HDR photography,help

never tried it myself, but the basic rule is that you take 3 pics of the same thing. take one under exposed, one normal exposed and 1 over exposed. You then use some hdr software to merge the 3 images together. other than that i can't help much

so ill be needing a tripod then

Not necessarily, if you use a DSLR you should be able to use Exposure Bracketing (AEB on Canon's) which will take 3 shots in succession, 1 at normal exposure and 2 a set amount under and over exposed. Then use your favourite photo editing program to mix. (I was shown this by a high end wedding photographer who uses this technique instead of shooting RAW).

The speed of the shots is dependant on the frame rate of the camera (fps), a tripod is better but not always necessary. My 50D is 9fps so unless you've got an extremely shaky hand it's fine. If you need a slow shutter speed then you should be using a tripod anyway.

Mark

p.s. If not done well HDR can look awfull.

Do your research here,

www.dpreview.com/
www.warehouseexpress.com

my only recommendation is the buy either Canon or Nikon.

Something like an EOS 550D (~£450) would be a good start. Does HD video as well.

Mark

nice one, got a nice general purpose a/f lens on it,i didnt know if they were interchangeable.
will have a loky on ebay and see what money the digital ones are going for then

Those pics of Paris are really impressive, not to mention they were taken on an 'average' camera.

Thinks its an eos 3000 35mm with a 35-80 af lens,its hanging up in the basment. The camera I til the pics above with was a Canon ixus at the highest settings.the pics are massive and clear but in anything other than good daylight its a very poor performer.I got the pics I wanted bit only because the daylight was good. I do like the eos so will see if I can find me a used cheap body and sell my film camera body onwards. There's an hdr app on the Android market too but although its fun to use (once then it'll crash your HTC) its not gonna give results like those posted above. I think its a case of getting what you pay for here.when i can afford it ill be going back to Paris to get the other famous buildings into my collection but will be hopefully packing the kit to get some real hdr shots.

I tend to agree, but HDR techniques do have there uses, the below is a mix of two different exposures.


Tarr Steps by Country Photo (UK), on Flickr

Which was good enough to win a competition at the camera club I belong to.

Like many things using digital makes things some much quicker and easier.

I was going to post a comment up this morning but it's slow to do so on my phone and Awoo & Garra have since pretty much summed up what I was going to say.

Personally HDR is one of my absolute pet hates. I like the principle behind it (bringing depth and clarity to a challenging picture) and also the occasional use of it where it is done very sympathetically, but 99% of the time it's very much overcooked and results in images that are almost the opposite of what its original use was intended for.

I've chosen landscapes purely because it makes a change from cars for once. Whenever anyone ever mentions those letters HDR, this is the kind of image that I picture in my mind (right at the point when my skin starts crawling)




It's one of the biggest crimes to photography if you ask me. Take a photo and make it look like someones applied one of those awful 'artistic filters' that all photo editing packages seem to have. "Oil painting", "watercolour", "pastel", "brushed" - you know the ones that with one click of the mouse you have a picture that no longer resembles the photo Auntie Mary took and she'll be so proud that she made it look so artistic. So much so she prints it off a million times and sends it out to everyone she knows in the hope that everyone will be in awe.

I've always been led to believe that the trick is not to mess with HDR. If you use it, let the software work the tones for you and once it's done its original 'tone map', DON'T mess with it. It's once people start playing with all the sliders and making 'oooh' noises at the screnn that things go badly wrong. This is what happens to 99% of HDR users unfortunately.

Here are some shots where HDR has been used but is less fake/flat/cheap photoediting effect. I still don't like them that much, but they are a vast improvement on the 'typical' shots above.

^ If the stones in the foreground were darkened/toned down a teeny bit this shot would have worked better, but it would have been HDR that made them too light to start with ^


Nice image, but it feels a little flat. Not as bad as the top two pictures, but still flatter than it could be.

These following few shots are where HDR has been used properly and sympathetically. Basically, if you can easily tell HDR has been used then it's been used badly. If the shot looks natural then it's been used properly. It's usually the depth/contrast thing that gives it away


The upper and lower shots in this montage are very well done - difficult to tell HDR has been used. Even the middle shots are good (certainly better than all the above shots)


If you can't tell the difference between this shot and the two 'heavy HDR' shots at the top then there is something wrong.

Personally, the more natural you can make your photos, the more likely you are to succeed in selling them. I would concentrate on taking cracking good shots rather than relying on software to make your photos more sellable.