I spend 30 minutes each day, each program, studying Adobe Photoshop CS6, CorelDRAW x6, and Corel Photo-Paint X6. Photo-Paint is where I recently learned how easy it is to create animated GIFs.
One photographic technique that seems to be all the rage right now is HDR (High Dynamic Range). HDR takes advantage of all the things that digital cameras and photo editing software programs can do to create some interesting images. Personally, I don’t like 98.27810287523478734821% of the HDR work that is out there. I think people take it to the extreme which then simply creates art, and it’s an art that I don’t really like. I don’t like Thomas Kinkaid‘s work either.
The essence behind HDR means that I should be able to improve pictures without overcooking them by going to the extreme. However, HDR typically requires that you take at least three pictures, one exposed properly, one underexposed by one stop, and one overexposed by one stop. Some people take up to nine pictures at various exposures. The theory is that each exposure captures different information which is then combined to create one picture with the best of all exposures.
What happens if you only have one picture, like from the days before HDR? Funny you should ask…. I was wondering the exact same thing!
I took one picture and then overexposed and underexposed it using Photoshop CS6 to create the set of pictures that I didn’t originally have to start with. I didn’t know whether or not this tactic would lead to anything interesting, but I think it did, not that I necessarily like it. Fine tuning might allow me to really improve some of my older pictures.
Following are the set of pictures I used for this experiment. Remember that I only had the first picture to start with, creating the other four pictures from the first picture directly in Photoshop CS6.
Properly exposed
Underexposed one stop
Underexposed two stops
Overexposed one stop
Overexposed two stops
The underexposures allow you to obtain more detail in the bright areas. Look at the silver sphere in the upper right corner. See the difference?
Overexposures allow you to obtain more detail in the shadow areas. Look at the two plants in the lower left corner.
Combining all the pictures allows one to get a more even spread of light throughout the picture. Taking it to the extreme creates surreal pictures like what Photoshop CS6 gave me:
Finished product created by combining the above pictures
Now what I want to learn is how to control what Photoshop does while combining the many images because the finished product there is too surreal for my tastes. Interesting, but not me.
Looking for real estate services in San Diego County?
I can highly recommend
James Frimmer, Realtor
Century 21 Award, DRE #01458572
If you’re looking for a home inspector,
I recommend Russel Ray — that’s me!
Russel Ray Photos 
Have to agree with you there. But, once you know the basics, you can start to have fun. The possibilities in Photoshop are endless and sometimes too much to take in 😉
LikeLike
Hmmmm, gives me something to think about. I’m not a great photographer and have the play with the jewelry pictures I take. It’s important to have really good shots if you want to sell what you make. I’m not so good at it. I’ve thought about photoshop but it seems to be a bit much for me. You gave me some good insights. I do like the surreal only because I like the “artsy” type things when I am working with new pieces. But I wouldn’t want to use it on my regular shots. It would be fun to play with……………Like, I NEED more toys, for gosh sake!
LikeLike
She who dies with the most toys has the most toys when she dies……… or something like that. lol
LikeLike
She who dies with the most toys has the most toys when she dies……… or something like that. lol
I have seen HDR used very well for jewelry. I’ll have to see if I can find that site.
LikeLike
I agree with you Russ! HDR is created by software and create a unnatural colored picture.
One thing is to make a touch of adding a bit of light or sharpness but when you get to the point where the landscape picture looks like when you had a hit of LSD, you should remember that! 🙂 Of course that’s a different story!
LikeLike
LSD? Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? lol
LikeLike
Hi Russell,
A very interesting article here. My opinion on HDR: whatever I’ve seen so far looked too artificial to me. I agree, that some pictures might be improved by more detail in the overexposed and/or underexposed areas, but if so, it needs to be done very carefully. And as I’ve just said, I’ve never as yet seen an example of that. That’s why I myself have not tried HDR yet – and maybe will not.
Best regards,
Pit
LikeLike
“Very carefully” I think are the key words. Thanks for contributing, Pit!
LikeLike
It took me about a year to figure out my HDR workflow. This pseudo HDR pic you created reminds me of my overprocessed results I’d often get in the beginning. The whites have been ruined, which throws off the whole image.
I don’t let PS create the HDR image, I start with Photomatix. Then I use plugins from topaz and nik software. Here is one of my latest and greatest http://flic.kr/p/c7NBaC
LikeLike
I didn’t like Photomatix, nor did I like the Topaz plugins. Maybe it’s that I generally just don’t like HDR.
