I've been too busy with work & the weather has sucked on my days off so I haven't gotten out much asides from resurrecting my wife's car & thought I would touch base & see what you guys thought of this.

The original was shot with a Sony A350 14.2MP DSLR, no adjustments initially, just set the camera to auto & framed the shot

The adjusted picture was PS'ed with merge to HDR & adjusted vibrance.

This is my first attempt with HDR, I doubt I'm going to use it often but for some key shots I'll mess with it & see what's what.

On a side note, I upgraded to a Nikon D3300 & also got a Bell & Howell DV something or other, I got it because of it's Night Vision which actually works really well with an illuminator


1.

1.

Im just now getting into Lightroom adjustments, but it looks like it could use some adjustments on the highlights (brights arent blown out but just too bright) and some color adjustments to the blue side (a bit too much red for my taste). The exposure could also use some downgrading as well. You could also select the doorway to the right and bring up the exposure there so its a bit clearer. Also, it looks like you could use a lens correction (its got a bit of a "fish eye" distortion to it).

Im not familiar with the camera you used but when I do HDR shots I go the full spectrum of my lens capability with a +/- on the f-stop by .5 This gives you a nice range of super bright and super dark. I usually throw out the two extremes and merge the rest.

Most of what I would change looks like post-processing stuff.

The original shot (the top?) looks better. It could use some adjustments, but fairly minor tweaks I'd say. Look, for example, in the detail changes in the doorway. And Peptic is right about the blown highlights.

Also, perhaps google some tips on photographic composition, as it needs some work (I can see what you were going for, but it could be a little better).

Any questions, ask away

Was the first image the result of a composite HDR stack or is it a single exposure? Honestly, this doesn't really look like a scene where HDR would be all that useful since you don't have such high light/dark contrast that you're getting details blown out completely. The whole point of HDR is to bring out shadow detail while not losing the detail in the highlight areas - so you'll need either to bracket up and down your exposure (how much depends on the scene's brightness variance) or bracket down a couple different exposures (if you balance to the darkest shadow detail you want on your initial exposure and then stop down from there to capture the highlight detail).

The shadows in the exposure look washed-out, whatever the case. It looks like you're firing your on-camera flash, and I think this is a scene where you'd be better off using the natural light and just shooting a longer shutter/higher ISO/lower aperture as needed to get the proper exposure. Use a tripod to hold the camera steady if you need to, but the flash is washing out your color and making your shadows look too light by comparison to the highlights.

By way of comparison, this is the same location (although shot in 2010) - shot using an Olympus E-3 without additional lighting:


Dish Line by Jon Washburn, on Flickr

I like that area because of the cool overhead lighting (I've seen a few shots of the same area by others, it's a favorite of mine) - you want to do everything you can to preserve the natural light/shadow balance.

Like I said, this was my 1st attempt with HDR & post processing, I had only used Photoshop once or twice prior with horrible results, not even kidding about that.

All aspects of the attempt were done in PS, including adjusting exposure, I went +1.5 & -.75 I believe, dont have my pc handy at the moment & I can't be sure.

If I remember correctly, that was my last shot since I heard my wife whistle which is supposed to mean GET OUT, be it cops or crackheads, just go. Turned out she whistled because there was a raccoon staring her down, I think my wife got a little too close to the cat food lol.

Either way, I'll be back out soon enough (I hope) with new gear & more knowledge

Posted by yokes The original shot (the top?) looks better. It could use some adjustments, but fairly minor tweaks I'd say. Look, for example, in the detail changes in the doorway. And Peptic is right about the blown highlights. Also, perhaps google some tips on photographic composition, as it needs some work (I can see what you were going for, but it could be a little better). Any questions, ask away

The top shot is the original, you assumed correctly. I do try to compose most shots, still working on it though, but as I put in my previous reply, this was a rush shot & it was too good to pass up. What made this shot in my book were the snow drifts that look like body bags & of course the lighting

I'll gladly take any advice there is, I've never done post processing/manipulation

Posted by brooklynboy Like I said, this was my 1st attempt with HDR & post processing, I had only used Photoshop once or twice prior with horrible results, not even kidding about that. All aspects of the attempt were done in PS, including adjusting exposure, I went +1.5 & -.75 I believe, dont have my pc handy at the moment & I can't be sure.

Okay, I see what you mean.

For HDR to work right, you need to do the adjustments when you're shooting - if all you're doing is adjusting exposure in Photoshop, you might as well just adjust highlights and shadows in Lightroom or PS. That is certainly a useful skill to have (I do it all the time), but it's not HDR.

For HDR, you take usually 3 - 5 bracketed exposures with different settings in the camera, then merge them. The idea is to capture more raw data (preferably in RAW format) from your shooting and then blend it together in post. If you're trying to create the bracketed exposures in PS, you're not actually getting any more data off the sensor - hence, if your highlights are blown or your shadows are clipped, messing with the exposure in PS won't bring those back.

But the only time you really need HDR is when you have a really wide range of lighting in a scene and really want to capture all the detail. Usually that means a very dark scene (light night scenes) with points of bright light you don't want blown out (like lights in a cityscape).

You can also use it for reducing highlights in skies, for example, when doing landscape shots.

