Cloud9 said:

they are neat if done right, but 85% look cartoony and shitty/fake.

---

ToTheSummit said:

I agree with you Cloud9.  Its easy for people to get carried away and over-process things until they just look unnatural.  Sure it might be a neat looking piece of art, but its not really just about the photography anymore.  And really there is nothing wrong with that.  I'll probably do some stuff like that myself, but I want mostly for things to look as natural as possible and highlight my photography and not my digital artistic talent.

Here's and example of the first tests I ran.
-The first photograph is about in the middle of a bracketed set I used.  This is about the best you could do with just the camera by itself.  The garage interior is still too dark and the outside is washed out.


-And after HDR processing...

---

There is some luminance going on there. But honestly I think HDR really does well with landscapes and things with wide 'tonal justice' as some artists call it, a real wide range between darks and lights. For me, sure HDR looks great and its a nice direction to go for some shots, but I cant help but think how unnatural alot of them look, which is odd cause its meant to make things seem more real. I really enjoy a wide dynamic range but, I think sometimes its shown far better via blackNwhite, see: ansel adams.

here are some HDR's from a friend of mine on DA;


9image HDR


5image Infrared HDR

different artist;


5shot

Cloud9 said:

i could, but thats just because i have a good camera and lenses and properly expose.

---

Whatever.  I guess the rest of us are just shmucks with inferior gear?  Thats fine that you don't like HDR, but don't make yourself seem silly and arrogant in the process.

Snoot, those are some good examples.  The first one of the Space Needle is a great example of HDR taken to the extreme.  The photo doesn't look natural at all, but it is still a thing of beauty.  I would like to do some stuff like that simply for the artistic value.  And the last photo is a good example of HDR done well.  The scene looks very natural and the lighting probably closely mimics what you would see with the naked eye.  Only some minor details would give away that there was any digital processing done, and you'd have to really scrutinize it to pick those things out.

Cloud9 said:

if i were to hdr that same image i would have put a tripod up and exposed them separately, outside and in.

---

Oh OK, maybey you didn't understand what I had done.  That is exactly how I created the final image.  A set of pics, shot from a tripod, from one extreme exposure to the other and then all processed together into one image.  The one unprocessed photo above was simply the middle-of-the-road of the set of photos.  Here are the two extreme ends.

Quote:

Proper exposure of the inside would leave the outside overexposed and washed-out. Proper exposure of the outside would leave the inside underexposed and very dark.

---

This is sort of the point, you want to get the best you can of both worlds then combine them. Obviously you dont want to go to any extremes but that is rather the idea, it defintely takes some practice, getting things to look right, then learning the HDR software, then practicing again to get the shots just right so they merge together.

here was my first attempt at HDR, its really grainy and all around poopy. I didnt do any touching up or removing artifacts or anything else, just did the HDR merge from 4 shots, but you get the idea.