# My kind of HDR



## mycanonphotos (Apr 28, 2013)

I took this in Maui while on Vacation. In print its just amazing. Was done in Photomatix about 5 years ago.
Granted... I have seen some great shots of this fence around the island and Internet but this one I feel is in the top 5. I havnt done an HDR Photograph in a while, just havnt had a scene jump out at me lately that says otherwise.
I wish that I would have shot this with my 5D3 and my Tokina 16-28 though...it was shot with my old 40D and Sigma 10-20...


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 28, 2013)

Each to their own I suppose, but this interpretation of HDR just doesn't do it for me 

It just looks too artificial ( to me )


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 28, 2013)

Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 28, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Each to their own I suppose, but this interpretation of HDR just doesn't do it for me
> 
> It just looks too artificial ( to me )



I understand...TOTALLY...Love it or Hate It kinda thing...


----------



## emko (Apr 28, 2013)

these kind of HDR always make me feel sick i just don't know why? the first image is not to bad but the second one i just cant look at it to long.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 28, 2013)

mycanonphotos said:


> ..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...



Yeah, I used to see things like that in my head too. But then, I stopped dropping acid.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 28, 2013)

unfocused said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > ..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...
> ...



Maybe it was the mushrooms on that pizza I had before we went out shooting...


----------



## Rat (Apr 28, 2013)

Like it! Inspiration for all sorts of cartoon type shots in here. Thanks for sharing - want to share some settings?


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 28, 2013)

Rat said:


> Like it! Inspiration for all sorts of cartoon type shots in here. Thanks for sharing - want to share some settings?



Cool..settings wise depends on the program your using...I would just say to make sure that your scene lends itself to the kind of shot you are looking for...I wouldn't do a cartoon type HDR unless it was for creative/artistic purposes..this type of shot here was done with the 5D 3 (its original didn't have quite enough punch so I made this one out of the bracketed photographs it took. Vintage cars, the more weathered the better..interior shots looking at the dash can be great as well..


----------



## blaydese (Apr 30, 2013)

mycanonphotos you got my vote.

THANK YOU for posting these 
picture, please post more.

I too like the extreme and 
"within the nature of the art 
that is HDR photography".

Please hang around and post 
more, HDR section has this 
strange problem of attracting 
a large anti-HDR crowd that likes 
to just poke the novice, or
anything different. :-\ ;D

Sheesh ! Not everyone can be 
an expert right off the bat, but
we need someplace to post
and TRY.


......................If I wanted bland 
pictures, I'd just mount my camera 
on my car and drive around and take 
pictures.  ;D 







Again, thanks for the "My kind of HDR" it's a great start! 

Peace! 8)


----------



## vscd (May 25, 2013)

HDR pictures tend to look unnaturally, very often. Some like it as art, some use it as DR-enhancement, only. I think most of the hdr-pictures are shoot with a too wide aperture. Blurry pixels tend to get halos... nevertheless. Here are some lost places from germany:






(http://tf.weimarnetz.de/hdr1)


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jun 3, 2013)

Up at Cerro Gordo Ghost Town, California
I used Photomatix and Photoshop to get em just right..processed twice in raw editor as well
-outside





-inside (love what you done with the place)


----------



## wayno (Jun 3, 2013)

No comment.

Oops I just did. Sorry not my thing - but it's clearly yours which is all that matters at the end of the day.


----------



## blaydese (Jun 3, 2013)

Very nice pictures, I'm a fan !

Keep up the great work !


Peace! 8)


----------



## Click (Jun 3, 2013)

Very nice HDR. Well done. Looking forward to see more.


----------



## Hendrik (Jan 21, 2014)

I like the HDR a bit more natural, as in the attachment.
It depends on the subject, of course.
Best regards
Hendrik


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 22, 2014)

> ...wide aperture. Blurry pixels tend to get halos...



+1 Bingo! You just nailed one of the more subtle issues I've experienced with "canned" tone-mapping HDR methods like Photomatix. I've long felt that shallow depth of field HDR bracket-sets should be combined by layering luminosity masks (or simply hand-blended) in Photoshop, or developed in Lightroom via one of the 32-bit merging methods as described here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19058.msg357002#msg357002.


