# Photoshop HDR...Is Possible!



## S-X-I (Sep 6, 2006)

Alot of people seem to be getting into HDR Photography these days and most are using Photomatix to create them.

With only having Photoshop CS3 on my computer I did a Google search and came across this great tutorial.

http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html

So had a play about this morning and produced the following results.
*
Original Image*










*Photoshop HDR Image*










The above image was created using only ONE original image and not a number of different images captured at different exposures.

The exposure of the original image was adjusted using photoshop.

Overall I'm happy with it for a first effort but I think with a bit more practice on how to use the toning curves in Photoshop I could get some great results.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Troon (Dec 17, 2008)

Well, it's obviously tonemapped but I prefer the original. As you're only using a single image, it's not HDR, either.

If you want to get into HDR without cost (or piracy), try the free, catchily-named qtpfsgui. I used it to produce this (mapped for appearance and aesthetics) and this (mapped for maximum detail recovery). Plenty of others have got good results too.


----------



## GeeJay (Jun 10, 2007)

I'm not photography pro (anything but!) But it certainly makes a hell of a difference! Particularly bringing out the trees in front of the evergreens!


----------



## S-X-I (Sep 6, 2006)

Troon said:


> As you're only using a single image, it's not HDR, either.


As stated above the original images was edited in Photoshop to create different images at different exposures.

These images were then merged to create the above result.


----------



## Troon (Dec 17, 2008)

S-X-I said:


> As stated above the original images was edited in Photoshop to create different images at different exposures.


That's _not_ HDR. The original single image will have washed-out pure white areas and bits in the dark shadows that are lost in noise. No amount of adjustment will extract more detail from those areas.

The point of HDR is to create an image with a wider dynamic range than your camera can capture in a single exposure or than your monitor can display, then "tonemapping" (local contrast adjustments) it to fit within the capabilities of your monitor.

You can only do that by taking multiple images of different *real* exposures and combining those. There's a halfway "cheat" step possible if your camera can take RAW format - you can then do a couple of RAW conversions at different apparent exposures, as the camera's dynamic range is a bit bigger than the average monitor's. That's how I made this image.


----------



## richjohnhughes (Sep 24, 2007)

you can do a proper HDR image in photoshop - cs3. but the results dont seem to be as good as photomatrix.


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

not directed at OP

but i think hdr's are so overated - people make every photo look like a cartoon and think it looks great, it's more like a fashion statement nowadays............subtle hdr's do "kinda" work, i'm all for experimenting but i still think actually knowing how to take a photograph properly in the first place reaps better rewards


----------



## S-X-I (Sep 6, 2006)

buckas said:


> not directed at OP
> 
> but i think hdr's are so overated - people make every photo look like a cartoon and think it looks great, it's more like a fashion statement nowadays............subtle hdr's do "kinda" work, i'm all for experimenting but i still think actually knowing how to take a photograph properly in the first place reaps better rewards


I agree with you on that.

Some people tend to take it way over the top and product false looking results.


----------



## mouthyman (May 1, 2006)

try mediachance redynamix, its an excellent HDR plugin for photoshop


----------



## Anto164 (Oct 11, 2008)

No pictures are HDR, unless viewed on a 32 bit monitor, and taken with a 32 bit camera.

Other than that, i prefer the first one. The second seems rather washed out.


----------



## Troon (Dec 17, 2008)

Anto164 said:


> No pictures are HDR, unless viewed on a 32 bit monitor, and taken with a 32 bit camera.


You're confusing bit depth with dynamic range which, although loosely related, are different beasts.

Dynamic range refers to the distance between the "black" threshold and the "white" threshold, whereas bit depth is the number of gradations between the two.

An "HDR" image as people understand it is actually a tonemapped (or other local contrast adjusted) rendition of a true HDR image to compress it to within the monitor's output range. In a way, the image _does_ capture a high dynamic range. For example, my photo of Lichfield Cathedral's west door shows accurate detail as you would have seen had you been there - but it's compressed to include it all within the range of the monitor. In reality, the dynamic range was too high even for the human eye, but you get around that by dynamically adjusting your aperture (pupil diameter) depending on where you're looking. This image was made by combining six 14-bit photos two stops apart for a capture range of 15EV, assuming a camera range of 5EV. So it captures a high DR but does not display it.


----------



## gt5500 (Aug 6, 2008)

buckas said:


> not directed at OP
> 
> but i think hdr's are so overated - people make every photo look like a cartoon and think it looks great, it's more like a fashion statement nowadays............subtle hdr's do "kinda" work, i'm all for experimenting but i still think actually knowing how to take a photograph properly in the first place reaps better rewards


See above, not everyone makes cartoon HDR images. And knowing how to take a proper photo does not help, you can only expose an image correctly for one part of the image.


----------



## JasonRS (Aug 8, 2006)

HDR

Look here

http://www.vanilladays.com/

Pete put a book out last year too

Port of Culture: Amazon.co.uk: photographs by Peter Carr, Foreword by Andy Roberts: Books

HDR's a tool to create an image, as is contrast masking and a whole raft of other things. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but it's worth playing just to see what you get.

Draganizing seems to be flavour of the month for portrait / fashion, personally I hate 90% of what's produced, but sometimes there's some cracking images created.

Oh, and a technically correct image can often be incredibly dull....


----------



## byrnes (Jul 15, 2008)

HDR works well if it doesnt look like a HDR photo. if you get me?

I personally dont like the second photo, it has too much of a 'cartoon' feel to it.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

JasonRS said:


> HDR
> 
> Look here
> 
> http://www.vanilladays.com/


these are great, but I have to agree that all the amateur stuff I have seen is awful, and a real turn off IMHO. Most look washed out, lack contrast and have no visual appeal to me, but he has created some superb images on that site :thumb:


----------

