Do we still need HDR
Jun 3, 2015 05:26:23 #
It was 10 years ago when I started doing HDR and seen it go through the bright colour era to the natural look.
During that time HDR software has not changed much. It still makes skies a bad wedgewood blue produces noise and halos and increases CA.
The Plug In and filter people however have made enormous improvements in their products as well as vast improvements in Photoshop and Camera Raw.
So I took one Ford Mustang and HDR'ed 3 images in Photomatix>Camera Raw>NIK Filters. Then took the normal image opened the Raw in Camera Raw then into Photoshop and applied some Nik Filters but NO HDR treatment.
So do we need HDR in 2015 when NIK Topaz and Adobe are so good at bringing out details and adjusting lighting etc?
Is there a noticeable difference in the Filter only shot that makes it worth going the extra mile for true HDR?
During that time HDR software has not changed much. It still makes skies a bad wedgewood blue produces noise and halos and increases CA.
The Plug In and filter people however have made enormous improvements in their products as well as vast improvements in Photoshop and Camera Raw.
So I took one Ford Mustang and HDR'ed 3 images in Photomatix>Camera Raw>NIK Filters. Then took the normal image opened the Raw in Camera Raw then into Photoshop and applied some Nik Filters but NO HDR treatment.
So do we need HDR in 2015 when NIK Topaz and Adobe are so good at bringing out details and adjusting lighting etc?
Is there a noticeable difference in the Filter only shot that makes it worth going the extra mile for true HDR?
Jun 3, 2015 06:00:07 #
The sensor on a recent DSLR can handle a spectrum of at least 11, even 12 EVs at 100 ISO. I am not sure whether this specific picture has a higher range than that and would need HDR processing at all - beyond the basic contrast/level adjustments.
Jun 3, 2015 06:26:57 #
gmw12 wrote:
The sensor on a recent DSLR can handle a spectrum of at least 11, even 12 EVs at 100 ISO. I am not sure whether this specific picture has a higher range than that and would need HDR processing at all - beyond the basic contrast/level adjustments.
So ya want me to do it on another picture?
If you can bring out the detail displayed here with just a contrast/levels adjustment your one slick operator with PP my man and I want that program you use.
Not discussing whether this photo NEEDS HDR fella. One has been HDR'ed and one has not. Does the difference warrant the extra work that goes into producing an true HDR image is the question being posed.
My only feelings are that HDR is almost redundant with modern software being so good. And that statement is from a guy who did nothing but HDR for many years.
Jun 3, 2015 09:17:59 #
I have experimented with HDR but never actually used it. I shoot almost everything in RAW and Sony's RAW converter program has this wonderful option called "D-Range Optimizer" that, in effect, allows me to alter the dynamic range of a photo after it has been shot. Of all the adjustments you can make during post processing, this has to be the most useful, when needed.
Jun 3, 2015 09:33:54 #
SonyA580 wrote:
I have experimented with HDR but never actually used it. I shoot almost everything in RAW and Sony's RAW converter program has this wonderful option called "D-Range Optimizer" that, in effect, allows me to alter the dynamic range of a photo after it has been shot. Of all the adjustments you can make during post processing, this has to be the most useful, when needed.
Another piece of software making Photomatix etc redundant?
Jun 3, 2015 09:50:52 #
That's what I got from the low res pix above. Just tweaked contrast, microconstrast and levels. Since your pix is jpeg, I couldn't correct the WB.
Jun 3, 2015 10:06:19 #
Billyspad wrote:
It was 10 years ago when I started doing HDR and s... (show quote)
I have been using HDR technique for about 3 years quite extensively. Recently I started using NIK filters and for the most part I have eliminated my typical 3 bracketed exposure HDR processing and I am quite satisfied with the results I am getting. I especially likeNIK Viveza for bring out details in the shadows that HDR does so well.
NIK filters makes it so easy to target a specific area in photo to enhance thru their control point masking that I don't even think about creating a mask with my PP software.
I am leaning in the same direction you are !!
Willie
Jun 3, 2015 10:38:45 #
Here's the "straight" shot with one manipulation in Photoshop. I used IMAGE - ADJUSTMENTS - EQUALIZE. Nothing else.
Jun 3, 2015 14:44:53 #
gmw12 wrote:
That's what I got from the low res pix above. Just tweaked contrast, microconstrast and levels. Since your pix is jpeg, I couldn't correct the WB.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Jun 3, 2015 18:04:39 #
gmw12 wrote:
That's what I got from the low res pix above. Just tweaked contrast, microconstrast and levels. Since your pix is jpeg, I couldn't correct the WB.
You can adjust WB in Camera Raw. Photoshop File>Open As> Select Camera Raw from drop down box. You have full CR controls on a jpeg then
Jun 3, 2015 18:07:59 #
fjrwillie wrote:
I have been using HDR technique for about 3 years ... (show quote)
Your exactly where I am at Willie. I really think unless people like Photomatix dramatically upgrade their products there is simply no need to use it.
Jun 3, 2015 21:46:54 #
SDB777
Loc: Edwards, AR USA
To me...the first post(#1). The HDR is better.
I like using 5 to 7 frames when doing HDR though.....
Scott (fun car BTW) B
I like using 5 to 7 frames when doing HDR though.....
Scott (fun car BTW) B
Jun 4, 2015 03:52:36 #
andrew.haysom
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Good point .... I think the Mustang with "Filters only" is the better image. Area of the cars front grille especially shows more detail than the HDR.
I will often use multiple approaches, then select the one I like best. Problem is, it's so much fun just playing in the software often I forget what I did :-)
I will often use multiple approaches, then select the one I like best. Problem is, it's so much fun just playing in the software often I forget what I did :-)
Jun 4, 2015 04:33:30 #
SDB777 wrote:
To me...the first post(#1). The HDR is better.
I like using 5 to 7 frames when doing HDR though.....
Scott (fun car BTW) B
I like using 5 to 7 frames when doing HDR though.....
Scott (fun car BTW) B
Whats better about it SDB apart from the fact I took out the metal barrier at the back. On Download there is more detail extracted with filters alone?
Yep been there done that with 5 and 7 frames and up to 15 in fact. Unless you print big and I mean poster size spotting the difference between 3 and & exposures is difficult at best and just about impossible on a computer screen.
Jun 4, 2015 04:37:02 #
andrew.haysom wrote:
Good point .... I think the Mustang with "Filters only" is the better image. Area of the cars front grille especially shows more detail than the HDR.
I will often use multiple approaches, then select the one I like best. Problem is, it's so much fun just playing in the software often I forget what I did :-)
I will often use multiple approaches, then select the one I like best. Problem is, it's so much fun just playing in the software often I forget what I did :-)
hya Andrew my man. Glad you could call by. I just got bored with HDR I think so tried the filter way and hey its easy peasy and looks the same!
By the way have you heard anything from Peter (Conkerwood) lately He dissapeared and I do not have his email.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.