Whats your take on HDR here are a couple of mine

[Composter]

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj259/comp56/outdoors/t1.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj259/comp56/outdoors/e1.jpg

[donkeyman]

I like HDR shots, but once they start having that 'glow', it is too much. Both of your shots have that glow. I use HDR when i have problems exposing the entire scene, so HDR will help me balance the shadows and the highlights. BUT if you like the shot and it is your style, then keep it up. My opinion is just another opinion of an anonymous person on the internet.

For reference about what I'm talking about, here is my HDR shot.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/3939811362_75267224bd_o.jpg

[NewsyL]

I also do not enjoy the "glow" style HDR images.

They remind too much of those black velvet paintings that were all the rage back in the late 70's, sold out of station wagons in swap meets and strip mall parking lots. One day archeologists will be digging thru our ruins and will conclude our culture worshiped many gods, among them.... the Black Velvet Elvis.

.

[Mprezd]

Yeah to be honest to the OP I am not too much of a fan of those photos. They go beyond looking like photos to me - I actually think they lack detail and they probably look more like paintings.

I prefer hdr's like this:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk289/Mprezd/3771581660_dd5ccd3de5_b.jpg done by a friend of mine. Probably not one of his best hdrs, but all I could fine

[Astin]

Going with the crowd here - the glow looks terrible. A good scene done with a more realistic HDR process can look fantastic. As soon as you throw in the glow (ie.- wrong light smoothing in Photomatix), it looks cheesy. I prefer to balance exposure with it, although the hyper-real effect is still cool, but moreso without glowing

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3515249503_960c4d5144_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3618096861_0f2874d01c_b.jpg

[fledgling]

I've only experimented a few times with HDR, it's fun.

My backyard
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/3838355251_c11fdb1851_o.jpg

Campfire at a friend's trailer
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3851445794_9dd40128b9_o.jpg

My cat Odie, he naps in front of my computer. His ear twitched but I like that in the shot :)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/3875904889_bc5d4fe6a2_o.jpg

OPG Windmill at the Pickering Nuclear Power Station, taken from Frenchman's Bay - taken at 8am on a clear sunny morning
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3418/3899531242_3b4f8747b0_o.jpg

[neltron3030]

Yep, don't like the super fake stuff either, but some who aren't aware of this technique absolutely love it (i.e. non-photographers). I do most of my HDRs handheld, which doesn't really get the best results. Here is more my style of HDR:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3502/4012663881_9ef0367044_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3504/3927957886_e3c2d2c057_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2459/4009617834_058be016c5_b.jpg

[Composter]

yeah I do the real looking shots as well......here is a 7 shot HDR........

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj259/comp56/outdoors/DSCF3859_60_61_62_63Medium.jpg

[Kasakato]

Few HDRs are done well. As soon as the halo shows up, it looks fake, trashy, post-modern neo retro 70s painting. :lol:

[ShadowVlican]

Few HDRs are done well. As soon as the halo shows up, it looks fake, trashy, post-modern neo retro 70s painting. :lol:
+1

like most people in this thread, i prefer the "natural" looking HDRs... none of that "artistic" glow crap

[Asad_A203]

+1

like most people in this thread, i prefer the "natural" looking HDRs... none of that "artistic" glow crap

+2. Here is some of my HDR shots:

(Slight haloing on this shot, from my earlier days, lol):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/3075151091_79bd2dbdf7.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/2851936607_76c61ea200.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2851958593_8860270445.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/2852772606_6e1ece3775.jpg

[rfd_DD]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p63/ryan_holly_dublin/chairs_morning_hdr_fb.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p63/ryan_holly_dublin/dock_hdr_fb.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p63/ryan_holly_dublin/holly_dublin_hdr_fb.jpg

[Krupo]

Going with the crowd here - the glow looks terrible. A good scene done with a more realistic HDR process can look fantastic. As soon as you throw in the glow (ie.- wrong light smoothing in Photomatix), it looks cheesy. I prefer to balance exposure with it, although the hyper-real effect is still cool, but moreso without glowing

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3515249503_960c4d5144_b.jpg



Props to your "St. Alcan" shot - go SMC! ;)

[kay188]

Niagara Falls for 1 night on Friday.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m44/kay188/Photography/IMG_9165HDR.jpg

[mk5gti]

i never did anything from HDR yet, but i have a few questions:

1: is 3 pictures in different exposure require? or i can do that in 1 pic?

2: if 3 is require, how do i determine what exposure to use? any reference? should i just use Tv mode?

3: I understand HDR is a add on progrm to the photoshop, does it work in photoshop portable version too? (that i can install on a usb sticks)

[skyblue12]

I like it when it's done on purpose to be dramatic, photo art in a sense, kind of like cell shading. It just caters to different tastes, but some HDRs do turn out nasty.

[twotterdhc6]

i never did anything from HDR yet, but i have a few questions:

1: is 3 pictures in different exposure require? or i can do that in 1 pic?

2: if 3 is require, how do i determine what exposure to use? any reference? should i just use Tv mode?

3: I understand HDR is a add on progrm to the photoshop, does it work in photoshop portable version too? (that i can install on a usb sticks)

1) You CAN do it with one picture with limited success, but that kind of defeats the purpose of HDR. One picture can't contain the entire dynamic range, so you take multiple shots exposing different sections of the range then combine them.

2) Whatever you do, you need to ensure the aperture value is the same for all your pictures. I usually have it on Av mode and use auto-bracket exposure with -2/0/+2 EV.

3) Photoshop actually has a built-in HDR tool:
http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html

However, if you're the kind of person who likes halos galore, the easiest way to achieve that is to use a stand alone program called Photomatix.

[cuecas_red]

Just playing around with the photomatix trial software

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2671/4027604205_5a649f5d05.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/4027654387_a877e590e8.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2754/4027638523_dbf1df1e4f.jpg

[takethat200210]

I just started playing with getting different exposures using 1 raw file and the results are not all bad.

Created 5 exposures using 1 Raw file:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joekyng/3978543976/

Actual HDR of 3 different exposures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joekyng/4017376179/

[Jimbobs]

What is exciting about HDR is that it is an old difficult photography technique made easy by digital photography and software. The desirability of a high dynamic range However, like a lot of stuff made easy, the results are often mediocre unless the photographer has a clear idea of what they are trying to achieve. Many examples of HDR could be achieved much more simply with brightness/contrast adjustments , IMHO.

As Michael Reichmann writes on his www.luminous-landscape.com site:
With properly shot and processed files it (HDR) allows photographers to easily create images that were previously impossible, or at least very difficult to accomplish. But, good as it is, like a gun or nuclear power, it can be a force for evil as well as good.

[Asad_A203]

Well I think more people like it for the ability to process tones than the actual ability to bring out the full range of the picture. You can do a very unoticable HDR merge in Photoshop which does just that or go crazy in photomatrix to create an effect (which you could do with further PP in Photoshop).