Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

View Poll Results: Which picture is HDR
Picture #1 6 50.00%
Picture #2 6 50.00%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 19, 2010, 4:56 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

#1 is so bad it cant be HDR. If it is then whoever did it should stop and take up knitting. Number two has much more detail in the darks like the buildings' windows, the bumper tires, the water around the back of the boat and the boat itself, and details in the whites like the white of the wheelhouse. Its definately the better picture and so obviously so, that your question must be a trick somewhere.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2010, 11:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
AaronB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 105
Default

Thanks, Ordo. That's what I was thinking. I appreciate the visual.
AaronB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2010, 4:09 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

To be honest Al, I really don't like the first one - it's waaay to much for my taste...

The second one looks way better to me.
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2010, 4:14 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

need to apply an unsharp mask either way you go...
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2010, 1:52 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Posts: 233
Default

Thank you all for commenting, but I think that my point has not come out clear enough, my fault. Since there are so many complaints about the first image Iíve reprocessed it, I hope itís more pleasant for the eye.

Both images are from the same shooting. The one that is not HDR is the one in the middle, processed of course. I am not looking for what can be done better with one or the other picture, but if it is possible to see with the naked eye which one is HDR and which is not.

And Bynx, no it is not a trick question, I only wish to find out if HDR is really necessary to get a good dynamic result or if it can be achieved in other means without having to take at least three pictures. If the poll shows that it can, then that give me the freedom to choose.
Alasdair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2010, 3:04 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

If you have Photoshop and the skill to use it then you dont need an HDR program. However HDR programs make it easier and quicker to use. If you look through the HDR thread you can find numerous examples of pics -- both HDR and the middle exposure. Its easy to see which is which without being told. You have done things to the HDR version to make it appear worse than the middle exposure. Thats what I mean by a trick. If the HDR version, in this case, is the best you can do or rather the worst you can do then I fail to see what your point is here. One of the most popular uses of HDR is when the viewer cant figure out its an HDR, unless the middle shot is posted with it. Then its obvious for all to see.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2010, 3:14 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

But you always have the freedom to choose. Quite often you can use something like Lightroom or ACR or levels or curves to lighten shadows and/or darken lights, just as long as there's information. I use Lightroom a lot for that because I don't get along with Photoshop's curves tool for some reason and I'll always try this with one of the middle exposures first, to see if it can get me to where I want to go with a picture. The reason I'll do that first is you don't get ghosting from moving objects and they are normally sharper, especially if you've hand-held the shots. HDR software can also mess with the colors sometimes - sometimes poorly. Of course, pushing the darks in a single exposure can introduce extra noise, so I usually work with a picture both ways, to see which is going to give me the best results. Sometimes its the Photomatix version and sometimes its the LR/Photoshop version, it depends on the scene and just how much dynamic range there was in the scene. This one is marginal as far as being beyond the range of the sensor/ability to manipulate with regular software.

Your re-worked first picture is quite a bit better than it was, the highlights aren't so blown out.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2010, 3:20 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alasdair View Post
And Bynx, no it is not a trick question, I only wish to find out if HDR is really necessary to get a good dynamic result or if it can be achieved in other means without having to take at least three pictures. If the poll shows that it can, then that give me the freedom to choose.[/FONT][/COLOR]
HDR, like other aspects of Post Processing has a time and a place where it is suitable. I must say in all fairness, having used Photomatirx on all kinds of images and situations, when it makes a picture worse, it does so only minimally. Therefore I have to conclude that this is not a fair test...

(I say the above only to please those whose religion is HDR... )

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2010, 6:18 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
If you have Photoshop and the skill to use it then you dont need an HDR program. However HDR programs make it easier and quicker to use. If you look through the HDR thread you can find numerous examples of pics -- both HDR and the middle exposure. Its easy to see which is which without being told. You have done things to the HDR version to make it appear worse than the middle exposure. Thats what I mean by a trick. If the HDR version, in this case, is the best you can do or rather the worst you can do then I fail to see what your point is here. One of the most popular uses of HDR is when the viewer cant figure out its an HDR, unless the middle shot is posted with it. Then its obvious for all to see.
Your first sentence is what I'm trying to find out. If one can use Photoshop properly, without the use of layers from over and under exposed pictures, then is the need for HDR programs not there?

Both pictures are processed, both are from the same series and origionally RAW format. The picture that is not HDR is the picture in the middel, but I have tweaked it in an attempt to make it more dynamic. If I told you which picture is and which isn't HDR then the point of the test would be of no value to me or others, so also if very few take the poll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
The reason I'll do that first is you don't get ghosting from moving objects and they are normally sharper, especially if you've hand-held the shots. HDR software can also mess with the colors sometimes - sometimes poorly. Of course, pushing the darks in a single exposure can introduce extra noise, so I usually work with a picture both ways, to see which is going to give me the best results. "..." This one is marginal as far as being beyond the range of the sensor/ability to manipulate with regular software.
The ghosting and DPHDR's, the HDR program I like the best so far, inability to process RAW pictures nicely (I have to convert them to tif to get good results) is why I wish to see if it is possible to drop HDR programs and still get good dynamic pictures. Your point about the range of the sensor is a factor that must be considered. Oh boy, another factor to consider when out shooting. Are the light conditions beyond the scop of my sensor, i.e. i need to take pictures for HDR processing, or not! I guess this is what it boils down to? My problem is that I find thee scop of the sensor is a hard nut to crack.
Alasdair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2010, 6:23 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Alasdair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
HDR, like other aspects of Post Processing has a time and a place where it is suitable. I must say in all fairness, having used Photomatirx on all kinds of images and situations, when it makes a picture worse, it does so only minimally. Therefore I have to conclude that this is not a fair test...

(I say the above only to please those whose religion is HDR... )

Dave
Being an athiest means I'm free from such considerations!

To be honest I've been using DPHDR on nearly all my pictures, but if I could get just as good pictures from processing in PS and only needing the one picture, then I would be more free in the sence that I would not have to consider ghosting and having to shoot 3-5 pictures in series.
Alasdair is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:00 AM.