My first HDR attempt

[Lovin]

Hello everyone ! :)

I start practice HDR, and I really need some help.
So far I have a link and an article from DPP about HDR.
I need to know what it's missing, or what what is wrong.
Now it looks worst because I re-exported from Lightroom 2.7 to make it smaller.

Thank you !

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4697881405_3216fe28a8_b.jpg

[dante]

I always use PhotoMatix for the HDR generation. Then you have to do Tone Mapping to get the right result.

[Lovin]

So, I'm using Lightroom 2.7 and Photomatix Pro -> Tone Mapping.

[JAS_Photo]

I am just wondering why you would need to HDR a night image? Since its all about shadows and light, wouldn't a long exposure with a very small aperture give you what you need? Just curious?

[Mad Aussie]

I think JAS hits on the most important point ... HDR isn't needed and tends to have little effect on a scene such as this one.

[ericmark]

The whole idea of HDR is for where the range of light exceeds the capability of the camera and with that picture the range is beyond what the camera can capture but so far beyond that even with HDR you still can't see into the shadows cast by the trees so is really waisted.
If you take for example a stained glass window in a church then with HDR you can get inside of church and window.
The same applies to looking out of a window you can capture room and the view.
Even where the range is not strictly required using HDR will reduce the grain in the shadows.
However the program also is important. Using Photoshop CS4 I found it also changed the colours giving purple edges to clouds. And anything that moves is a problem including clouds using the bracketed function on the camera goes a long way to reducing the time between shots but people walking, wind turbines and like still cause problems.
Picturenaut the free HDR program seems to do a better job than Photoshop CS4 with true HDR but many use HDR to get wow factor and distort the picture. If that's what you want look at "Lab Color" in Photoshop CS4 which will do same without having to take three or more images.
As a picture your HDR is very good but as an example of HDR use it is not.
This is a bad picture as such but it does show what HDR can do and you will note you can see all the detail under the aqueduct and yet the sky is not a white out only using HDR could I get that range.
http://www.photography.ca/Forums/members/ericmark/albums/structures-landscape/297-5228-hdr2-pontcysllte-aqueduct-misty-day-quite-dull-only-hdr-could-possibly-show-underside-bridge-sky-again-sky-colours-wrong.jpgIt also shows the problems with cloud colours which would have been better had I used Picturenaut instead of Photoshop CS4 but I was at college at the time and was forced to use CS4.

[Grant]

I for one don't think you should overlook doing HDR for non traditional uses. While it is true that HDR shines in areas where the dynamic range is extreme it also can stretch a very limited dynamic range image. You can also use it as a bases for other forms of manipulation as well. Here is an image with a more or less normal dynamic range stretched by using HDR. If you want you can find, on my flickr site, how I further manipulated this image to create different effects.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4696067932_98ffdde909_b.jpg

[Marko]

Some very good HDR points in this thread.

In terms of this just as an image, I find it VERY striking, albeit quite orangey.

[Lovin]

Thank you all for the advices. I'll keep in mind what you said.
I agree with you about HDR, but sometimes could create wow effect that makes you keep staring at the image :)

Now this is the original image that I want it to process it:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4700265218_d8765de99d_b.jpg

[Bambi]

very interesting thread!
Lovin' I am 'loving' the original photo! :thumbup: