blogs.adobe.com — Photoshop CS2 introduced the application's first support for 32-bit high dynamic range (HDR) imaging. The support was pretty limited, consisting of the Merge to HDR command (for combining bracketed shots into a single image) and some basic imaging functions (cropping, cloning, conversing from 32 to 8 or 16 bits per channel).
Dec 31, 2006 View in Crawl 4
netrameJan 2, 2007
@spargo"That's because people misuse HDR and overdo it. When you do that, it becomes more like digital art to me, not a photograph. However, HDR definitely has its pluses."I completely agree, but the level of control given in CS2 made it really difficult to control the image as finely as you could a regular 16 or 8-bit image. Maybe this is what caused the overuse of it (just doing what it did naturally), or maybe I am completely off here and people just really like the computer generated look of those crazy HDR images. I am just saying that I think this is great news for photographers. If it becomes popular enough (or even if it doesn't), hopefully camera manufacturers will start to make cameras with higher dynamic ranges or better bracketing features.
smb3dJan 2, 2007
Comparing Alfred Stieglitz with HDR is absolutely ridiculous. HDR as a "technique" in photography is a joke. It might create some images with at different look, but combining 32 bit images in photoshop to get "extra dynamic range" and then saving the file out as an 8 bit JPG is pointless. The dynamic range of true HDR images cannot be displayed by a computer monitor. Anything that is done to enhance an HDR image can be done with regular photoshop filters to any image file, HDR or not.
ebfoxbatJan 2, 2007
What's wrong with CG geeks making nice pictures. My sub-post up a few points out that making a RAW image into an HDR isn't a *real* HDR image. But so what? Who cares if it looks nice? If I save a color photograph as black and white and it looks really nice, who cares that it was shot in color and CS3 took the RAW and made it BW ? Is not the end result important?
hodrigeJan 2, 2007
@EBFoxbat "You need to take multiple images using physically different settings (f/stop and exposure are the easiest)"Different exposures not different f/stops ... Changing the aperture would change your depth of field.
nmrkJan 2, 2007
"Who cares if it looks nice? If I save a color photograph as black and white and it looks really nice, who cares that it was shot in color and CS3 took the RAW and made it BW ? Is not the end result important?"That's precisely the point. It is obvious you've never really looked at museum-quality photographic prints. Have you ever seen something like a black & white Ansel Adams print taken with an 8x10 view camera? The detail and dynamic range are absolutely incredible, nothing made with digital methods (even HDR) can come close. Adams can even manage to get detail in the shadows as well as preventing the skies from being blown out, using custom printing methods like dodging and burning (ever wonder why Photoshop has a Dodge and Burn tool?) or even applying chemical bleaching or intensifiers to the finished print. In fact, the standard methods of Photoshop are modeled after darkroom manipulations like this.You truly do not understand the potential of photography unless you've seen great photographic prints. The new digital cameras have great potential but in adding convenience and easy workflow, something was lost: dynamic range. When I was in art school, our first photography classes focused on densitometry and dynamic range, after a single semester our prints all changed from flat and lifeless to bold and full-scale. Now I see that flat, lifeless look in almost every digital photo I see.
tkasmaiMay 19, 2008
I think the photos you see that are unreal/surrealistic have been heavily tone mapped. For the most part, this is done on purpose to get a more eye-catching effect.
tkasmaiMay 19, 2008
File > Automate > Merge to HDR Make sure you use the auto-align feature to prevent ghosting...