A Very Comprehensive HDR Tutorial

[JAS_Photo]

To start, a quote from the author,


"Reality. What is real? Is a RAW image with 0 processing applied real? Black and white is a popular art form yet thats not a true representation of reality. Infrared is also very popular yet we don’t see in Infrared. Cross processing, lomo, exposure blending, etc all could be argued as portraying a false view of reality. But photography is more than just portraying a true view of reality. The camera itself lets you alter how you get the message across. A slow shutter speed with motion blur isn’t 100% true. An underexposed sunset isn’t 100% true. What I believe in is getting my vision across to people. This is how I see things. If I were to label myself as an artist then the whole issue of HDR is mute. Art is whatever you want it to be. I am a photographer though, and my world exists in a 35mm frame. At the end of the day all I want people to do is see what I saw and hopefully feel what I felt. I’ll use HDR, black and white, cross processing, low contrast, high contrast, any other form of processing to get me to that nice little jpg to show people."

Here is the link with a downloadable PDF.

Vanilla Days : HDR Tutorial Guide Thing for Photomatix


Very good information here I think, very comprehesive and precise and presented in a logical easy to follow format.

[Greg_Nuspel]

Another excellent find

[ericmark]

An interesting concept. However out eyes are better than any camera, printer, or VDU so to use HDR could be just compensating for the failings of the display.

The pictures of the Liver building are not true anyway as from that position with ones eye you could not capture that seen as shown it must be really wide angle lens.

Some have been set to negative to give odd effect yet without going into the effects there is still a place for loosing the part of range where there is no image with a flat line between sky and land so one can best see whole of used range.

As one walks towards the Maritime museum the seen is nothing like what he shows but this is only know because he has selected a well known part of Liverpool had he instead taken pictures of New York where I have never been I would be unaware of what he had done.

The picture across the Mersey is the same. Unless one has stood there waiting for the ferry (Ups showing my age don't run any more) you would not realise what a wide angle lens had been used.

Very few of the great artists painted to truly represent what they could see so why should the photograph be any different?

Newsreel, Damage reports, and crime investigation may need true pictures but not those hung on the wall they need to be pleasing to the eye.

Well that's what I think. Eric