Took a walk up Padley Gorge on the edge of the Peaks and had a go at varying degrees of HDR when I got home after taking some bracketed shots.

My eye wasn’t totally on the money for composition today, so despite the beautiful surroundings, maybe not the best photos – still thought I’d post ’em up for some C&C – oh and they are watermarked due to only using the trial version of Photomatix…

1

2

3

4

5

Yup, certainly looks like photomatix HDR! I like the first and last ones best.

If you would prefer a more natural effect try Enfuse.

Sorry, but I think it looks completely gash. A bit like those poor iPhone users who have to make up for the crap quality of the camera by pretending it’s something out of the 30’s. It’s not “artistic” – it’s pants and it’s not even “hip” any more since everyone has joined in.

HDR is overlooked for me, sorry – don’t mind HDR but especially for landscape type shots I prefer it to look more real.

Edit: and have to agree with Druidh (but sounding slightly less like a curmudgeonly old man hopefully 😉 ), the whole hipstamatic/instagram fad has got ridiculous.

Last one is my favourite. Photomatix was never great. I always struggled with it….

I think choosing the shot is very important to make a good HDR too. The more colour the better.

Try Artizen too.

This was Photomatix

church-photomatix by Jon Wyatt, on Flickr

Artizen.

church by Jon Wyatt, on Flickr

Interesting, did you use a ND filter as well?

I’ve been messing around with Photomatix, I think HDR has it’s place, but would say that it shouldn’t be what the photo is about.

Some recent HDR shots

(A couple are totally OTT)

Advanced (proper) HDR using layers in Photoshop is much better than generated HDR.

Give it a try.

This is my first attempt at proper HDR.

Ramsgate Harbour by J@yK@y, on Flickr

Here’s my best efforts at HDR

Sunrise over the Three Peaks by Grum Wynne, on Flickr

20100315-Harris-1-1-Edit-Edit by Grum Wynne, on FlickrA

_MG_1605_6_7 by Grum Wynne, on Flickr

P1040537_38_39_40_41_42_43 by Grum Wynne, on Flickr

Advanced (proper) HDR using layers in Photoshop is much better than generated HDR.

Are you talking about tone mapping a single RAW file as ‘not proper’ HDR? Surely using Photomatix etc with multiple bracketed images is ‘proper’ HDR.

Flow – cool, are there any ‘walkthrough’ photoshop guides on doing it?

Those last two from grum are what I think HDR should look like when done properly. Lots of clear, bright colour.

I use Photomatix too, it doesn’t seem to like too many tree branches or detail and I generally tone it right back now. Not many seem to come out worth keeping.

But I still find HDR is a real bonus when it comes to getting decent skys’ even with minimal settings, although your water looks good too.

Are you talking about tone mapping a single RAW file as ‘not proper’ HDR? Surely using Photomatix etc with multiple bracketed images is ‘proper’ HDR.

Yeah thats generated/automated HDR, not proper HDR.

Your photos are excellent though.

Flow – cool, are there any ‘walkthrough’ photoshop guides on doing it?

http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/advanced-photoshop-tutorials/creating-hdr-images/part-1/

http://www.squidoo.com/Adv_HDR_tech

Cheers samuri

Yeah thats generated HDR, not proper HDR.

Which? 🙂

The second tutorial shows what can be done with layers. Not that I am that good at it yet.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0YdF9DumQoU[/video]

they are OTT. HDR doesn’t usually improve images when used at the ‘sledgehammer’ setting.

LX3 and photomatix.

Some of my efforts, using Serif Photo Plus with three bracketed exposures:

323/365 by stuartie_c, on Flickr

Snow Day by stuartie_c, on Flickr

364/365 by stuartie_c, on Flickr

And some “in-camera” HDRs from a Sony a77

street_HDR by stuartie_c, on Flickr

wall_HDR2 by stuartie_c, on Flickr

kinnoull7 by stuartie_c, on Flickr

Still got a lot to learn…

Agree those last two from Grum look dammed good. Faux one from me

tinribz’ efforts are a pretty good demonstration of how HDR can enhance an image.

not really high dynamic range if the highlights in the clouds are blown but then filled in with flat grey 🙄

Like most effects in photography it won’t suit all images, as we can see here. It does seem to work quite well in numbers 1 and 5 in the OP, not my style though. It’s just an effect and if the original photo is crap, something about making silk purses from sows’ ears.

I’m with Flow on this. Unless I’m desperate then blending multiple exposures in Photoshop using layers is much better than HDR. HDR IMHO even if its done well nearly always looks like CGI- see Grumm’s last two photos. If its overdone like the skys in tinribz’s shots it just looks like bad cut n paste.

Good HDR tutorial here with some nice examples

http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr_tutorial/

druidh – Member

Sorry, but I think it looks completely gash. A bit like those poor iPhone users who have to make up for the crap quality of the camera by pretending it’s something out of the 30’s. It’s not “artistic” – it’s pants and it’s not even “hip” any more since everyone has joined in.

I have to take issue with this. Not because you don’t like my images; that’s fine and they were only taken/processed for fun – at the end of the day, if any of them were keepers (which they aren’t), I’d still have the RAW & JPEG files in three different exposures to select from.

What I do have issue with, is a couple of points – for me, photgraphy doesn’t have to be about pixel peeping, it’s all about the scene that’s captured. If that’s on an iPhone and it’s captured a beautiful/meaningful/thought provoking, or simply ‘fun’ image, then who cares what took it?

Secondly, HDR done well (and my first attempst above are not great examples) can look fantastic – and artistic, but I suppose that view is subjective. A picture doesn’t have to look like the eye would normally see it to be worth seeing. And who cares about being hip?

I think grums pics look fantastic.

I’m in the “HATE HDR” camp too I’m afraid. I did dabble for quite a while (using photmatix, mostly), and have never been anywhere near as happy with the results for landscapes as I have been making careful use of the correct filters then doing less intrusive touching up in LR.

I can see that for urban shots it certainly has its uses, especially where the blighter part of the scene can’t easily be fitted under a graduated filter. However, for me, landscapes are supposed to portray nature, and the unnatural HDR achieves 99 times in every 100 ruins this for me. I think most pro landscape togs also avoid HDR for this reason, and they’re certainly better at editing than I ever will be.

Here are a couple of my (in my eyes) better efforts, and whilst they seem to be hits with the Flickrites, I much prefer my efforts where I’ve gone to the trouble to learn how to use a camera!

Non-HDR: