[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I prefer to shoot just one exposure in RAW and process it to get more DR in the photo.

I shoot in RAW all the time. But I don't think you can not get as much DR from one exposure as from multiple. That's the whole point of HDR.

Jeroen

[chevelle]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Edit: @ Chevvele: great shots, wouldn't it make sense to tone down the highlights, lift the shadows and perhaps increase the structure a little bit?

Thanks! A little too much of photography terms for me to understand.

Honestly, these are straight out of camera. Haven't done any editing except re-sizing. Will try to follow your suggestion though can you please explain what you mean by increasing the structure?

Thanks

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I shoot in RAW all the time. But I don't think you can not get as much DR from one exposure as from multiple. That's the whole point of HDR.

Jeroen

How much DR you can extract out of one exposure depends on the camera's sensor. I'm happy with what I can extract out of my K-x's single exposure. Another thing is I don't want to buy Photomatix just for HDR, it's not worth the investment for me as I don't do HDR that often.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Achyuth Vaibhav

HDR? BTW. it's nice.

Cheers,

Achyuth

Thanks, pseudo HDR. A little overcooked if you ask me, but I was experimenting :-)

Originally Posted by pulsar56

Petronas Twin Towers from KL Menara observation deck.

Attachment 1104256

Lovely photo.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I searched the forum. There are several threads on cameras, photography, photoshop etc. But I found virtually nothing on HDR photography.

Anyway, here goes, my first HDR shots ever, Golden Temple:

Jeroen

Great photos - would look even better if you reduce the noise.

Originally Posted by Gandhi

American Bald Eagle in San Francisco Zoo

Attachment 1104446

Very nice. I love raptors.

Originally Posted by ampere

Hypotenuse!

Attachment 1104481

Nice. You might want to try out b&w as well.

Originally Posted by chevelle

Thanks! A little too much of photography terms for me to understand.

Honestly, these are straight out of camera. Haven't done any editing except re-sizing. Will try to follow your suggestion though can you please explain what you mean by increasing the structure?

Thanks

With some photo processing SWs - Lightroom etc. - you can get back from detail from the white highlights and 'lift' the shadows i.e. make them look less dark. Idea is to capture some more detail.

Structure: helps in making the patterns more prominent.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Nice to see someone living in my home country! I grew up "next door", in Amstelveen and know Aalsmeer quite well.
Especially the "Westeinder plassen". Used to own and race several dinghies! (Stern, OK and I used to crew on a Vrijheid)
Jeroen

I very much like the place. It is an area mostly occupied by the rich.. Can see lots of nice cars in the neighborhood.

Few weeks back I went to a place called Giethoorn, and rented a small motor boat and drove (is it the correct word?) myself.. it was fun!

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Few weeks back I went to a place called Giethoorn, and rented a small motor boat and drove (is it the correct word?) myself.. it was fun!

Yes, especially as it was a motor boat, you can "drive" it. I assume it was an electrical one though> I seem to recall they have banned petrol/diesel engine for all the rental boats.

Jeroen

[nilanjanray]

Queen of the jungle

[ampere]

Here is another HDR.

[Gandhi]

How do you guys define HDR? The expansion of the acronym is High Dynamic Range, but I don't see very high dynamic range in some of the photos posted.

When do you decide that you have to shoot a scene in HDR?

Would you consider this photo an example of HDR?

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by ampere

Here is another HDR.
Attachment 1104899

Originally Posted by Gandhi

How do you guys define HDR? The expansion of the acronym is High Dynamic Range, but I don't see very high dynamic range in some of the photos posted.
When do you decide that you have to shoot a scene in HDR?
Would you consider this photo an example of HDR?
Attachment 1104909

IMO, these two pictures can be directly achieved from a single RAW without processing HDR.

Some people would like to see colorful and surreal HDRs but that may not suit well for all kinds of subjects. Some prefer just subtle HDR processing.

An HDR can really bring out the vividness of colors, with the dynamic range.

Original click (one of them)



HDR-1



HDR-2 (More painterly)



Personally, I prefer the first HDR, which is milder than the second.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by clevermax

IMO, these two pictures can be directly achieved from a single RAW without processing HDR.

Agree.

Original click (one of them)

Attachment 1104916

HDR-1

Attachment 1104917

HDR-2 (More painterly)

Attachment 1104918

Personally, I prefer the first HDR, which is milder than the second.

Even in this photos I feel that the shadows could've been easily recovered (depending on the camera sensor) with one RAW exposure. The bright areas doesn't have that much detail anyway compared to original exposure.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by clevermax

IMO, these two pictures can be directly achieved from a single RAW without processing HDR.

Agree. My reason for taking an HDR is if there are enough refections in water or a dramatic sky which wont come out clean on a single RAW. There can be more reasons. But these two come to me first hand.
On top it, I like the HDR to be mild for landscapes. I dont want it to go over the top. Hence the one I posted looked like a normal landscape. May be it might be possible to extract the same from a single RAW, but when I snapped I was not too sure and hence went with a bracketed shot.

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Even in this photos I feel that the shadows could've been easily recovered (depending on the camera sensor) with one RAW exposure. The bright areas doesn't have that much detail anyway compared to original exposure.

I have tried single RAW enhancement to lift the dynamic range. In most cases for me the image always gave me highly processed look. While I always looked for the milder tones.

This image for example I shot with cell phone and tried an HDR enhancement to extract the details.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by ampere

I have tried single RAW enhancement to lift the dynamic range. In most cases for me the image always gave me highly processed look. While I always looked for the milder tones.

This image for example I shot with cell phone and tried an HDR enhancement to extract the details.

Attachment 1104921

That's why I mentioned "one RAW exposure". I should've emphasized more on the word RAW. Doing multiple exposure bracketing is a no-brainer if you are shooting JPEG. There is no other way to get that kind of DR from JPEG.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

That's why I mentioned "one RAW exposure". I should've emphasized more on the word RAW. Doing multiple exposure bracketing is a no-brainer if you are shooting JPEG. There is no other way to get that kind of DR from JPEG.

I still have not fully grasped the art of HDR. What I meant was even with a single RAW image, we may get a washed out sky or a washed out foreground depending on where we focus. Those are my first order points to make a decision, if I want to bracket. In the water image that I posted, I was not sure, if the refections would get captured correctly. Hence my reason to go for an HDR.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by ampere

I still have not fully grasped the art of HDR. What I meant was even with a single RAW image, we may get a washed out sky or a washed out foreground depending on where we focus. Those are my first order points to make a decision, if I want to bracket. In the water image that I posted, I was not sure, if the refections would get captured correctly. Hence my reason to go for an HDR.

I think you are mixing focus stacking with HDR. The focus point doesn't change for multiple exposures that make an HDR image. And as most HDR images are landscapes (in general), the focus area is large enough to have everything sharp in the image.

Take a look at this image. This is the original unprocessed version of the image I posted in this post here.



I under-exposed this by 3 stops to make sure the reflection in the water and sky doesn't blow out. Then extracted the details and colors out of shadows in post-processing. In hindsight it was probably not required to under-expose it by that much and I paid the price in terms of noise and loss of some IQ because of f16.