Did I just make HDR?

[Dog--]

I've been looking at some HDR pics and they look cool, so I tried my hand at making one.. I'm pretty sure this is HDR, different exposured pics together into one?

Anyways even if it's not, it still looks cool.

 

[Hazar]

looks awesome!

and you're back!

 

[Dog--]

pfft no ban can hold me, I'm Dog-- ffs!


oh god please don't ban me ever again

 

[bryanf445]

I see you upgraded your cameras graphics card. Is it multicore?

 

[Dog--]

Should've made the colour temperature hotter.. The sky could've been red!

 

[No Limit]

Did you take those pictures? pretty sweet.

 

[Remus]

TBH I like the non HDR one better. The second picture just seems overall too bright and saturated.

 

[Dog--]

Did you take those pictures? pretty sweet.

No this is just some picture I found on the web, it doesn't look quite as good as some HDR pics out there, because I changed the exposures in photoshop, but with a real camera what you do is take like 5 or so pictures all with different exposure levels and it looks WAY better.

Here are some true HDR pics, you can tell.

 

[Krynn72]

Those are actually HEAVILY PHOTOSHOPPED HDR pictures. You dont get shitty looking pics like that straight out of the camera. You gotta **** with the hues and throw in some retarded bloom effects to ruin them like that.

 

[Dog--]

Those are actually HEAVILY PHOTOSHOPPED HDR pictures. You dont get shitty looking pics like that straight out of the camera. You gotta **** with the hues and throw in some retarded bloom effects to ruin them like that.

No actually I explained it in the first post, it's a bunch of different pictures with different exposure levels put together. You take like 3 or 4 or 5 pictures with your camera, then use photoshop to put them together (file>automate>merge to HDR, thats in photoshop, but I used a different program for it)

 

[Krynn72]

I know what HDR is, I've taken quite a few hdr photos myself. I'm saying those three examples there are overly photoshopped pictures and are ruined by it.

 

[Dog--]

Oh.

I think the first one is decent, the river.

 

[Qonfused]

HDR is cool when trying to balance a hard-to-expose photo. Those examples you posted are not such.

 

[xcellerate]

No actually I explained it in the first post, it's a bunch of different pictures with different exposure levels put together. You take like 3 or 4 or 5 pictures with your camera, then use photoshop to put them together (file>automate>merge to HDR, thats in photoshop, but I used a different program for it)

Photomatix?

Yes those photos are created using the HDR process, but they are over processed. Ideally you don't want people to really notice the processing.

The problem is the internet is flooded with "hdr" shots that are too over done or people simply don't understand the point.

Plus the thousands of people who also think hdr makes a photo interesting. "Here's a tree/cat/car/rock/bottle/chair! But it's cool now cause I had a seizure on the tone mapping menu, right?" Photography is a form of art and open to interpretation; some people must be happy with their "cartoony" images otherwise there wouldn't be so many, but I just prefer the more subtle approach.

And I'm not saying your image is bad, but I don't really see anything wrong with your original exposure.

 

[Dog--]

stuff

Yea I used photomatix, and to be honest, I like both. Sometimes they add a bit of colour to a pic, sometimes the pictures dont need that though. So I think either way is good, both are cool.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

If I lived in a world like that last pic...

 

[Dog--]

Drop some acid?

 

[Ravioli]

Welcome back, ye ol Dog.

HDR, srsbsns