Subscribe in a reader

« 
 »
Oct 01 2007

To HDR or not to HDR, that is the question

Posted by jeff in HDR, tags: , , , ,

I’m taking a little straw poll on the use of HDR (I don’t actually have any straws so you can just leave a comment instead). A couple of folks have inquired about some of my beach images and whether or not I used HDR to enhance them. The answer is yes, I did do some HDR processing on a couple of the images. They are actually psuedo-HDR because I didn’t process them from multiple exposures, rather different renderings of the same RAW file. For those that are scratching your heads right now at the term HDR, it is the use of multiple exposures of the same subject that are combined to render a final image with a broader dynamic range. Or to put it another way, more details in the light and dark parts of the image. There are examples of this all across the web and they range from the realistic to the “Oh my God, what were they thinking?!?” It can certainly be overdone and sometimes it is on purpose (see example by legendary Photoshop instructor Ben Wilmore here). I usually like to use it in images that are either tonally flat or have extreme contrasts between light and dark tones. So below I have two examples. The image on top is the original which was processed using Adobe Camera Raw. The image on the bottom was created using Photomatix Pro to automatically render a psuedo-HDR image and then tone-mapped*.

Original Image HDR enhanced with tone mapping

So the question is, which do you like more? The original or the HDR version. You can see how the HDR brought out more details in the clouds and also the areas under the bridge but there is also a slightly heavy processed look to it. This can be toned down a little more but then again, I think it adds a little more drama to the image. Those clouds on the bottom definitely look a little more menacing. So there you have it, now you can tell me what you think. If you don’t want the world to know what your opinion is, you can just send me an email. So all three of you loyal blog readers, get out there and vote!

 

*Wikipedia defines Tone Mapping as follows: “Essentially, tone mapping addresses the problem of strong contrast reduction from the scene values (radiance) to the displayable range while preserving the image details and color appearance important to appreciate the original scene content”.

Related posts:

  1. Tutorial Monday
  2. HDRSoft makes HDR Easier with Photomatix Light
  3. Process Your HDR Images Using Photoshop
  4. Friday morning post
  5. Photoshop vs. Photomatix Pro

This entry was posted on Monday, October 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pm and is filed under HDR. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “To HDR or not to HDR, that is the question”
Trackbacks
  1.  
Comments
  1. Jason D. Moore says:
    October 1, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    Hey Jeff,

    First of all, I’m sure there are more than 3 loyal readers! Secondly, for the shot above, I think the HDR version is better, a little more true-to-life. But I’m not sure every image would benefit greatly from HDR processing. I think it depends on the subject and the desired end result the photographer has in mind. I’ve just been getting started playing around with HDR and I like what I’m seeing across a variety of shooting situations. But again, it’s not always the way I want to go.

    Jason

    Reply
  2. mike meyer says:
    October 2, 2007 at 7:04 am

    My feeling is that if a scene is in need of a “High Dynamic Range” exposure then the under to over exposure process is really great. If you are using HDR just for an effect, then it can sometimes look gimicky. Ben’s shots are great, the first couple, but then the gimick starts to wear thin. This is just my personal opinion as your number one fan. So me and Jason make two, who’s the other.

    mike meyer

    Reply
  3. Mike Palmer says:
    October 2, 2007 at 8:40 am

    As with all techniques, they are the photographers choice to use, I like HDR, I like it when it looks kicked up, and I like it when its looks more ture to life, In some cases it will be the clients choice, I shot the mobile art at the new bloomingdales in chevy chase, the artist like the kicked up version af a 5 exposure HDR the best for his website. I must say I have had some fun going back to some old raw images that were flat and uninteresting, and made a shot that atlest to me are alot more fun to look at. thats my 2 cents— also I do like the HDR rendering better

    Reply
  4. Steve Metzner says:
    October 2, 2007 at 8:54 am

    I am a fan of HDR. I don’t use it that often but when I can not get a photo to approch what the eye saw then I like it. Just completed a trip to Yellowstone and the Tetons and have a couple of images of which I shot at least 5 different exposures and willl be working them up in a few days. Your HDR scene far outshines the first image.

    Reply
  5. kathy towe says:
    October 3, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Just to let you know I really appreciate your blog — I check it everyday! I am new to digital photography and I have picked up lots of useful information from the few blogs I read. But I do like the Psuedo HDR — the original looks flat and uneventiful, even though the clouds are darker in the HDR, I like the more detail that I can pick out. Besides menacing clouds are ok — don’t we get those kind in real life! Thanks for all work on your blog — from a novice –kathy

    Reply
  6. estetik says:
    January 10, 2008 at 7:49 am

    The trick behind FakeHDR is to render the scene with all objects set to black (with a white camera background). Take that render, blur it (extreme blur), and apply it to a sprite overlay with the sprite blend mode set to add (3). Then render the scene again with all objects normal color, the background being your sky or whatever, and the alpha intensity of the sprite overlay being the amount your ‘eye corona’ should be opened (IE the eye ajusting to the light intensity would close the corona, thus alphaing the sprite to 0).

    Reply
  7.  
Leave a Reply