«

Today i made some one-file HDR images:
Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
them further for HDR.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaardd...440531/detail/


Rutger

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets

Rutger wrote:
> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
> them further for HDR.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaardd...440531/detail/

Most the images I saw are fairly low key, little range, rather what I
thought would be where HDR would be least needed.

Nice shots, though.

--
John McWilliams

Not true HDR but pleasing enough.

R


"Rutger" <> wrote in message
news:4550f55e$0$24688$...
> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
> them further for HDR.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaardd...440531/detail/
>
>
> Rutger
>
> --
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
>
>

"Rutger" <> wrote in message
news:4550f55e$0$24688$...
> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
> them further for HDR.

What software did you use for the post processing?

>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaardd...440531/detail/
>
>
> Rutger
>
> --
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
>
>

"Kelpie" <> schreef in bericht
news:...
>
> "Rutger" <> wrote in message
> news:4550f55e$0$24688$...
>> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
>> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
>> them further for HDR.
>
> What software did you use for the post processing?

Photomatix pro, since PS just looks at the Exif-data and sees no difference
between the pictures.

Rutger


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets

"Rutger" <> wrote in message
news:4551b611$0$1639$...
> "Kelpie" <> schreef in bericht
> news:...
>>
>> "Rutger" <> wrote in message
>> news:4550f55e$0$24688$...
>>> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
>>> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and
>>> processed them further for HDR.
>>
>> What software did you use for the post processing?
>
> Photomatix pro, since PS just looks at the Exif-data and sees no
> difference between the pictures.

Yup, thats what I was wondering.. cheers,.
>
> Rutger
>
>
> --
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
>

Rutger wrote:
> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
> them further for HDR.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaardd...440531/detail/

Sorry, but I just don't "get" HDR. Most of those pictures look pretty
bad to me, especially the one with all the tree branches. I think all
of them would look much better in a single exposure.

I've seen a few HDR pictures that look good, and where *very subtle*
use of HDR actually makes sense. But it seems that most fans of HDR go
completely overboard, and end up with grey, flat, low-contrast
pictures, with weird grey and white halos everywhere. Not very
attractive.

There are very, very few cases where HDR improves on the original
picture, at least in artistic terms. Yes, HDR can show more highlight
and shadow details in a photo, but very often that's not a good thing,
and it doesn't make for a more interesting image.

-Gniewko

wrote:

> Sorry, but I just don't "get" HDR. Most of those pictures look pretty
> bad to me, especially the one with all the tree branches. I think all
> of them would look much better in a single exposure.
>
> I've seen a few HDR pictures that look good, and where *very subtle*
> use of HDR actually makes sense. But it seems that most fans of HDR go
> completely overboard, and end up with grey, flat, low-contrast
> pictures, with weird grey and white halos everywhere. Not very
> attractive.
>
> There are very, very few cases where HDR improves on the original
> picture, at least in artistic terms. Yes, HDR can show more highlight
> and shadow details in a photo, but very often that's not a good thing,
> and it doesn't make for a more interesting image.
>

Hear hear.

I have no idea why they're known as "high" dynamic range when they are
effectively compressed dynamic range.

The best example I've seen was the view inside a church where the stained
glass windows and the walls were both perfectly exposed, which is very
difficult to achieve in-camera.

Otherwise it appears to be a way to make photos evenly illuminated which is
kind of counter to the idea of good pictures.

OK if you were a technical photographer, or maybe a reporter it may be ideal,
if not impossible in the latter case, but for artistic pictures it seems to be
pursuing the wrong goal.

I give my 100% approval to Lubecki and Polhill opinions.

mb

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:09:21 +0100, "Rutger" <> wrote:

>Today i made some one-file HDR images:
>Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
>them further for HDR.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaardd...440531/detail/
>
>
>Rutger

I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
sees.
The eye, with a brain behind it to "process" the image, will "see" a
higher dynamic range than a camera can.
But these photos do not look natural at all; certainly not like what
the eye sees.
They look more like what old B&W horror films looked like.
Only in color.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"