# HDR Waterfall



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

OK, HDR is rather like Marmite, love it or hate it; but it does/can bring out the best in an image.

Below is the image straight from the camera and then another using HDR processing with 5 images taken 1 stop apart then tone mapped.

Exif: 
Nikon D3
Nikkor AF/S 24-70 F2.8 (with Circ Pol)
1/2s @ F18
ISO 200
Spot Metering

Gary


----------



## NKS (Feb 22, 2007)

That looks V.Cool fella :thumb:

I will start playing around with HDR me thinks


----------



## bodyworx (Jul 17, 2008)

that does look really nice!


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

I really like that.:thumb: Maybe you could give a brief explanation of tone mapping for us newbies.


----------



## richjohnhughes (Sep 24, 2007)

interesting. 

not a huge fan of HDR most of the time - to me it looks like some kinda CGI. 

it does have its place for indoor images, where i think it comes into its own.


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

spitfire said:


> I really like that.:thumb: Maybe you could give a brief explanation of tone mapping for us newbies.


There is no set rule for the mapping, each image is different and therefor the processing varies.
I use Photomatix for HDR generation and mapping, which in my opinion is about the most accurate and easiest to use.
You get more fun simply moving the sliders around and seeing the results. It's a toy to be played with 

Gary


----------



## joe_0_1 (Apr 7, 2007)

I don't like the second image on this occasion 

I think I only like HDR on cars!? 

Great photo still


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I really like HDR though you do have to be really carefull with it.

IMO, of course. It either needs to be really subtle just to highlight a natural subject. Or really heavy to make the HDR-ness(??) the point of the image.

IMO, this is a little too much to still look natural. But too little for the full-on HDR effect. 

But, i like the image as a whole. Sometimes i think i miss out on such lovely things living in the Fens. But, my area does have it's qualities.

EDIT: Having had another look, I think the sky and the foreground are great with the HDR. It's the grass in the middle above the waterfall that my eye isn't liking.

as said before though. Cracking shot.


----------



## Troon (Dec 17, 2008)

richjohnhughes: HDR techniques can also be useful for revealing details rather than a purely cosmetic effect. I took this photo of the part of the front of Lichfield Cathedral:










in conditions where a single shot could never have captured the detail. In the individual exposures, either the facade was blown out totally, or the recesses were detail-less black shadow. Full details on my methods are on its Flickr page.

It does help to have a tripod, time and a static subject - see the grass blowing around in the waterfall shot. Other common HDR tonemapping problems are halos (horizon and grass against the sky) and excess noise (grainy sky).

It's certainly worth playing with, but it takes a lot of work to pull off a good "cosmetic" HDR shot.


----------



## joe_0_1 (Apr 7, 2007)

What does HDR stand for?

High Definition R***** ?


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think it's

High Density Resolution


----------



## Troon (Dec 17, 2008)

Consider yourself corrected. High Dynamic Range.

Dynamic range is the difference between the lowest and highest possible values of a variable. In photography, it represents the range between the point where "dark" becomes pure black and "bright" becomes pure white. By taking multiple images and combining them, you can "compress" the image into the capabilities of your image capture and display equipment whilst maintaining the "gist" of the image.

In my cathedral image, the dynamic range was too bright even for the human eye. When looking at the scene in real life, you actually only look at one bit of the scene at a time, and your eye adjusts. Looking at the statue of Christ in the recesses, my pupils opened to let more light in - the cathedral facade was then "overexposed" but I wasn't looking at that. In a photo, however, you need to be able to look at it all at once, hence the need for dynamic range compression.

The clever bit is in the local mapping - for each pixel in the six differently-exposed images I took, the tool I used (enfuse, in my case) had to choose a colour and brightness that maintained the image without looking artificial or causing under- or over-exposure.


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 11, 2008)

Love it


----------



## Maxtor (Feb 23, 2007)

I too like it, just the right amount for me. 

Nice work mate. :thumb:

I am definitely out at the weekend now. 


cheers

Maxtor.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

A bit too artificial in my books, but nice photo Gary, all the same.
I never tire of seeing water caught like that.


----------



## Mark M (Nov 29, 2006)

HDR's have their time and place, for a bit of fun and all that.

Natural images are the best, as we all know, and Gary has the ability to shoot cool shots, hence why in this situation, I prefer the original.

But, some car shots look cool in HDR.

I have yet to dabble myself, but will give it a go soon.


----------