----------



## jrista (Jan 22, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..*this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it*...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..



Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

This "classic" HDR "look" is effectively the result of a mistake, or a mistaken understanding of proper HDR processing when converting from "HDR" to "LDR". It is entirely fine if you are purposely doing this for the sake of art...but just to be correct here, calling it HDR is technically incorrect. The images here actually have very low contrast, and therefor very low dynamic range.

High Dynamic Range means exactly that. That the *actual data* in the image contains enough precision and information to _represent _a _*high *dynamic range_.

Personally, I find these kind of "HDR" images to be...well, not my kind of thing. They have issues all over the place that rub me the wrong way. They are relatively "flat"...no real contrast curve...and the lack of contrast actually means there is very little dynamic range in the results themselves. Terrible color in the bright sun highlights is common...I mean, it this case it turns PINK because of the processing. Unusual and unnatural color gradients are common, not just in the bright highlights, but also in the shadows and around areas that would normally have higher contrast. Halos exist around all edges, kind of like a "glow". These kinds of images tend to have this "soft noise" effect to them, which just feels a little weird.

From an artsy standpoint, these kinds of images certainly have artistic flare. I have no problem with people being artistic, and if this look is your artistic goal, more power to you! I just wish we could stop calling it HDR. It really isn't.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 22, 2014)

So HDR is just increasing saturation right to the edge of garish, and pumping midtone contrast so everything has the same extreme "texture"? What an interesting technique!


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..*this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it*...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..
> ...



That's fine if this is not your "kind of thing". But you are dead wrong to say this is not high dynamic range. In this shot the original 4 images contain the one photos single image range. Being able to tone map the image while in Photomatix then further in Photoshop is an added plus for this kind of artsy shot. HDR is widely abused but when it comes down to it the final output was produced through HDR processing weather you enjoy the final outcome or not is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jul 19, 2014)

I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly


----------



## blaydese (Sep 3, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly



Very Nice !! ;D


Peace! 8)


----------



## Click (Sep 3, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly



I really like this one. Well done Jason.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Sep 3, 2014)

The car interior ... to each his own, but it screams too much HDR that I can't really appreciate the subject. Perhaps in most cases, less is better. I have been guilty of this in the past, too, but now a more subtle approach fits my eye.


----------



## infared (Sep 3, 2014)

I HDR most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly



Very nice. I like the effect in the water on this.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 3, 2014)

mycanonphotos said:


> Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..



Love it. 
Here is one I shot on the weekend. Stolen burned out Toyota Yaris I found in the woods.


REX50132 2_3 2_4 2h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## JimKarczewski (Sep 3, 2014)

It's all about the software. Some programs tend to allow the user to bake the image to a crisp showing absolutely no resemblance to what the scene would really look like. 

Others can't handle movement very well (subject, clouds, water)

So there is a fine balance trying to get the best image possible without making it look fake or over baked. That's why I own 4 different HDR Programs. Never have used the built in Canon option with any luck, nor have I tried Photoshops.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Sep 3, 2014)

Image below of autumn color in the Smokies (from 2011), is what I would consider a decent use of HDR, used to bring out the subtleties of both strong highlights and deep shadows. Of course, the original image had mostly midtones which were unaffected by the HDR program.


----------



## jhanken (Sep 3, 2014)

infared said:


> I HRD most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".



I enjoyed these. Subtle but clear examples of the occasional benefit of HDR processing.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 3, 2014)

*(Not) My kind of HDR*

I like your compositions, your subjects and your enthusiasm. They are good shots. But the "HDR" treatment (like so very many shots these days) doesn't appeal to me whatsoever. They feel like they are glowing neon. I particularly can't stand overcooked HDR skies that look like bad black velvet paintings as has been noted. Yours are better than many but it still doesn't float my boat. 

I actually think a lot of this isn't simply much a matter one's taste, but the fact that HDR modes are in such rampant overuse that it just screams "I clicked a button and used a certain filter or feature" and hoozah, here it is. No question, it's a fad. But I'm even seeing its overuse in journalism including mags like National Geographic. And I cringe. I hope we all don't get used to it as being acceptable particularly in such contexts.

