Practicing Faux HDR

[theantiquetiger]

I learned the basic of faux HDR and have been practicing. I feel this is my best outcome so far

***after uploading, the first image (the HDR image) was compressed, so it is a little soft. It was right at 275 before uploading***

[Marko]

I'm sorry AT, i must disagree.
The purpose of HDR is normally to get a better range of tones in an image.
In this case, to my eye, you have actually reduced the range of tones and your HDR image looks underexposed.
The original (shot 2) is much better than your HDR. (I also don't think it 'needs' an HDR treatment)
Hope that may help - Marko

[theantiquetiger]

I'm sorry AT, i must disagree.
The purpose of HDR is normally to get a better range of tones in an image.
In this case, to my eye, you have actually reduced the range of tones and your HDR image looks underexposed.
The original (shot 2) is much better than your HDR. (I also don't think it 'needs' an HDR treatment)
Hope that may help - Marko

Thanks, Marko. The non-HDR image above to me just looks like a snapshot. It seems to be a flat, dull image. The "HDR" image above has life to me. I do realize it seems underexposed, but the parts I love about the image are the red in the wood ceiling, how the chairs kind of pop out.

I do know I have a long way to go, but other than the dark area on the left side, I really like the effect. I must say again, it was 274.9kb before I uploaded it, so it was compressed, making it a little soft.

[Marko]

With respect, it has nothing to do with compression.....This HDR does not work imo. The original needs some dodging and burning is all. It's 100 times better than the HDR.
You are the boss of your own image of course. I just call them like I see em on an excellent calibrated monitor.

[kevin99989]

I agree with Marco - and i like the original image also (before processing).

What were your processing parameters - ie - how much fill light did you use? Did you bring up the contrast and saturation?
my suggestion would be to bring up the fill light parameters - there might be too much contrast in there now. But I see what you're trying to do....

[theantiquetiger]

I agree with Marco - and i like the original image also (before processing).

What were your processing parameters - ie - how much fill light did you use? Did you bring up the contrast and saturation?
my suggestion would be to bring up the fill light parameters - there might be too much contrast in there now. But I see what you're trying to do....

I was just following a simple single-image HDR technique I found on YouTube.

I adjusted the color curves a little and made a duplicate layer with a mask. I made that layer B/W and inverted the colors and added a softglow. I then moved the opticy (spl) to about 75% and set to soft light. I then merged the layers and adjusted the color levels to my liking.

Does this make sense?

[Gremlich]

check this link

Gimpology seems to be the best place to stop and read.

[theantiquetiger]

check this link

Gimpology seems to be the best place to stop and read.

I did see that link but it was a little over my head. The one I used has about the same steps, just not as much in depth.

[Gremlich]

I did see that link but it was a little over my head. The one I used has about the same steps, just not as much in depth.

Pixels are free, the only thing it costs is your time.

[theantiquetiger]

Pixels are free, the only thing it costs is your time.

OK, Grem, I followed the link you posted. What you think?

Original



Old HDR attempt:



New HDR attempt: