiny bit, and it's very easy to go too far
with it and it looks odd. I just want the picture to appear the way I see it
with my eye.

- Frank

ZeroPSI

I saw that photo in his updated collection. It quickly became my new desktop background.

Very cool, indeed.

srika

did you know you can do pseudo-HDR with Lightroom? here's some testing I did with 's car.

http://srika.com/img/temp/635csi.html

guia x

Did you just use the Fill Light, Recovery, Vibrance, etc sliders or did you actually merge photos together? I would like to know how you did it as I don't see anywhere where you can merge photos together. Nice pics btw.

badboy

directions please

srika

(just to be clear - took the original pics and I just put em into LR and touched up a bit.)

I didn't spend more than 3 minutes on each pic - no merging, straight out of LR in one shot. Fill Light is the key here, it boosts all the low-lit areas. I pretty much maxed it out on all the pics. If you really want to have fun, export them, and then re-process them again to boost em again. One thing to be wary about when upping the fill light is noise. But, it's not so much an issue with daylight pics - more of a prob with night pics.

Then I just play with the sliders til it looks the way I want it - Recovery yes, Vibrance yes and also Saturation. Sometimes when you jack up certain sliders you will get unwanted results from certain color ranges. So you have to dial those down - all very simple with Lightroom. Keep an eye on all the thresholds - you want to take the levels as close to the threshold as you can without blowing anything out and without it looking (too) overdone. But I really feel a part of HDR is making it look "overdone". I showed these pics to teh and he said they look fake. I said, mission accomplished. lol.

guia x

Ahh, I figured that's how you did it. Those sliders are awesome. I never had to use the fill light and recovery too much but they definitely saved some underexposed or blown out shots that would normally be trashed. I love the Vibrance slider and I hardly use the saturation too much especially for portraits. I do love to use the direct Target Group adjustment tool for the tone curve, saturation and luminance.

Lightroom just makes it so easy. Almost too easy that I am scared that it is giving me a false sense of accomplishment. The last thing I want is to think I am doing things the right way and later on find out I don't really have a clue. I am basing everything from my own eyes and they are inexperienced eyes so what looks good to me, someone with more experience might think is really bad. Hopefully Lightroom is helping me improve rather than holding back my development. People have told me that my photos look good so that should count for something, I guess.

badboy

Good point you bring up. I am also in the same boat as you. I just never know if the changes I have made are for the better or the worst. That is one reason I didn't really pp my images. I may think the picture looks better after pp, but I really have no clue as to how my eyes are compared to the rest.

srika

My opinion: The important thing is that it looks good to you. That's what defines your style. Don't worry about what you think other people might think when they see your pics - at least, not directly. Because, our society is undoubtedly a major factor in our style and how we like to project and express ourselves. But, keep it in the back of your mind, not as a controlling factor. Feedback is good too, and if you've had good feedback, then yes that tells you something. :P

srika

Don't wanna threadjack.. I answered this here:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...45#post5318845

srika

some nice ones

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/cambridge-gallery.htm

srika

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/gra...ohnsLeaves.jpg
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/gra...verColours.jpg
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/gra...rinityball.jpg

wndrlst

That's some really beautiful work. I love the misty, moody scenes. Nice find! Though it makes me more than a little jealous of the skills.

Dangit srika, you're not helping my patience level re: moving to the UK!

srika

hehehe. . i know!! i want to do pics like that.. lol. and, i totally did not mean to aggravate your patience level.. :P

LKLD

Questions: looking at the pictures at the above site, which are breathtaking, on the 2nd page there are 2 swans with their heads submerged. How is HDR done in a situation like that? There's movement in that one. Are you able to do that solely in post processing, I mean are you able to push/take a full stop through the software w/o having to do it through the camera?

Dan Martin

The technique I use requires multiple exposures spaced 1 stop apart. If there are moving bits in the frame, you can mask them out. The only downside is there will be more noise in those masked bits. HRDI from a single exposure won't give you much range without becoming very noisy.

svtmike

I don't think he necessarily used HDR or other multiple exposure techniques on that photo... that looks like a lucky shot in a single exposure.

ConradE46

Not as impressive as most of the photos here, but I just took this HDR a few hours ago. I went for the more natural look.

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1317/644425919_1c734f7d85_o.jpg" border="5">

ZeroPSI

Very impressive.

fdl

A lot of these look like they are just long exposures

srika

the bright areas of the pics would be washed out if they were only long exposures.

fdl

Perhaps, although it depends how long of an exposure we are talking about. I was thinking something like 1 or 2 seconds.

srika

some HDR's are more dramatic than others

wndrlst

This is actually the type of HDR I prefer. I don't like the overdone, cartoon-looking images at all.

fdl

Me neither. I just think I have seem similar looking photos done with a slightly long exposure in low light conditions. Not that there is anything wrong with that

srika

its entirely possible, w/ some PP

sixsixfour

here are a few Ive done. first Ive HDR'd the background and tweaked the car separately. 2nd was all HDR.





these are the stock shots for comparison...





and here is an HDR beach shot a while back...

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

My first attempt. Still using the Photomatix trial version because I'm not sure this is something I'll get in to.

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

^Taken hand held with my SD800IS btw

srika

http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/

Python2121

One of mine, you can see some slight ghosting at the bottom but not bad.

srika

How to manually do HDRI in Photoshop CS3... (without using Merge to HDR).

http://www.photoshopsupport.com/phot...nge/index.html

Since I don't have CS3 I don't know how in-depth this is, but might be worth a look.

srika

some really nice stuff from around the world.

http://www.johnmilesphotography.com/jmgallery/HDR/

srika

HDR software overview

http://wiki.panotools.org/HDR_Software_overview

wndrlst

Ooo, thanks for all the links. I tried to use the "merge to HDR" function, and ended up with horribly blown highlights...I'll def play with doing it manually.

wndrlst

Okay, I posted my first attempt in the Saddle Mtn thread. Here's attempt #2. Took these back in Dec. This image is comprised of 5 shots from +2 to -2, using CS3.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/moxiephotos/1177133286/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218/1177133286_75f74ad7b8_b.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="WWII Memorial HDR" /></a>

I don't know whether or not there is a way to avoid the prismatic effect in the water, but I'll just consider it added interest.

CL Type Slim

Nice Shot!

Siddig

Merge to HDR it in 32bits, then go to image>mode>16bits and you get the liitle window to start adjusting things like your tonal curve.

Once I get the image the way I want it with that I use Lightroom to process it.

wndrlst

Thanks for the info. That's almost what I did. The article I read said to use 8 bits, so that's what I used...maybe I'll try re-processing w/ 16 next week. Thanks!

wndrlst

Thank you!