My first HDR picture

I followed the tutorial here today and here you are, my first HDR picture below. It’s not a great pic, it’s just a test that I shot on my balcony today. After manipulating the image on Photomatix I loaded the picture on Paint Shop Pro for more specific manipulation (using just Photomatix is not enough to bring out the colors the way you want to).

Update: A better example that I just shot and processed.

9 Comments »

Andy wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 4:34 PM PST:

Did you used multiple shots for the last picture of your post? It looks nice, but really overprocessed. A little less would be more in this case.

Anyway, HDR is a fun thing to do. 🙂


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 4:38 PM PST:

As per the tutorial I linked, yes, you need three shots per project, each at different exposure settings.

As for the last picture, it is not more over-processed than this shot, for example. The whole point of HDR is to not be natural anyway. The only reason you think that, it’s because I show you the original picture, and so this has an emotional effect on you. If you see some amazing HDR pictures, that you would also think that they are amazing, but then you also see the originals side by side, you would say the same thing.

Same thing goes for some people who don’t get color grading. They see some of my grading examples, and they think it’s too much, because they’ve seen both the “before” and “after”. But when they are watching a movie with the same color grading, they are not bothered at all, it’s all natural to them. 🙂


Ivan wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 9:37 PM PST:

Interesting, but I think you should at least explain what HDR stands for in your text. I hate abbreviations out of the blue (remember SD?)


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 9:56 PM PST:

This blog is really not a tutorial blog, but my personal one. Sometimes I do write tutorials, but it’s not the essence of the blog, so I have to assume that some things are already common knowledge, especially as HDR images are very common on sites like Digg. Anyways, the HDR explanation can be found on an article linked on the tutorial article linked above. Link of a link, but the info is there. If you hate clicking twice, here it is. 🙂

Also check the links on the bottom of the linked tutorial above to see how good HDR images look like.


l3v1 wrote on April 1st, 2008 at 4:10 AM PST:

You might want to read ISBN 0125852630, it’s worth the while.


l3v1 wrote on April 1st, 2008 at 4:12 AM PST:

“They see some of my grading examples, and they think it’s too much, because they’ve seen both the “before” and “after”. But when they are watching a movie with the same color grading”

Or, in some mysterious way, some might actually know what they are talking about.


um3k wrote on April 1st, 2008 at 6:21 AM PST:

I, for one, prefer natural looking HDR. This photomatix crap should be wiped off the face of the Earth, it looks awful. Good HDR minimizes the over-processed look. Here are some examples:
This one is alright
This one too
This one is quite nice


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on April 1st, 2008 at 12:59 PM PST:

No, they don’t. Grading and even extreme HDR is a form of personal art. You can’t say that something is art and something is not. So stop the trolling Alex.


This is the admin speaking...
Eugenia wrote on April 1st, 2008 at 1:09 PM PST:

um3k, Photomatix can do both surreal and realistic. It’s up to the user. Personally, I am not interested in natural HDR, but surrealistic. It’s a personal preference.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.