I feel free to rant here because you've got good initial photos, and I can also compliment you on them whilst hating on the HDR technology. 

I think if you looked at ways to still do punchy or even playful colour treatments and contrast, along with some careful dodging to get the brightness out of shadows, they could really be interesting and appealing. Seems all the info is there in the file and the essence is there in your exposure and composition and subjects.


----------



## infared (Sep 3, 2014)

jhanken said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I HDR most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".
> ...



Thanks J


----------



## Akrobatiks (Sep 3, 2014)

I think a few of the pics in here look to processed. I see halos in a few of them and they need some more contrast. A lot of people forget that you need contrast to maintain that pop and prevent it from looking to flat. I prefer to go for a more natural look with my HDR photos... Here's a few example for you guys... All of these are multiple exposure blends which were done manually in Photoshop without the use of HDR software. 

Hope you enjoy!!

www.jamielinkphotography.com


----------



## Click (Sep 3, 2014)

Very nice HDR Akrobatiks

Welcome to CR


----------



## Arthur_Nunes (Sep 3, 2014)

I like to make HDR halfway between natural and surreal


Hand Held Canon 6D + 24-105L @ISO 1000


----------



## jwilbern (Sep 3, 2014)

I like to have a couple of the original exposures visible in the corner of the screen while doing HDR work. It helps me to keep it "real enough."


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 3, 2014)

First off: I'm guilty of producing these legacy "one click" hdr shots, too - and if I look at them now my eyes hurt. That's why I always keep the source files around in case my taste changes once again in the future.



Arthur_Nunes said:


> I like to make HDR halfway between *natural* and surreal



In my recent hdr experience, often you don't have a choice: At least my eye *knows* that you cannot see the sun and deep shadows all in one scene at the same time, so it always looks somewhat artificial. You surely can avoid oversaturated colors though.

Imho most scenes would look better w/o real hdr toning at all, but with simple exposure fusion (i.e. replacing a whole bright window content with a darker exposure) because it prevents you running into these horrible histogram inversions seen above. This is no option with hdr gradients, in these cases I'd vote for KISS w/o too many local corrections, but non-linear curve pulling extreme shadows and highlights into the middle but little else.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 3, 2014)

I think HDR is a personal thing (either you like it or you don't), and this applies to how little or how much HDR processing you use, i.e. realistic or totally artistic. In the end, though, it's a bit like like putting fancy sauce on a steak - if the meat is good, it can add or change the flavor, but if the meat sucks, it still sucks. 

I'm not a big fan of the over the top HDR look, but as Scott Kelby will tell you:

"While many of these photographers don’t like HDR images at all…*non-photographers absolutely love them!*"

One of the people that seems to get the overcooked HDR right is RC Concepcion. I don't like all of his stuff, but he's a good photographer underneath it all and seems to use HDR to enhance his work.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..*this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it*...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..
> ...


Eeha! Is that actually the English of this planet? Most probably true, but what does it mean? It reminds me the guy in the film "battleship" who said "who talks like that?"
Indeed, some photographers are technicalists and some artists - no offense intended, forgive me if I had.
I am not into HDR or whatever it is called, but it is nice from time to time to live in someone else's world even for a moment. Relaxing me doing so.
Please post some more for me to watch when tired, who knows maybe I will try someday, good to know how you achieved it.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 3, 2014)

I had to do it - looks like there is no definition of HDR so all of you are right and all of you are wrong:


----------



## jrista (Sep 3, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I had to do it - looks like there is no definition of HDR so all of you are right and all of you are wrong:



That would be because HDR is not a word, it's an acronym. An initialism, to be more precise. 

HDR = High Dynamic Range

From a technical standpoint, 16-bit and 8-bit images don't contain enough data space to truly qualify for the HDR moniker. They are what we call LDR or Low Dynamic Range files. A true HDR image is one stored in a file format that has an extremely large data space. Something like a 32-bit float TIFF, which contains a MASSIVE data space that can represent brightness values from something say as tiny/dark as 0.000001 to something as large/bright as say 100000000.

When we merge to HDR, we usually merge multiple source exposures that represent more total tonal range than is possible to record in a single 16-bit file, then save the merged result to a 32-bit Float TIFF. From there, we either downconvert with an algorithm (i.e. local adaptation) or manually tonemap the wide dynamic range of the HDR into the narrower dynamic range of a 16-bit or 8-bit image for publication online.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I had to do it - looks like there is no definition of HDR so all of you are right and all of you are wrong:
> ...


I know, I'm just messing with you guys but beyond the technical description of what high dynamic range files actually are, there is a lot of interpretation about what "HDR" means in terms of the look of the final photo. I've seen plenty of HDR-looking files that have very little dynamic range and are just Photoshopped to hell. Like a lot of things, HDR and the meaning of it has taken on a life of its own.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I had to do it - looks like there is no definition of HDR so all of you are right and all of you are wrong:
> ...


That, I understand.
Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## westr70 (Sep 3, 2014)

infared said:


> I HDR most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".



Would you care to share your technique. I like the effect and would like to achieve that. 
Best.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 3, 2014)

For me, HDR processing is like adding vignettes: If it's immediately noticeable, it's usually too much. 

Typical HDR image processing tends to look flat (two-dimensional), have strange smears and halos, crunchy texture and over-the-top colors. When I see an image, I want to see _depth_. I want to feel it pull me into its perspective. With the typical HDR image, it's almost like my eyes don't know where to start -- even with an otherwise excellent composition. Instead of a wide-angle view of the interior of a rusted-out car, with mountains and sky in the distance out the windows, I see a everything at once, as if it was on the same plane -- like a chalk painting. Just a visual overload for me.

Of course for many, HDR processing is artistic in nature. That's cool. It adds variety. Not my cup o' tea, though. I'll stick to using HDR to overcome the limits of my camera's sensor and blend exposures to produce what still looks like a realistic photograph. For me, typical HDR processing works against my pursuit of depth and perspective through light and shadow.

To each their own. The whole point of photography is to produce an image that's pleasing to someone, even if only for the one behind the camera. If you like artsy HDR, by all means, keep doing it. Life is short -- do what you love and makes you truly happy.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 3, 2014)

@infrared and Akrobatiks: Great images! They're examples of what I consider tastefully done HDR. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 3, 2014)

One thing I do to tone down my HDR is to process the image 100% all out HDR. Then take the the middle exposure image and process it normally (conservatively). Then layer the 2 images in Photoshop, and se the top layer opacity to 50%. Now use the opacity of the top image as a slider for how much HDR you want. You could also use the erase tool to effect parts of the image, or add an adjustment layer.

Note your HDR image may be different in total pixel dimensions, as different RAW processors treat the edges differently. If that is the car, select both layers, auto align and trim the edges.


----------



## Vern (Sep 3, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> One thing I do to tone down my HDR is to process the image 100% all out HDR. Then take the the middle exposure image and process it normally (conservatively). Then layer the 2 images in Photoshop, and se the top layer opacity to 50%. Now use the opacity of the top image as a slider for how much HDR you want. You could also use the erase tool to effect parts of the image, or add an adjustment layer.
> 
> Note your HDR image may be different in total pixel dimensions, as different RAW processors treat the edges differently. If that is the car, select both layers, auto align and trim the edges.



Nice tip Tex. I use Photomatix for HDR, but it takes a lot of fiddling around to get the effect I want (my incompetence is a possible explanation). In the attached photo, I first took an HDR image of the scene (3 exp), then we posed in the scene and I combined the files and selected us for 'deghosting'. I happen to like the rendering - others are free to disagree. BTW - I enjoyed all the posted photos in this thread. Some appear 'natural' and others not, but they all were nicely composed and pleasing to my eyes. The fact is that a single exposure image does not actually replicate the human visual system in many settings, therefore HDR (however it is defined) can be more 'natural'. And, not all photos have to document our visual reality.


----------



## Arthur_Nunes (Sep 3, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> First off: I'm guilty of producing these legacy "one click" hdr shots, too - and if I look at them now my eyes hurt. That's why I always keep the source files around in case my taste changes once again in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Marsu42, I definitely don't like tone mapping either. my process is based on merging the shots onto a 32bits file than I make mainly rectilinear adjustments on ACR and use curve just to give it a little kick if rectilinear sliders aren't enough or look bad for my taste.