I can't say for sure, but it looks like you didn't really need to use HDR shooting at all given your lighting conditions. Personally I think it's a technique that has fairly limited application, although it's nice to know how to do it and it definitely has its place.

Your camera will determine how much you have to play with bracketed exposures and stuff. I'm not familiar with your gear personally, so I can't offer any advice on it, sorry.

I don't personally see the need for HDR myself. It works for some and not for most.

You could achieve better results than you are getting just using Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom.

This is the type of feedback I wanted. I know that HDR (High Dynamic Range) is started in camera with exposure bracketing but I wasn't able to get off more than that 1 decent shot & I didn't have the foresight to set up in camera bracketing, and not only that but the Sony shoots so damn slow that the camera would have moved while shooting (left the tripod in my go bag with my wife)

Granted the shot doesn't have a lot of range, but I thought it would have been a good candidate & now I know better.

I never really thought much about post processing but after reading a bit more about digital photography, it seems to almost revolve around it & this goes way beyond HDR or red eye removal. Looks like I've got some homework to do and if there are any good tutorials you can think of, I'll definitely check them out

I've been using photoshop but was told by, what I consider, one of the best photographers here to try Lightroom. So I was dragged kicking and screaming into the program and have now become more comfortable with it. There are tons of tutorials on YouTube (Adobe has a 45 minute one that will put you to sleep and covers too much in one shot but us good nonetheless). The one I found most useful us a 5 part series that jumps right in to basic processing. Link is here if you want to take a look:

https://m.youtube....atch?v=Vi1-8qYHWaQ

Good luck!

Posted by brooklynboy This is the type of feedback I wanted. I know that HDR (High Dynamic Range) is started in camera with exposure bracketing but I wasn't able to get off more than that 1 decent shot & I didn't have the foresight to set up in camera bracketing, and not only that but the Sony shoots so damn slow that the camera would have moved while shooting (left the tripod in my go bag with my wife) Granted the shot doesn't have a lot of range, but I thought it would have been a good candidate & now I know better. I never really thought much about post processing but after reading a bit more about digital photography, it seems to almost revolve around it & this goes way beyond HDR or red eye removal. Looks like I've got some homework to do and if there are any good tutorials you can think of, I'll definitely check them out

No, I get where you're coming from completely - unfortunately you can't really mimic HDR without multiple exposures because you just don't have the extra data for the highlights and shadows. Also, if your camera shoots RAW you should be doing that instead of shooting JPEG. I don't know, I'm not familiar with the specific ones you mentioned so I can't help more on that front.

Digital post-processing is to digital photography what developing film was to film photography - there's all kinds of cool tricks and stuff you can do to give your images a different look, as well as to tweak the color, exposure, contrast, etc. to attain the look you're going for. The digital development and post processing is as much a part of the art of digital photography as the composition of the shot and all, so you're on the right track.

I'm big on learning through doing, so I'd say just get out there, take lots of pictures, and play around with the post-processing to see what kind of stuff you can do with it.

Tripod and single exposure. Any camera. Do it.

Posted by Forgotten Beauty Photography No, I get where you're coming from completely - unfortunately you can't really mimic HDR without multiple exposures because you just don't have the extra data for the highlights and shadows. Also, if your camera shoots RAW you should be doing that instead of shooting JPEG. I don't know, I'm not familiar with the specific ones you mentioned so I can't help more on that front. Digital post-processing is to digital photography what developing film was to film photography - there's all kinds of cool tricks and stuff you can do to give your images a different look, as well as to tweak the color, exposure, contrast, etc. to attain the look you're going for. The digital development and post processing is as much a part of the art of digital photography as the composition of the shot and all, so you're on the right track. I'm big on learning through doing, so I'd say just get out there, take lots of pictures, and play around with the post-processing to see what kind of stuff you can do with it.

I'd say. Take less pictures. Be more deliberate learn your meter. And forget hdr. That's it.

Posted by Forgotten Beauty Photography No, I get where you're coming from completely - unfortunately you can't really mimic HDR without multiple exposures because you just don't have the extra data for the highlights and shadows. Also, if your camera shoots RAW you should be doing that instead of shooting JPEG. I don't know, I'm not familiar with the specific ones you mentioned so I can't help more on that front. Digital post-processing is to digital photography what developing film was to film photography - there's all kinds of cool tricks and stuff you can do to give your images a different look, as well as to tweak the color, exposure, contrast, etc. to attain the look you're going for. The digital development and post processing is as much a part of the art of digital photography as the composition of the shot and all, so you're on the right track. I'm big on learning through doing, so I'd say just get out there, take lots of pictures, and play around with the post-processing to see what kind of stuff you can do with it.

I'd say. Take less pictures. Be more deliberate learn your meter. And forget hdr. That's it.

Posted by randomesquephoto I'd say. Take less pictures. Be more deliberate learn your meter. And forget hdr. That's it.

Definitely inclined to agree with you on that. I believe HDR does have its place, but it's VERY limited in my opinion - basically only useful when a single exposure absolutely doesn't work well.

Most cases it's not necessary, especially if you have a camera that can shoot RAW and has a bit of dynamic range to it.

When first started shooting I had an old dude at the camera shop tell me to take my time and act as if it was the old 35mm film and I was paying for it. The idea was to make each shot count. I sometimes think about that when I'm firing away shots on a hurried explore. It's good advice.