I don’t really like your linked picture, either. I find it to be too “overdone” or “overcooked” as the pundits say. I just think there’s way too much detail, as with my product above.
Is it art? Yes. Fortunately, we all get to decide what art we like and what we don’t like.
And around and around the world goes………. lol
LikeLike
Wow. You’re the first person to say its overcooked. Sounds like you hate any and all HDR. To each his own, I suppose.
LikeLike
I don’t hate any and all, but look at all the detail in the water and on the rocks. I’m pretty sure a lot of that white simply is not there for the human eye. Can the camera catch it? Sure. And putting it in the picture creates an artistic picture. Nothing wrong with that.
You should see the public art on the downtown San Diego waterfront. People get paid tens of thousands of dollars to create the art, but I have yet to see a single piece that I like. Doesn’t mean it’s not good art. I just really like the natural world. I think Mother and Father Nature have done a pretty good job.
LikeLike
As I mentioned before, I have yet to see an HDR picture that is NOT overcooked. None I’ve seen so far seem natural to me.
Pit
P.S.: And let me state here that I don’t hate HDR!
LikeLike
Hey, Pit. You’re piqued my curiosity about “natural.” At what point does something not have to seem natural? For example, look at the work this person does with his pictures and Photoshop: http://morfis.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/light-trail-dresses-by-atton-conrad/
Also, this HDR is one of the nicest I’ve seen: http://www.photobotos.com/a-beautiful-morning-trakoscan-croatia-boris-frkovic/
I don’t like it as a picture or photography but I like it as art.
LikeLike
Hi Russel,
Now you have me thinking what I consider “natural”. Good question. I think I need a little more time to answer, but I’ll be back to you.
Have a great Sunday,
Pit
LikeLike
Hi Russel,
I’m sorry it took me that long to finally answer your question. I must admit tghat it’s not easy for me, not even in my native German, and all the more in English, to find the words. Plus, to simply get the right ideas.
Let me try to explain what “not natural” means to me, and here I’m referring to quite a few HDR-pictures I’ve seen at Fotocommunity.
(1) They seem to be too colourful. More colourful, in fact, than I would expect the “real” scene to be.
(2) The same goes for detail.
(3) The “contours” seem to be “double” to me. I don’t know if you’ll understand what I mean by that, but I can’t explain better
As I said: difficult to explain. And maybe I’ve not seen really good examples of HDR.
Best regards,
Pit
P.S. as to the links you sent: Thanks you for them. As works of art, I appreciate these pictures. But as realistic and only “enhanced” renderings of reality, I don’t really like them.
LikeLike
I’m no expert and you know that… but I believe what you described is the tone-mapping process which is half the story of producing HDR images.
The issue is that tone-mapping software is very accessible and every Joe Shmoe believes he’s an expert now but manipulating a couple of controls in the software. This boom in tone-mapping reminds of the introduction of digital photo editing software… everyone started producing these over-saturated images which got old pretty fast.
However I admit that the HDR fad has lasted a bit longer than I anticipated… I was hoping that the amateurs would fall off after a while but new ones always seem to pop up.
Anyway I’m pro HDR… I’m anti-tone mapping and walk away approach as I believe that produced 99% of the so called ugly HDRs!! 🙂
LikeLike
I used the “Merge to HDR” function in Photoshop CS6.
I’m not familiar with all of the terminology simply because I have little interest in it. It’s a curiosity, and since I’m studying Photoshop CS6, it’s in the lesson plan……. lol
LikeLike
That HDR stuff is not for me either. There’s too much photoshopping going on these days, and not enough REAL photography! I may get some guff over this, but that’s okay.
LikeLike
Just remember that even real photographers from the past, like Ansel Adams, photoshopped their work. It’s just that it wasn’t called photoshopping and was actually done in a darkroom — things like using different developing chemicals, different papers, filters on the developer, dodging, burning. There’s nothing wrong with photoshopping per sé, and it certainly allows lots of people to have a lot of fun.
LikeLike
Thanks for that info on Ansel Adams! Point well taken!
LikeLike
Adams has really been in the news this past year with all the newfound documentation on how he “created” his pictures. Who knew?
