Not necessarily. HDR in the photographic sense is exactly that. High dynamic range. I don't see a high dynamic range in those photos...the black points are too high, not enough details in the shadows. I would consider them as extended dynamic range.

My photos would be considered extended dynamic range. I use all the raw information to squeeze out as much info from the image as possible.

When I can see everything from the darkest to brightest details in a frame, I consider that HDR. I don't think you can get anymore detail out from shadows which haven't even been grazed by some light source

here some random shieeetz, just playing around with the tamron 90mm haha

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...60e28079da0d2c

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2590/...a280aa5a_o.jpg

Sure you can, you just need to expose for it...that's exactly the reason why I don't consider them HDR...I would have liked to have seen a little more detail. Maybe there is, and the small image size doesn't do it justice. There is no detail in the dark side of the buildings. Of course, I'm not saying that you have to have detail in all shadow areas, as sometimes it can't be helped. Anne Marie Comte, a Vancouver professional photographer does amazing night-time HDR, but she combines up to 30 different exposures to achieve the smallest detail.

Both those night images are HDR. It is just that the bottom one of tokyo is filled with lights so you dont see as much darkness, but if you want to nit pick, the shadow part of the tree in the toyko image is pitch black as well. Just because an image is HDR doesnt mean EVERY dark shadow bit has to be filled with light... if that was the case then there wouldnt be an image, everything would be grey, and have a damn flat image. Again, just because the tone map is different in every image doesn't mean the image isn't HDR.

Good HDR looks natural, you can barely tell it is HDR. It doesnt mean every shadow has to be filled with light or every bright hotspot has to be darkened. It just means the multiple exposures are combined perfectly to make and image look as closely to how your eyes see it as possible. If you look directly at the sun you are still going to see a white circle, and if you look into an unlit alley at night you are still goin to see pitch black in the shadow behind a dumpster.

Anne Comte does not do "amazing" HDR. Her hdr images are the typical over tone mapped process. It looks unrealistic, just looks 'cool' for that specific look. I got the same results the 1st hour I messed around with photomatix and 3 jpeg exposures. You dont need 30 exposures to do HDR. I've tested, as well as the web's craziest HDR enthusiasts and professionals that 7 exposures (2stops difference raw format) is all you EVER EVER need for a night time HDR. That is even over kill for raw, the info is all there with 5 exposures. If you DO decide to do 30 exposures for a night shot, you'll even notice 1/2 of the images are useless as when you go to +10 stops (asuming the median exposure is 'proper' exposure) the darkest areas will not show any detail anyway since it will be filled with haze from a nearby light area, it's uselss for getting details out of.

edit: ok for example:

this is the median "proper" exposed image in a 5 exposure, 2stops difference, raw file set for a night time HDR i did of the london financial district.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/Blinky2001/1.jpg


This is an HDR image of the set properly tonemapped (imo). It looks natural, not overly exaggerated and brings back good detail in the shadow and highlight areas of the scene like how my eyes saw. Shadows adjusted slightly darker cuz i liked it :p

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/Blinky2001/2.jpg


This is the EXACT same 5 exposure set from the SAME HDR file just tonemapped differently to give that crazy "HDR look" (slightly to the extreme side). It looks cool but it looks fake, unatural, and flat. However you get every single detail from the brightest blown out highlights to the darkest of shadows. Looks like shit IMO.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/Blinky2001/3.jpg


but both of these are HDR, just tone mapped completely different.

Then we agree to disagree. Anyways, I'm tired of arguing. Next person to post, please post a photo!

Do you even know Anne-Marie? Obviously you don't because you called her Anne.

*edit* I just checked Anne-Marie's website, and she has her old over the top photos on there. Jackson, she does much better work now. Just check her prints at various local gallery shows.

i dont knw of her personally but i've seen her work.

edit: i'll have to check out her gallery stuff when i get a chance. I'll take ur word for it now.

i call every anne-marie anne =P

I'd forgotten how over the top she used to be. Yes, I don't like that kind of HDR...I like the HDR that you did in England, or Dan Burkholder's current work.

Next question then is, "how high is high"? Can you quantify that in dB? Or even bits? Where do you split the hair between "extended" and "high"?

I remember a few years ago, when I was participating in a certain photo-critique site, there was quite a debate raging over HDR - same kinda stuff, ranging between "what IS HDR" and "does all HDR look like shit?". I finally decided to give my input, by announcing that HDR was "played out" and introducing a new art form:

http://www2.moltenimage.com/photos/photosig/0dr.jpg

Fortunately, most people got the humor in it. Some played along, commenting on my overprocessing... or admiring the lack of processing... even starting a discussion on different grey levels. But of course, there were those with NO sense of humor as well... wish I could remember some of the inanities they came up with...

That looks exacly like my photo of Vancouver in the fog!

some epic clouds from today.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/5595/img2340w.jpg

kewl! :)

yeah the clouds were awesome this evening, here's my contribution

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2680/...c92082f13f.jpg

my shots came out pretty grainy though and I was at ISO 200, any ideas?

that is sweeeet

That last HDR of Shibuya in Tokyo is awesome. The night shots of U of A are great too :). And I agree withe J__ and Mana's definition of HDR. If you picture Rcub's shot in one exposure, he wouldn't have gotten those details in the dark or bright areas.

the clouds were really low so everything bellow was yellow in the streets, looked pretty cool in person while it lasted.

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/8057/img2333p.jpg

^ wat the black thing on the top left corner?
it was smaller on the last pic u posted but like double the size on ^

that's the roof beside the balcony.

Hey guys :)

If you guys really want to get into it, you can discuss single versus multi image HDRs, and whats real and not…I remember there is quite a debate on that :)

My opinion, I dislike the overcooked tone mapping, looks to cartoonish for my liking.

I havent had any time to shoot lately, but I have a job lined up for a commercial shoot for a gym..nothing high key, but itll be fun to unholster the cam again

im creeped out by the grren thing with the orange mask lol

where did you get the joker figure? i want

Here are a couple of recents:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/...f651a5b9_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/...4fd9b6ae_o.jpg

here are three from my california trip, the rest are still on the camera:

1. taken at memorial point, south lake tahoe, nevada during sunset 2 weeks ago
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/...acd5d649_b.jpg

2. also taken at lake tahoe, early morning light
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2660/...dcaa7cee_b.jpg

3. taken sunset at 17 mile drive along pebble beach, carmel, nor-cal. the cypress stands alone on the ocean, away from the rest of the cypress trees, est age is 250 years old
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/...e3e390e9_b.jpg

more pics to come when i am back in vanc!

wow great shots! i love the first 2

thanks RCUBED :D
are we allowed to post more than 3 a day?