Thread: HDR comparison
View Single Post
  #5  
Old 11-09-2008, 04:31 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
HDR images don't necessarily look "fake" if they aren't overdone Tony. As a process, HDR was designed broaden a camera's ability to capture the wide gamut of dynamic range from over to underexposed images and extract useful information across the board. If used correctly and on the right type of subject, the results can and should be very subtle. It is not designed to be used on all subjects - just those that can benefit from a lift in dynamic range from dark shadowy areas to very bright.

A good example of where the technique should be used might be if the camera is positioned under a wide balcony looking out, where it's very bright outside and quite dark underneath the roof where the camera is positioned. Firstly capture a very long exposure that completely blows the highlights outside, but manages to render proper detail in the shadows underneath the balcony where the camera is. The second shot will be a compromise, and the third will be underexposed - leading to complete blackness under the balcony but proper exposure outside in the sunshine. HDR will take the best exposure areas in all 3 frames and dodge out the over and under-exposed areas and then merge the result. So, in the final result, you get the under-balcony areas used from the first shot and the outside areas taken in the third shot. There is a cross-over in the middle which will use great portions of the second frame.

The result is an evenly exposed image, and that in itself can look unnatural if you know in your own mind that the shadows and highlight areas in a darkly-lit building can all be seen at the same time in the same image - but shouldn't be.
Reply With Quote