LikeLike
I do a lot of work in Photoshop because I make Gicle’e prints of my art to sell to people who cannot afford the original. My book on the subject is about 4 inches thick and I could read it until I am gone and still not know everything. They add and take away yearly it seems to sell the latest version which doesn’t help.Using Photoshop to edit images of my work after they are photographed helps me get close to the original painting or drawing with the print. Romantic realism would best discribe my work so perspective is a huge part of it. Objects in the distance are vague and smaller than the forground and shadows have minimal detail on purpose. I don’t have any knowledge about what you are doing but in your altered photo my eyes go all over the place as in some abstract art. That is also not for me:I am too much of a realist! As for the syrupy sweet fairytale renderings of Kinkide;also not for me!
LikeLike
In my photos, and in David’s photo that he linked to in his comment, I just find too much detail, too much information. My eyes and brain are forced into sensory overload.
“Syrupy sweet fairytale renderings.” — Gotta remember that one. lol
LikeLike
Glad that I said something that you are going to remember. lol
LikeLike
I think it works with this image ok, but it is already a shot of art. This processing makes my brain feel funny. I appreciate the detail on the objects, but shadows are there for a reason, and you might notice in my photos I often shoot with settings that don’t balance the light as much. I love low-light long exposure shots that create that golden patina or heavy contrasts. This process you’ve shown takes the evening out (no I don’t mean a night on the town) to an even wierder extreme. Nice in certain cases perhaps, but not ‘me’ either.
LikeLike
I have to say it’s not my ‘cup of tea’ either, Russel. It appears more like a painting or work of art (as opposed to a photo capturing and reproducing what your eyes see).
I use PSE9 to ‘fix’ my errors (which are made due to poor eyesight AND lack of experience in using my camera’s settings properly).
If I had good memory (and learnt how to use the camera properly) AND good eyesight (instead of severe myopia & astigmatism), I would have an expectation of being able to take perfect photos (whatever a perfect photo might be).
I was an artist when younger – sketching, watercolour, gouche, acrylics etc. I’ve done all sorts of arts & crafts over the years and NOW………I want to be a photographer (not a photo editor).
I guess that’s where the difference is – what you want to do with a camera – take photos, or use the camera to give you some raw material for editing into something entirely different.
LikeLike
Of course, even professional photographers fall into the digital editing trap because our cameras give us the opportunity to have them deliver just a RAW file.
I can’t tell you how many professional phtographers like to look down their noses at the rest of us as they say “I only shoot RAW.” The only way, then, that you can see the picture when you shoot RAW is to process it in a digital photo editing program.
I shoot RAW + JPG so that I can immediately use the JPG if I want and then editing photos using the RAW files later one when I have more time.
With over 74,000 photo files, imagine all the art I will be able to create from my home office when I’m no longer able to get up and about due to old age.
LikeLike
Russel, I think its time you did a serious spring clean of those 74,000 photo files. When you’re old, you won’t remember how to do anything, let alone play around with editing.
I’ve reduced my 54,000 down to about 15,000. and even those left could be reduced further. I kept alot of mediocre images intending to re-visit them one day, but the reality is that all the new photos I shoot take up all my spare time anyway.
LikeLike
That’s what I keep telling myself, but then I run across a gem like that in my recent post “Clear the runway.” I do spend 30 minutes each day doing cataloging, and some duplicate pictures do get thrown away, but it’s, like, add 500, delete 100 each day…………..
LikeLike
I’m fascinated by the discussion generated by your post. I take pictures as a hobby and the only editing I do is a little chopping and may brighten the colors on some photos. I have photoshop and corel but haven’t been able to figure them out. Everything else is over my head. If my picture, when first taken, looks good to me than I’m satisfied. I guess the bottom line is “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Enjoyed the discussion very much.
BE ENCOURAGED! BE BLESSED!
LikeLike
Love your website. In addition to the superb photos/imagery, your running Zoey the Cool Cat “approvals” are endearingly humorous.
LikeLike
You could give Zoey the Cool Cat a big head if she were paying attention. As usual this hour of the morning, she’s focused on getting to the mourning doves on the other side of the window.
LikeLike
i would like to think of myself as a ‘photographer’ not a “computer generated image artist”, so being an old grudmuggeony kind of guy (not sure that’s a word) nah, not me either – of course there are some that would say i’m not much of a photographer as well: but there you go –
LikeLike