You are right about how technically human eye perceives luminosity, but being an artist, its more about feeling and psychologically people know how the sky is looking like and so the ground objects, (even that there's a slightly delay in the eye's exposure and being physically impossible to get all there details simultaneously) and a HDR picture with a well balanced post won't look inusual

I know mine has a bit of oversaturation, but its way more natural than LSD trip HDR look we see on web hehe

I think that that LSD look is caused by tone mapping. Such thing is definitely unnatural to human eyes because human eye can't filter specific areas and see ground brighter than noon sky as we can see in some pictures people edit


----------



## mycanonphotos (Sep 4, 2014)

Wow!

Everyone has some real good points. HDR will continue being slung around like mud for years to come. Good the Bad and the Ugly. To this day that old rusted out car with the tin cans in it is one of my favs... That junk yard doesn't exist anymore since it's been cleaned up, wish I could go back and re-shoot it. I have yet to find a more interesting car containing such interesting subject matter...


8) Jason


----------



## Besisika (Sep 4, 2014)

Famateur said:


> For me, HDR processing is like adding vignettes: If it's immediately noticeable, it's usually too much.
> 
> Typical HDR image processing tends to look flat (two-dimensional), have strange smears and halos, crunchy texture and over-the-top colors. When I see an image, I want to see _depth_. I want to feel it pull me into its perspective. With the typical HDR image, it's almost like my eyes don't know where to start -- even with an otherwise excellent composition. Instead of a wide-angle view of the interior of a rusted-out car, with mountains and sky in the distance out the windows, I see a everything at once, as if it was on the same plane -- like a chalk painting. Just a visual overload for me.


Feeling well explained!
And that's the beauty of it. One can feel that "ordinary" photography tends to focus, sometimes even manipulate, the viewer's point of view to whatever the photographer thinks is important. Why?
Why don't you present me with all the facts and i will choose what is important and what is not?
Isn't real life an overload of information and our senses filter them on our own?
Again, photography is an art (to some extent). I appreciate to see things your point of view, especially when you do it in a pleasant way. Belive it or not but I am a big manipulator of the viewer's point of view, especially in post and I am amazed with how some people achive their goal.

But sometimes I need a change, sometimes I need more, sometimes I need variety. HDR shows me alot, and when it is done in a pleasant way, I apreciate the effort.
The key is "pleasant way" and the exchange of idea like this thread helps in that direction.
I did may be two or three HDR attempts in the past and I stoped, but I like watching them on Flickr from time to time.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> then save the merged result to a 32-bit Float TIFF



I guess jrista knows this, but a little advice in case some people don't: Use the "half floating point" OpenEXR instead of fp tiff, it saves tons of disk space, most likely time and many programs suport it nowadays. Not Lightroom/ACR at the moment, but hope dies last :-o



Arthur_Nunes said:


> I know mine has a bit of oversaturation, but its way more natural than LSD trip HDR look we see on web hehe



A good solution I use is to lower global saturation and raise color contrast ("vibrance" is the LR/ACR term) - this way it's still colorful without the postcard look.



Arthur_Nunes said:


> and a HDR picture with a well balanced post won't look inusual



Some people have raised an interesting point here I'd like to know more about: I_s the hdr aversion really something photogs have while Joe Sixpack loves it _- just like only photogs rave about smoooooth bokeh and everybody else cannot care less?

I know I likeds the standard tonemapped when starting with digital photography 3 years back, but my taste has turned 180 degrees in this case.


----------



## jrista (Sep 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > then save the merged result to a 32-bit Float TIFF
> ...



Yeah, you can indeed save space. For me, ACR compatibility is key, though, since I now tonemap with ACR. Its SO much better than the old tonemapper that PS had.



Marsu42 said:


> Arthur_Nunes said:
> 
> 
> > I know mine has a bit of oversaturation, but its way more natural than LSD trip HDR look we see on web hehe
> ...



