This is my second attempt at HDR using photomatix.

Workflow

Make three exposures from the single image in CS3 Raw
HDR then tone map in photomatix
Two curve adjustment layers (shadows & highlights) using inverted mask
Some level adjustments
B&W adjustment layer
Low opacity brush to bring back some colour
Unsharp Mask
Neat Image to remove some unwanted noise
Vignette in Raw

Comments and critique most welcome!!

looks interesting, what would it look like if you didn't use photomatix?

Hi Morpheus,

this is a very good picture and I like Ur result as well

U should try the qtpfsgui to make the pseudo hdr from a single file, U don't need to set the exposures by hand, than U can tonemapping it by the photomatix, but I think qtpfsgui has real good tonemapper functions too, just give it a try

same method:http://www.retouchpro.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/5102/size/big/cat//ppuser/9039

This is my second attempt at HDR using photomatix.

Workflow

Make three exposures from the single image in CS3 Raw
HDR then tone map in photomatix
Two curve adjustment layers (shadows & highlights) using inverted mask
Some level adjustments
B&W adjustment layer
Low opacity brush to bring back some colour
Unsharp Mask
Neat Image to remove some unwanted noise
Vignette in Raw

Comments and critique most welcome!!

I guess I just have a question that may be answered more honestly here. I have noticed among "other" forums that "tone mapping" and "hdr" are almost like profanity in church. The purists seem to come out of the woodwork and are rather strongly opinionated about the uses of it.

I understand personal preference, but why so much trashing of it? No matter how good it looks to my eyes (and how much it sells in print form for me), I almost feel guilty for producing work that so many trash as not natural etc.

I guess I just have a question that may be answered more honestly here. I have noticed among "other" forums that "tone mapping" and "hdr" are almost like profanity in church. The purists seem to come out of the woodwork and are rather strongly opinionated about the uses of it.

I understand personal preference, but why so much trashing of it? No matter how good it looks to my eyes (and how much it sells in print form for me), I almost feel guilty for producing work that so many trash as not natural etc.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure" is an old saying, and simply confirms that different folks have had different likes/dislikes since the dawn of man. Some folks are drawn to things that are new/different while others prefer tradition and others just wait to see how new things turn out over time. Some of the negative responses to HDR that I've read on other forums is related more to the heavier use of tone-mapping that creates a more obviously edited (artistic?) result, or to those proponents who tell every pro that they should be using it instead of their "out-dated lighting techniques".

If it looks good to your eyes, I'd say enjoy it while learning more about it. Personally, I lean more towards using HDR/tonemapping simply for extension of dynamic range in a high-contrast scene that cannot be captured by my camera in one "frame", but I do enjoy looking at some of the more heavily haloed, artistic renditions. I was not an instant convert to photo-art, but have learned to enjoy making something more artistic out of my "losers" as well as some of my better shots. I've only done a few HDR attempts, and these have been strictly to bring out both shadow and highlight detail, but I'm sure that I'll be playing with other effects once I take more time to practice.

You should be safe in this forum to submit your work, for several reasons. Members here are generally more interested in artistic effects than some other "photo-only" forums, members here are generally polite, and the rules here don't allow personal insults. :)

Ditto what CJ said and said well.

I might add that HDR, as it is now called, used to be called contrast masking. It consisted (in its basic form) of creating a negative and inverting that negative, giving the negative a slight blur (so as not to make the edges of the finished picture look goofy), and changing the exposure time or blend mode to a soft light. The finished product had a surreal, flat look to it; but did manage to bring out shadow areas and tone down highlights.

Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight feature does something along these lines as well.

All of these can be manipulated to give the moody, high contrast, high definition that HDR software gives. Done properly, it can give added dimension to an otherwise dreary piece.

Janet

I have to agree.....if the photo looks good, it should not matter how we process it. That is almost like saying that a painter can only use certain techniques in his paintings. To me you should be able to use whatever techniques you want to produce the image that you had in your head when you shot that photo. I have been lurking here for a while and I have started doing some HDR work myself even. Here is the part that I don't understand. I shoot some stock photos and if you do hardly any photoshop work, a lot of companies will turn down the photo. You can submit a HDR of the same subject and they grab it in a heart beat......Tell me if that makes sense?

I have to agree.....if the photo looks good, it should not matter how we process it. That is almost like saying that a painter can only use certain techniques in his paintings. To me you should be able to use whatever techniques you want to produce the image that you had in your head when you shot that photo. I have been lurking here for a while and I have started doing some HDR work myself even. Here is the part that I don't understand. I shoot some stock photos and if you do hardly any photoshop work, a lot of companies will turn down the photo. You can submit a HDR of the same subject and they grab it in a heart beat......Tell me if that makes sense?

It does to me because that is what people want. Something that looks better than real life!!

morpheus1870, I generally like your image. It works in a "editorial photography" way. The soft focus buildings the car is speeding towards adds to the energetic spookiness of the image. It's all very graphic and mysterious.

I think it's too dark along the left edge above the car, I'd try to keep the field a similar tone.

The image is too strongly tonemapped to work as art for me, but would work very well as an advertisement illustration. Good work!

snapshot

Thanks for all the comments, much appreciated. HDR/Tone mapping in my opinion is simply a tool for us to use in order to create a desired effect. Just like a camera or a paintbrush these tools allow us to express our ideas, its the aesthetic qualities of the final outcome which are important not how or what was used to get there (unless of course learning and gaining more knowledge).

I totally agree. I didn't mean to say it was wrong. There are elements in the image that works well for me, but I feel ultimately it's too strong. Just an emotionally response.