Comments on: How to Turn a Dull Shot Into Something Exciting

By: Johnny Fernandes

Johnny Fernandes — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:15:57 +0000

Using computer software to fix bad images, or to request software to compile multiple images into one single high dynamic range image is pure lazyness! Creating an image that contains a high range of latitude, and tone takes patience, persistence, and most importantly – timing. Anyone with a tiny amount of computer literacy can use software to manipulate bad images into better photo’s, and or “HDR’s”. However, those of us who make a living with our art rarely utilize anything other than the camera, glass, optical accesories, and raw know how. My advice, read some photography books, and learn about “Magic Hour”!

By: purrdey

purrdey — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:52:41 +0000

From my post in July until a few days ago I had only used Photomatix for HDR. Also much of my HDR work had been what others have described as pseudo-HDR ie. cloning a single RAW into 3 TIFs and ‘retro-processing’ these through Photomatix (I make no apologies to those of you who regard this as a waste of space; life’s too short).
I now have a new weapon in the armoury: Digital Photo HDR (DPHDR: see http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html). This works a bit differently to Photomatix, and it’s difficult to say which is better, or why. I now have both so who cares? One major difference with DPHDR is that it is quite fast. It also has a feature whereby you can throw it a single RAW and it will give it a sort of HDR look. In fact it will also do this with a TIF or JPG so long as you don’t mind the noise. But if you’re thinking about reprocessing old (pre-RAW) shots, or in my case pre-digital shots that I have fed through a film/slide scanner, you don’t have much option. Another thing I use DPHDR for is to throw it a single file and have a look at the more or less instant ‘HDR’ preview it shows you. If this looks rubbish then it’s probably not worth spending too much time in either Photomatix OR DPHDR. Conversely if it looks interesting, then it may well be. DPHDR is also cheaper at US$55.00
To those of you still reading, check out http://www.trencherman.org/hdr where there is a collection of mostly retro-processed shots so you can see before and after the HDR treatment – but no warranties!

By: kmpankopf

kmpankopf — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:14:29 +0000

Great idea. Recently I’ve started playing with Photomatix and have used it to do two things – restore the WOW in some shots and go after the Grunge setting. For now I’m using one shot. that is a great idea to separate the shot (tones) even more.
The Photomatix saves a lot of time over achieving the same results by spending time in Elements.
Again, great idea. thanks

By: Mr. 200

Mr. 200 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:51:34 +0000

That is pretty amazing.

By: bigdani

bigdani — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:07:15 +0000

@victor augusteo

There are a feew free HDR programs that you can try
check it at my website in the HDR chapter, at http://web.me.com/danimolowny/Tecnicas_Fotograficas/HDR.html
It’s all in spanish but in the middle of the page you get the name, icons, prices of the programs and links to download them.

By: Eric Magnuson

Eric Magnuson — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:51:26 +0000

Just a note:

Don’t forget though that pseudo-HDRs are far lower quality than a typical HDR from several shots. You’ll end up getting a ton of grain in a pseudo-HDR shot, so if you can help it, search for other ways first to save a shot. Personally, and as someone mentioned above, turning your image into a black and white shot can usually transform a bad shot into a decent one. Check that out.

Those are my two cents.

By: Digga

Digga — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:52:56 +0000

Robert Harvey, I think you have missed the point.
With respect, if you can call me a cynic then I could call you myopic.
Firstly, I was not criticizing HDR but the use of it to save dud photos.
Maybe you didn’t bother to read anything about Ansell Adams and his ‘Zone System’ as I suggested in my previous post. You would find that this was the precursor to modern HDR.
Adams (who was ‘in the real world’ but unfortunately now long dead) was a master photographer and his technique relied on his film to be perfectly exposed to start with before he applied his special film and print processing techniques. To make the most of HDR you need a properly exposed set of pics OR at least a properly exposed single photo… which I might point out your adequate example (hdr3) was… well done!
Shooting on a dull day is not a draw back. Excellent results can be produced in low contrast conditions. Post production processing is a fact of life for any photographer, but lets not lose sight of the fact that a good photograph begins in the camera. A good photographer also needs to be patient and exacting as well as able to adapt to the conditions at hand. We really need to strive for something a little better than ‘not half bad’, otherwise we end up being just mediocre.

I’m sorry… but “the point of HDR” (or any other post production technique), in the real world, is NOT to rescue a dud shot or to “introduce a new look”. While I agree that many do, your suggestion that post production software is mainly used for this purpose is plainly ludicrous.

By: Technical_Tim

Technical_Tim — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:16:03 +0000

Firstly can I thank everyone who posted comments on this my first every tutorial. As a newcomer to Digital photography I have found the DPS site very useful, especially when posting images and getting great comments, it makes me feel like I must be doing something right. I am still learning and I was surprised that the tutorial got published – must be doing something good. I did notice some negative comments and of course I will take these on board.
I would love to be able to take great shots all the time but I don’t think anyone can claim to do this. Photography is art and to quote in part (Nick Turpin) “confidence to experiment technically and carry this through wil let you stand out as unique.” Another recent quote I read was “enjoy photography, remember that it’s not a contest”

Thanks Again

By: Fairus

Fairus — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:30:04 +0000

i agree with all of u, and this forum give me a loot of new photography skill, good forum

By: Robert Harvey

Robert Harvey — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:24:50 +0000

My God, what a cynic Digga is. If everyone only ever took perfect pictures, then Photoshop and its ilk wouldn’t sell too many copies, and Photomatix would hardly sell any. Back in the real world, life conspires to mean that we all, at some point or another, take – if not exactly crappy – pictures that are not exhibition quality. It was a dull day, we had the wrong lens on, we had only seconds to capture the image and getting the settings perfect would have meant missing the shot, etc.
Surely the point of HDR is either
a) rescuing a shot that was not perfect (blown out skies and/or deep shadows etc) – as in my examples
b) to introduce a new look to an otherwise acceptable picture
or both – as with Technical Tim’s tower shot (and, arguably, my /hdr3 shot).
If your photos are great to start with, that’s marvellous. But if they aren’t, but they can be made to look not half bad, then that’s good too – and this is NOT ‘making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear’.
Lighten up, people