I'm a big fan of vibrance myself. I usually opt for that over saturation, however these days, I tend to use per-channel color tweaking for best results. Even with vibrance, blues tend to saturate more than other colors, which throws off the color balance in an odd way. A slight pull back on blue and/or cyan in the color channel editor in LR/ACR tends to fix that, without messing with the color contrast.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 5, 2014)

jrista said:


> A slight pull back on blue and/or cyan in the color channel editor in LR/ACR tends to fix that, without messing with the color contrast.



This is exactly what I do, too, and I usually lower the blue brightness to make clouds more visible w/o the need for a polarizer. This is one point I always mention when it comes to ff vs. crop: With my 6d, I can adjust the channels much further before the gradients get pixelated.


----------



## jrista (Sep 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A slight pull back on blue and/or cyan in the color channel editor in LR/ACR tends to fix that, without messing with the color contrast.
> ...



Yeah, more pixels and more total light gathering capacity definitely helps with this kind of stuff. That's really dynamic range...bigger sensor and more pixels means more total light gathered for any given area of the scene...which means less noise per pixel TOTAL (not just read noise, not just in the shadows, but photon shot noise as well, which means at every tonal level, there is less noise.) Less noise means more editing latitude.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 5, 2014)

This is one of the reasons I like the effects from Exposure Stacking vice HDR.

But art is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## infared (Sep 5, 2014)

Of course, a little darkness in your HDR is always good! 8)


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 5, 2014)

infared said:


> Of course, a little darkness in your HDR is always good! 8)


The first two are crazy good, and they have interesting details in them that make the mind think a bit extra.


----------



## infared (Sep 8, 2014)

Here is one that is not so dark.... 8)
I shot it with the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art....lovin that lens!


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 16, 2014)

I've figured it out! Overcooked HDR looks shrink-wrapped. That's what was on the tip of my brain and now it's out. It's not 32-bit to 16-bit squared equals 8-bit times the speed of sound. It's shrink wrap. I feel so much better now.

And I still appreciate those who know their HDR looks bizarre or shrink wrappy and still like it. In fact, there's a plastic wrap filter in Photoshop. Give er schnoosky


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 12, 2016)

Interesting discussion. And I've got no problem with people not liking what I do. Some of it maybe over processed. But honestly, 98% of the landscapes/cityscapes and so on are breacketed and HDR'd.

Here is my over the top HDR's. I can't find a few others from the past. Hmmm, got some smugmugging to do


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 12, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> Interesting discussion. And I've got no problem with people not liking what I do. Some of it maybe over processed. But honestly, 98% of the landscapes/cityscapes and so on are breacketed and HDR'd.
> 
> Here is my over the top HDR's. I can't find a few others from the past. Hmmm, got some smugmugging to do



I like the truck, but having those overcooked bricks all around it hurts my eyes. Did you try reducing the effect on all but the truck, just for grins and giggles?


----------



## nineyards (Mar 12, 2016)

Edmonton Alberta


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 12, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> I like the truck, but having those overcooked bricks all around it hurts my eyes. Did you try reducing the effect on all but the truck, just for grins and giggles?



That is an idea. I've got better tools, on of these days I might have to try reprocessing. Those exposures were taken by the 50D several years ago.

hmmmmmm. Too much other stuff to do first though. 

Thanks for the idea!


----------



## bwud (Mar 18, 2016)

Here's a rare one of mine. I think it's two frames, approximately 2-stops apart, but I don't remember exactly.

Shot at dawn facing east.


----------



## Click (Mar 18, 2016)

bwud said:


> Here's a rare one of mine. I think it's two frames, approximately 2-stops apart, but I don't remember exactly.
> 
> Shot at dawn facing east.



Very nice shot. Well done.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 10, 2016)




----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 10, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> Interesting discussion. And I've got no problem with people not liking what I do. Some of it maybe over processed. But honestly, 98% of the landscapes/cityscapes and so on are breacketed and HDR'd.
> 
> Here is my over the top HDR's. I can't find a few others from the past. Hmmm, got some smugmugging to do



Nice one..OTT sometimes is what the scene calls for...But then again OTT is in the eye of the beholder..


----------

