Neowin Digital Gallery


 Share

Recommended Posts

...and not even all of them comment on other pics ;) - oh well, guess that's how it works.

Anyway, HDR is meant to display a high dynamic range in an image, mimicking what the eye would see. The followingpics give you more of an idea to what HDR actually does;

Before;

218187497_41887709c1.jpg

After:

218190288_601a636abb.jpg

Basically, it increases the dynamic range of the image, making the lighting a bit more uniform so to say - which is more or less closer to how we see in comparison to a photocamera.

Most pictures you see on the internet are done with software like photomatix - which can indeed give you great results, but it's somehow particularly bad with blending clouds and gives then a really high contrastlook where the sky turns extremely dark - and I think that's not close to reality, something which HDR should be about; making pictures closer to reality, closer to how we see them ourselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and not even all of them comment on other pics ;) - oh well, guess that's how it works.

Anyway, HDR is meant to display a high dynamic range in an image, mimicking what the eye would see. The followingpics give you more of an idea to what HDR actually does;

Before;

218187497_41887709c1.jpg

After:

218190288_601a636abb.jpg

Basically, it increases the dynamic range of the image, making the lighting a bit more uniform so to say - which is more or less closer to how we see in comparison to a photocamera.

Most pictures you see on the internet are done with software like photomatix - which can indeed give you great results, but it's somehow particularly bad with blending clouds and gives then a really high contrastlook where the sky turns extremely dark - and I think that's not close to reality, something which HDR should be about; making pictures closer to reality, closer to how we see them ourselves

i'm no expert but in my opinion that's a horrible example of hdr.. the after picture looks completely desaturated and blown out. That's NOT how hdr is supposed to look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PCPhoto Magazine had a nice article on HDR in a recent issue. You can view the low resolutions examples for free at their website. Basically, the use it to expose an exterior view from indoors through kitchen window, then expose to fill the shadows of the interior, and expose to captures the highlights of the interior and merge seven exposures into a final image.

http://www.pcphotomag.com/how-to/image-pro...ombination.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm no expert but in my opinion that's a horrible example of hdr.. the after picture looks completely desaturated and blown out. That's NOT how hdr is supposed to look.
i second that opinion.

That IS how HDR is supposed to look (somewhat depending on the definition of HDR, I think 'mine' comes along pretty well here) - HDR is supposed to give you a high dynamic range, to mimic what you actually see. In a lot of shots it doesn't look that spectacular because the shadows have less contrast. This is due to our eyes adjusting to very tiny differences in irradiance, give you more dynamic range - allowing you to see, for example, the inside of a room AND the surroundings through a window.

With a camera you can only set the right exposure for one of these 'subject', either the inside of a room or the outside through the window.

It might not look as spectacular in most images, sometimes it does. What does look 'spectacular' is the general tonemapping technique used to emulate high dynamic range images on computers - highlights become even more highlighted, shadows become more highlighted... basically, you're levelling out the dynamic range of the image to level, where everything looks like it is exposed to achieve the same amount of light in the scene. While this also gives you great results from time to time, it's basically a 'bad attempt' at HDR.

So both can give you great results, but it's not all the same imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it what you want Keito, to each his own. Like i said before i'm no expert and i dont feel i need to quote definitions of HDR to validate my point that the second (HDR) image looks much much worse than the original that you posted. With your example you could have saved some times just upped the brightness and lowered the saturation and would have the same result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rappy is that Brighton Pier??

And

Is your sig meant to be a Predators eye?? I like it :)

No its Bognor Pier (where I live)

and its Ironman :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some obligatory fall photos. Shot over the weekend on my drive across Vermont.

1505758553_8196508a17.jpg

1506664960_0dbf4657f8.jpg

1506698974_b04059277a.jpg

1505871891_896674170c.jpg

1505813327_5eaded58b2.jpg

1505941239_0b8e2c512d.jpg

1505854991_018f975818.jpg

About this last photo, what is the best way to shoot pictures with signs ? I used my flash, but I think background went dull 'cause of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master C : I like that really clever :D

dhan - Yeah I hate shooting signs for the reason the flash reflects off it, I try to use a soft flash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some obligatory fall photos. Shot over the weekend on my drive across Vermont.

I really like the waterfall one - looks peacefull. :yes:

Master C : I like that really clever :D

Thanks Rappy (Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.