or maybe<\/p>\n
I like HDR Photos when they’re done properly<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n and sometimes you get the odd concession…<\/p>\n Well your HDR is ok because it looks natural<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n I know why people say they don’t like an HDR photo – you can very quickly find thousands of images which make my mental pictures of Grimm Brothers fairy tales look bland… Google image search “bad HDR” or “overcooked HDR” and you’ll see endless examples.<\/p>\n Here’s one of my wheat shots, given the Grunge treatment… horrific<\/p>\n In a nutshell – High Dynamic Range<\/p>\n Stated simply, the “Dynamic Range” of a camera is the gap, in stops, between the brightest and darkest pixel your camera can capture in one shot. There will be a WIKI on it somewhere – go look there for a true definition.<\/p>\n HDR is a technique where we “extend” the range by taking images at different exposures, going from “single dynamic range” to “high dynamic range”.<\/p>\n So if you took, say, 3 photos.<\/p>\n You’d extend your “dynamic range” by collecting more information in the “bright bits” and “dark bits” which you can throw into the mix.<\/p>\n Why would we use it?<\/p>\n Here are several real-world examples where:-<\/p>\n A geekier way to think of it…<\/p>\n Look at your histogram – if you can’t get a shot without either black clipping, or white clipping, you may benefit from HDR.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n When I teach HDR, the “capture for HDR” talk takes 5 minutes, and then I help people set up their cameras and out we go. It’s actually a LOT easier to capture than traditional photography<\/a> – but that’s another blog.<\/p>\n It’s the software which confuses people – somehow they abandon all taste when seeing these alien sliders.<\/p>\n They don’t have the same names as “Levels” or “Curves” in Photoshop, but “Tone Compression” and “Local Contrast <\/p>\n With all this extra information to hand, we can:-<\/p>\n The list of things you can do goes<\/a> on… and these may be actual creative decisions by people, they may actually “like” them.<\/p>\n Here’s a typical example of “going too far” – halos, weird noise artefact… just a mess.<\/p>\n So if you “can” do all those things – should you?<\/p>\n NO – definitely not!<\/strong><\/p>\n If you use a knife to chop food in the kitchen, you can also use it to chop off your child’s fingers, or stab passersby in the street… but do you?<\/p>\n NO – definitely not!<\/strong><\/p>\n If you got a new knife you weren’t quite used to, would you change your entire way of cooking?<\/p>\n NO – Probably not!<\/strong><\/p>\n You’d probably have a recipe in mind, and hope that the new knife somehow makes it easier to create – chopping onions faster, cubing your meat with ease…<\/p>\n Why would someone with a “lovely landscapes” portfolio suddenly start producing “eye-bleeding” images?<\/p>\n They “could” create these in Lightroom or Photoshop, but didn’t. Now they open up Photomatix\/HDR EFEX etc. and all of a sudden are delighted with something that resembles a small child’s “new paint set” daubings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I say this in every workshop<\/a>…<\/p>\n Which is the same with most imaging software, not just HDR.<\/p>\n If you are starting to see things like Halos, cyber-colours and demonic clouds, THINK!!!<\/p>\n Does that look good? Does it look real? Will I like this in 6 months, or even 6 minutes?<\/p>\n Here’s the same shot as above, in Photomatix… a more “muted” approach… nice detail on the wheat too.<\/p>\n Or how about lowering the saturation a little…<\/p>\n Looking a little more realistic?<\/p>\n It’s not hard – it just takes a little practice and exercise of taste.<\/p>\n This last shot would probably have the dark areas lifted a little more in Photomatix (the processing was just for this blog<\/a>, not a “proper” image), then finished off in Photoshop or Lightroom – usually to sharpen the key details, maybe clone out some flair – the usual things.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ok – so you’ve been moving sliders for 10 minutes and it’s going very wrong…<\/p>\n This is the biggest source of bad HDR… people don’t accept that they’ve painted themselves into a corner… they keep going, till the death of the image!<\/p>\n Photomatix has 3 methods of Tone Mapping, and 5 or 6 of Exposure Fusion<\/p>\n If you are going nowhere fast, do this…<\/p>\n OR<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Quick overview of a different subject – a church.. one side in shadow, one in bright light. Probably a good candidate for a HDR…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So how many would go for this as a start point?<\/p>\n Well that would be one way… but how about the Photographic Preset instead?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Then have a quick play with the sliders…<\/p>\n![\"HDR1\"](\"https:\/\/www.mcfade.co.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/HDR1.jpg\")
<\/a>What is HDR? Understanding HDR Examples Before and After<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
HDR Gathers More Data for You to Work With<\/span><\/h3>\n
Why Use HDR? Good vs Bad<\/h2>\n
\n
So that’s why you’d use it – it’s a way around the limitations of current camera sensors. <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
Where HDR Goes Wrong: Bad HDR Photos<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a>Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should!<\/h2>\n
SO why do (usually) very sane photographers, when getting a new tool, like HDR, totally change their approach to image making?<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/a>Exercise Taste – THINK!!!<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nWhat to Do if You Get Stuck…<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Church Example: Bradford Cathedral Photos<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n