dereksurfs wrote:
While terms are used somewhat differently depending on the writer, the majoity of the time when \'HDR\' is referenced in the the title and special HDR software has been applied images tend to look unnatural. This of course varies by degree and skill level in usage of such HDR tools. But it still looks that way in the majority of cases. That\'s not to say all images using these HDR tools look bad. It just seems to turn out that way more times than not for a variety of reasons. This is of course speaking broadly. Just do a Google or Flickr search on HDR and this is becomes very obvious.
Derek
Derek, I think your post is what I was trying to get across. The software that takes multiple exposures and merges them (photomatix etc) is called tone-mapping. You can also do this with a single image and the results are of the unnatural type you mentioned. But, taking 2 or more exposures for DR and then manually blending (painting) them together in photoshop is still HDR as you have captured higher dynamic range then you could in one image. So this is where the 2 terms get blurred and by default (HDR googles searches) you get this widely used misconception of the term HDR. Now, MOST of us here know this but the masses out there do not and so the tern gets a bad rap due to bad tone-mapping.
I am pretty sure that if most people on this forum that do exposure blending in photoshop would not want to be branded an HDR Photographer! But, yet, that is exactly what they are. Am I wrong?
Jun 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Previous versions of Scott Kroeker's message #10752479 « ND Grads VS digital blending »
