Quote:
Originally Posted by Senna4ever
Not necessarily. HDR in the photographic sense is exactly that. High dynamic range. I don't see a high dynamic range in those photos...the black points are too high, not enough details in the shadows. I would consider them as extended dynamic range.
|
Both those night images are HDR. It is just that the bottom one of tokyo is filled with lights so you dont see as much darkness, but if you want to nit pick, the shadow part of the tree in the toyko image is pitch black as well. Just because an image is HDR doesnt mean EVERY dark shadow bit has to be filled with light... if that was the case then there wouldnt be an image, everything would be grey, and have a damn flat image. Again, just because the tone map is different in every image doesn't mean the image isn't HDR.
Good HDR looks natural, you can barely tell it is HDR. It doesnt mean every shadow has to be filled with light or every bright hotspot has to be darkened. It just means the multiple exposures are combined perfectly to make and image look as closely to how your eyes see it as possible. If you look directly at the sun you are still going to see a white circle, and if you look into an unlit alley at night you are still goin to see pitch black in the shadow behind a dumpster.
Anne Comte does not do "amazing" HDR. Her hdr images are the typical over tone mapped process. It looks unrealistic, just looks 'cool' for that specific look. I got the same results the 1st hour I messed around with photomatix and 3 jpeg exposures. You dont need 30 exposures to do HDR. I've tested, as well as the web's craziest HDR enthusiasts and professionals that 7 exposures (2stops difference raw format) is all you EVER EVER need for a night time HDR. That is even over kill for raw, the info is all there with 5 exposures. If you DO decide to do 30 exposures for a night shot, you'll even notice 1/2 of the images are useless as when you go to +10 stops (asuming the median exposure is 'proper' exposure) the darkest areas will not show any detail anyway since it will be filled with haze from a nearby light area, it's uselss for getting details out of.
edit: ok for example:
this is the median "proper" exposed image in a 5 exposure, 2stops difference, raw file set for a night time HDR i did of the london financial district.
This is an HDR image of the set properly tonemapped (imo). It looks natural, not overly exaggerated and brings back good detail in the shadow and highlight areas of the scene like how my eyes saw. Shadows adjusted slightly darker cuz i liked it
This is the EXACT same 5 exposure set from the SAME HDR file just tonemapped differently to give that crazy "HDR look" (slightly to the extreme side). It looks cool but it looks fake, unatural, and flat. However you get every single detail from the brightest blown out highlights to the darkest of shadows. Looks like shit IMO.
but both of these are HDR, just tone mapped completely different.