"Fake" HDR using just one image
Jan 30, 2012 20:52:40 #
OK - First, for you "HDR haters", just move on, this is not for you and we don't need comments about how garish and overcooked HDR images are. I know all about that perspective.
This post is to share something I found that you can do with existing single images in your collection. Do it just for fun or maybe to create a "keeper" out of just a "so-so" image you already have. The images below might be over the top for some of you, but the point is to show what you can do with ONE image instead of the THREE or more you usually think you need for HDR. Play with the exposures until you get what you like. This is just a "how to" post and not a "how about this pic" post.
I took a single image and made two duplicates. Then, in iPhoto, I adjusted the exposure of one duplicate down two stops and the other exposure up two stops. I then took all 3 images and loaded them into Photomatix, and up popped the "HDR" image. With additional Photoshop or Lightroom editing, you could make these look very HDR'd or less HDR'd, if you get my point.
This post is to share something I found that you can do with existing single images in your collection. Do it just for fun or maybe to create a "keeper" out of just a "so-so" image you already have. The images below might be over the top for some of you, but the point is to show what you can do with ONE image instead of the THREE or more you usually think you need for HDR. Play with the exposures until you get what you like. This is just a "how to" post and not a "how about this pic" post.
I took a single image and made two duplicates. Then, in iPhoto, I adjusted the exposure of one duplicate down two stops and the other exposure up two stops. I then took all 3 images and loaded them into Photomatix, and up popped the "HDR" image. With additional Photoshop or Lightroom editing, you could make these look very HDR'd or less HDR'd, if you get my point.
Original Photo
Same Photo, after Fake HDR process
Jan 30, 2012 20:54:32 #
Timarron wrote:
OK - First, for you "HDR haters", just m... (show quote)
I'm assuming you shot in raw, then processed?
Jan 30, 2012 20:55:37 #
And, if you feel so inclined, feel free to post your results from trying this process right here.
Jan 30, 2012 20:59:19 #
tkhphotography wrote:
quote=Timarron OK - First, for you "HDR hate... (show quote)
TKH - You would think so, but no.... this particular image was a JPEG. Interesting huh?
Jan 30, 2012 22:30:26 #
Ok you got me curious. I don't have an HDR program and my poor little elements 4 doesn't have it either. So I took the original made two duplicates bumped the exposure up 3 on one and down 3 on the other. Took them into photoshop and made three layers with the original being the background. Then I brought in the other two layers and blended them with soft light. Ran levels and bumped contrast a tad and this is what I got. Similar? Or not even close?
Original
Fake HDR
Jan 30, 2012 22:40:49 #
Country's Mama wrote:
Ok you got me curious. I don't have an HDR program and my poor little elements 4 doesn't have it either. So I took the original made two duplicates bumped the exposure up 3 on one and down 3 on the other. Took them into photoshop and made three layers with the original being the background. Then I brought in the other two layers and blended them with soft light. Ran levels and bumped contrast a tad and this is what I got. Similar? Or not even close?
Mama - I think your onto something. Try it again with a photo with more colors and shadows. Your original in this example is a little monochromatic I think, although you did manage to bump what color is there a little. Have fun with it.
Jan 30, 2012 22:57:35 #
Timarron wrote:
quote=Country's Mama Ok you got me curious. I don... (show quote)
Ok here is another try. Makes me feel like I have on 3-D glasses. Not the greatest picture, but fun to play with. Did the exact same on this one.
This doesn't look as good once posted. Maybe I will try more tomorrow. Hopefully someone else will join in the fun.
Original
Fake
Jan 30, 2012 23:14:15 #
Here's another one I did using Photomatix again. This program costs about $99, and is very easy to use.
Again, this is right out of the merge process. A little more dodging and burning and so on would improve the final image, but the point is that you can create an HDR-like image without the normal 3 separate exposures.
Again, this is right out of the merge process. A little more dodging and burning and so on would improve the final image, but the point is that you can create an HDR-like image without the normal 3 separate exposures.
Original Photo
Fake
Jan 30, 2012 23:33:28 #
Timarron wrote:
quote=tkhphotography quote=Timarron OK - First, ... (show quote)
yes, bery bery interesting~!
Jan 31, 2012 00:00:43 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
Timarron wrote:
OK - First, for you "HDR haters", just m... (show quote)
Perfect! And I like your style here of presenting yourself and the point.
And what you did is exactly what (and all) that taking 3 or more images with the camera then downloading then processing via some HDR program does. You get (maybe) identical results.
A photographic analogy is: If the meter tells you the correct exposure is F8 @ 125 than you can get the same "correct" exposure either by using F11 @ 60 or F5.6 @250......Does this make sense relative to your HDR observation?
Jan 31, 2012 00:02:25 #
I 'normally' don't like the HDR, but these are not "over baked" as you put it, I like these.
Jan 31, 2012 00:02:30 #
I 'normally' don't like the HDR, but these are not "over baked" as you put it, I like these. :-)
Oops make that over cooked, :roll:
Oops make that over cooked, :roll:
Jan 31, 2012 00:52:05 #
A photographic analogy is: If the meter tells you the correct exposure is F8 @ 125 than you can get the same "correct" exposure either by using F11 @ 60 or F5.6 @250......Does this make sense relative to your HDR observation?[/quote]
No it doesn't make sense...what he did was adjust the exposure "up" 2 stops (i.e. f/8 @ 500) and "down" 2 stops (i.e f/8 @ 1/30) and used (with your example as data) f8 @ 125 as his "normal".
not the same as your observation...unless you're meaning something different..
your example wouldn't capture the highlites nor shadow detail in the three settings.
No it doesn't make sense...what he did was adjust the exposure "up" 2 stops (i.e. f/8 @ 500) and "down" 2 stops (i.e f/8 @ 1/30) and used (with your example as data) f8 @ 125 as his "normal".
not the same as your observation...unless you're meaning something different..
your example wouldn't capture the highlites nor shadow detail in the three settings.
Jan 31, 2012 01:50:51 #
yeah, it's not too difficult to make a "pseudo-HDR" image... you've nailed the process. duplicate, adjust levels, save, and pull into Photomatix.
or, as an alternative, get ReDynaMix for $16, load it into your Photoshop plug-in folder, and then simply process the single image. you can also achieve similar results with some images using the shadows/highlights adjustment in Photoshop if you have CS3 or newer...either way, it's a lot faster than Photomatix... ;)
or, as an alternative, get ReDynaMix for $16, load it into your Photoshop plug-in folder, and then simply process the single image. you can also achieve similar results with some images using the shadows/highlights adjustment in Photoshop if you have CS3 or newer...either way, it's a lot faster than Photomatix... ;)
Jan 31, 2012 04:39:46 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.