Oh yeah, I meant to say that I thought a lot of these HDR images would look much more appealing if the saturation was cut down a bit. I'm not a big fan of the super-sat look of HDR images.
I tried messing with cinepaint but I just don't understand what it is I am doing by combining the images. I tried some sort of HDR thing and it took like 10min to render on a mac. I must be missing something. Did somebody post a tutorial on this?
I had the same problem you guys are having with CS2 merge to HDR. Leroy is right about removing the exif data as apparantly PS looks at the exif data to determine exposure values. I ran my different RAW conversions through the demo version of neat image which removes the exif info. Just leave all the setting dialed down to zero in neat image and save the filtered version. Then use CS2 merge to HDR.
I must be alone in absolutely hating the effect of HDR in 99% of cases. There's only a smattering of the images in the flickr pool that use it well and in most examples it looks like clumsy apllication of shadow/highlight filter.
Perhaps people should consider why to apply it first. Some parts of a photo should remain dark for a reason. By lightening areas it brings them forward so the whole image will tend to look flat and lifeless with no variation. It's great for lifting sky/foreground details when exposure for sun can lose it, etc. but why the sudden trend to destroy perfectly good photos otherwise? Subtle application as in the shots from Robert, Glad2badad and marksimms all work well.
I must be alone in absolutely hating the effect of HDR in 99% of cases. There's only a smattering of the images in the flickr pool that use it well and in most examples it looks like clumsy apllication of shadow/highlight filter.
Perhaps people should consider why to apply it first. Some parts of a photo should remain dark for a reason. By lightening areas it brings them forward so the whole image will tend to look flat and lifeless with no variation. It's great for lifting sky/foreground details when exposure for sun can lose it, etc. but why the sudden trend to destroy perfectly good photos otherwise? Subtle application as in the shots from Robert, Glad2badad and marksimms all work well.
Oh I agree, I tried using it on some of my older photos where I thought it would benefit and it looked awful.. lets try and keep the whole HDR thing a bit low key otherwise it will end up being another "Joey Lawrence" overused effect (which works for JL, but far too imitated these days).
Although I am starting to sense an HDR challenge in the near future...
Like anything, I think it is a tool. When a tool first comes into being it tends to get overused. Eventually it will slow down, and will be used correctly to create some stunning art.
Like anything, I think it is a tool. When a tool first comes into being it tends to get overused. Eventually it will slow down, and will be used correctly to create some stunning art.
it will go in waves though, just like the internet, blogs, online games, urban legend emails. It is an Endless September.
"In 1993, the online service America Online began offering Usenet access to its tens of thousands, later millions, of users. To many old-timers, these "AOLers" were far less prepared to learn netiquette than university freshmen. This was, in part, because AOL took few pains to educate its users about Usenet customs — or even that these new-found forums were not simply another piece of AOL's service. But it was also sheer numbers. Whereas the regular September freshman influx would soon settle down, the sheer number of newbies now threatened to overwhelm the existing Usenet culture's capacity to inculcate its social norms.
Since that time, the dramatic rise in the popularity of the Internet has led to a constant stream of new users — in some people's view, drowning out the old Usenet entirely. Thus, from the point of view of the pre-1993 Usenet user, the regular "September" newbie influx never ended."
i've seen the waves of enthusiatic Photoshop users find the same filters over and over. It is just how people learn. Myself i'll stick to HDR for special occasions.
I went over to look at the Flickr HDR group and it made me want to barf, frankly. Like Imagineer says, what a clumsy-looking bunch of images...
I'm willing to concede that there are some images where an extreme "forced" application of this process produces striking results, but there's no reason why tone mapping has to dominate an image. When it's used in moderation as part of the processing workflow, it can produce some very pleasing results. What it's particularly good for is giving contrast and detail in the mid-to-dark tones while still holding onto their basic values. It's REALLY good at rendering texture in highlights, also, but that's very tricky to implement naturally.
Both these images from the last couple weeks finished in top 20, and both use tone mapping as a component of the workflow:
Unedited originals:
I think it's a GREAT tool, and I'm zeroing in on how I want to use it, slowly but surely.
I must be alone in absolutely hating the effect of HDR in 99% of cases. There's only a smattering of the images in the flickr pool that use it well and in most examples it looks like clumsy apllication of shadow/highlight filter.
Perhaps people should consider why to apply it first. Some parts of a photo should remain dark for a reason. By lightening areas it brings them forward so the whole image will tend to look flat and lifeless with no variation. It's great for lifting sky/foreground details when exposure for sun can lose it, etc. but why the sudden trend to destroy perfectly good photos otherwise? Subtle application as in the shots from Robert, Glad2badad and marksimms all work well.
Robert, as always your processing in this and other methods are spot on. HDR does have its place in photography but I agree it is easily missused. As shown by your samples the added depth and tones can transform a good photograph into something extraoridinary.
Here's another aspect of it: top 20 in Free Study, as entered and as reprocessed with tone mapping.
The differences are subtle, mostly showing up in the rendering of the dark areas. I prefer the TM version myself, though some have disagreed. But here's the thing of it: the original, the one I entered, took a LOT of processing work, many false starts, to get what I wanted. The sky was naturally oversaturated (it really was pretty much that red), and this was just the devil to work with, really contrasty. With tone mapping, I was in and out in 5 minutes, working from the original.
Now, I understand with CS2 shadow/highlight you have that ease of functionality too, but I don't have CS2 (can't run it on windows Me and my slow machine) and I consider Photomatix Pro to be my version of shadow/highlight. When Deb was here I played with CS2 a little on her laptop, and as far as I can see they are pretty analogous until you get to extreme contrast situations, where tone mapping has a distinct edge.
The important thing is to have a good image to start out with. It's no good to try and "fix" all sorts of images, HDR or whatever isn't going to do it. And then, even with images worth keeping, HDR doesn't work for all of them.
I'm hoping we don't end up with a gazillion HDRed images. Talk about boring.
The important thing is to have a good image to start out with. It's no good to try and "fix" all sorts of images, HDR or whatever isn't going to do it. And then, even with images worth keeping, HDR doesn't work for all of them.
I'm hoping we don't end up with a gazillion HDRed images. Talk about boring.
OK, that was bright.
Would you have known my gulls and my stormy vertical landscape were tone mapped if I hadn't told you?
