HDR Christmas Sunset from Brick, NJ

[PAFirefighter11]

D2x, 18-70, ISO 100, Bracket of 5 photos, each 1 EV apart, Photomatix:

HDR:


0 Exposure Value ... aka "perfect exposure" photo per my light meter:


5 photos I used:


The HDR image shown is as close to what I saw in person as could be captured.

Here's another image I took with my cell phone lol:

[The Captain]

damn, that's awesome.

[Kerplunk105]

Awesome picture!!

[DC2.2GSR]

great pic! HDRs are nice when subtle like this one.

[97TurboDSM]

nice picture but this is in the wrong section. photography or off-topic is where this goes.

[DC2.2GSR]

posting a picture in 'gallery' is the wrong section? doesn't make much sense... it's a gallery. lol.

[BlackTypeR]

That's not HDR. Looks nice though.

[PAFirefighter11]

BlackTypeR, you're telling me it's not HDR? I took the photos and did the PP myself. 5 frames, all 1 EV apart. I combined them, myself, into one HDR Image. I then Tone Mapped them, all in Photomatix. I'll even post the images... gimme a sec.

EDIT: Check up top now.

[BlackTypeR]

Originally Posted by HibachiZ28

BlackTypeR, you're telling me it's not HDR? I took the photos and did the PP myself. 5 frames, all 1 EV apart. I combined them, myself, into one HDR Image. I then Tone Mapped then, all in Photomatix. I'll even post the images... gimme a sec.

The bottom part of the photo is still waaay dark though, which is why I said it's not really HDR. Should of gotten a few more overexposed shots to bring more detail in those dark areas.

I'm not knocking the photo...but the final image you posted is something that can be almost taken in camera with one shot.

[97TurboDSM]

Originally Posted by DC2.2GSR

posting a picture in 'gallery' is the wrong section? doesn't make much sense... it's a gallery. lol.

why dont you check the rules for the gallery. the gallery is for automotive photos. thanks for playing.

[PAFirefighter11]

Originally Posted by BlackTypeR

The bottom part of the photo is still waaay dark though, which is why I said it's not really HDR. Should of gotten a few more overexposed shots to bring more detail in those dark areas.

I'm not knocking the photo...but the final image you posted is something that can be almost taken in camera with one shot.

The EV's were -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 ... So I had the precise amount that were required. I could've done 7 diff. EV's, but with the clouds fast movement and the water moving as well, I didn't want to chance it. I could've brought detail into those darker area's, but I like the silhouette look personally. No big deal, we all have our own opinions.

[PAFirefighter11]

Originally Posted by 97TurboDSM

why dont you check the rules for the gallery. the gallery is for automotive photos. thanks for playing.

I just noticed that myself ;-) So if I have a car in the photo, it's in Gallery. If there's no car, it's Off-Topic or Photog. Gotcha. Thanks.

[ASIAN JUL]

I don't think it looks HDR either but the sky looks pretty

[S4toSTI]

Yeah that's not an HDRI(High Dynamic Range Image) and its way too orange for my taste.

[PAFirefighter11]

I think the problem is that the "HDR" photos that most people see are absolutely way too much Tone Mapping. They look almost fake. My fav. type of HDR is one that is subtle (as previously stated by DC2). Those overboard ones do sometimes look great. I've done 'em both ways.. here are two other HDR's I did of a sunset, but I didn't really like:





Please stop telling me that the images are NOT HDR when they are in fact HDR images. Read this:
http://www.nicolasgenette.com/Labo/A.../index_us.php/

Among other resources....

[S4toSTI]

They don't need to be that saturated or lack any contrast at all.

[PAFirefighter11]

Originally Posted by S4toSTI

Yeah that's not an HDRI(High Dynamic Range Image) and its way too orange for my taste.

You should've seen it in person. It was florescent orange and extreme pink and other colors. My friend and I were discussing it while we were there how they are the most brilliant sunset colors we've ever seen. FWIW...

[PAFirefighter11]

HDR:

"The real HDR shooting method consist in taking multiple exposures of the same scene, at different durations (by making “bracketing”), for successively collecting different part of the scene (in term of brightness/chrominance), and then merging these exposures in only wide one. We can, for example, shoot once under expose by 2 stops, another one at neutral metering, and a third one over exposed by 2 stops. The under exposed shot will give us high-lights informations, over exposed one shadows informations, and neutral one will enable us to join the whole around average information. Here, each shot containing entire sensor dynamic range, with three shots, we get three times the sensor dynamic range (not exactly as each exposure intersect others)! You can shoot in jpg or raw, but in raw, takes cares to develop them at neutral exposure (0 EV compensation during development).

On the other hand, we see that such technique is doable only in certain conditions. That's why manufacturers works a lot to improve their sensors dynamic range. Indeed, requiring multiple exposures of the same scene, it can be considered only on tripod, with fixed subjects. Even for landscape, you will have to avoid any wind that would ruins sharpness of foliages since each exposure would be different not only in exposure ! Good-byes thus sport shooting, street shooting, portraits, etc…"

[S4toSTI]

Ok but you aren't showing the dynamic range that definition lays out.

[PAFirefighter11]

I don't need to show the absolute fullest of Dynamic Range. Every HDR is adjustable when you Tone Map the photo. You show too much dynamic range, not enough, or anywhere in between. It's still an HDR as it encompasses more of a Dynamic Range than a single photograph would, as is evidence from my 5 photos posted along with the HDR image.