Realistic HDR Images

Discussion (109 posts |  Only members can post. Join?)

Title	Author	Replies	Latest Post
Help Wanted	Duncan_Smith	5	2 days ago
HDR Street - oh and we're having a 24 hour party...	zynxx	0	4 days ago
my first attempt with single shot	hh96	2	5 days ago
HDR Darkroom Windows standard version 1.0.0 is officially released	hdrdarkroom	2	6 days ago
hdrspotting.com invite codes available	Daniel2005	1	4 weeks ago
Photo realistic HDR software ----- HDR Darkroom	hdrdarkroom	6	4 weeks ago

» More

About Realistic HDR Images

Welcome to the showcase for ‘Realistic’ High Dynamic Range images. Please share your sensitively processed HDR images, to impress others and to teach them how it is done.

This is a moderated group, because of the surprising interpretation of ‘realistic’ that many people have.

Submission guidelines:

“First, find a scene with a ‘HIGH’ dynamic range.”

Please:

•Explain what you’ve done, the tools you’ve used and how you’ve tackled issues of movement in the scene. The point of the group is as much for people to learn how to do a ‘realistic’ HDR image as to show off your images.
•No B&W images. Some are excellent examples being posted to the group. B&W is not 'realistic'. Sorry.
• No 'HDR from a single RAW'. The point of ‘HDR’ is to capture images whose range of brightness exceeds the camera’s ability to cope, by combining multiple images of different exposure periods to cover the whole dynamic range of the scene. The ‘realistic’ part is the hard bit, in that you need to convert this back to a believable image that isn’t obviously processed.
•Scenes that appear to be of 'low dynamic range' are considered suspect and will likely be rejected. The point is to capture what you can't with a single shot. A picture of your feet, albeit with multiple exposures and tone mapped, will probably be rejected as ‘pointless’ in the context of this group. Scenes with movement (water, people, cars) are suspect and will be rejected if no explanation is given as to how they are handled.
If there are burnt out areas in the scene (windows, clouds)...most likely will be rejected unless minor. What's the point of HDR if the bright areas are still burnt out?
•Images with the dreaded HDR grey look/over-saturated/halo'd and/or in-your-face tone-mapped images will be rejected.
•Repeat : no 'HDR from a single RAW'.

Finally, we’re trying to keep standards high so the rejection rate will similarly be high. Please keep trying! Look and learn from the images in the pool (and the lucid explanations they have attached).


***Photos that we like***

-- from Duncan_Smith - (?)

-- from salvita_42 - (?)

-- from c0reyann - (?)



***Examples of images we DON'T want to see:***
These images were all submitted to the group queue at some point, but were rejected because the processing has left them looking unrealistic.

- from .JAG

Rejected due to blown highlights/channels, oversaturation, severe halo effects.

- from by onnoth

Rejected due to blown highlights, banding, and overlaid texture. Deliberately degrading the image to fake a film effect, cancels out the usefulness of HDR for the purposes of this group. If was a real film, then it can't be high dynamic range.


- from petersmithgy

Rejected for clipped highlights, being a single exposure, and therefore not a true HDR at all.


- from Matty P

Rejected for some clipped highlights, but mainly for being in black and white. We see some truly great black and white images but to repeat - for the purposes of this group black and white is not realistic.

- from buttersg88

Rejected for not being even the remotest bit realistic. I mean, c'mon, what were you thinking?

Please don't bother adding photos we don't like to the pool, as they will be ejected quicker than a villian from a Bond car. Images from Kris Kros et al need not apply!

Let's use HDR properly people, enjoy! :-)

**Polite Notice**

If you re-add a photo into the pool that has been removed by an admin the photo will again be removed. If you re-add the photo a second time you will be banned from the group.