Here's some HDR'd photography of rural Russia from Englishrussia.com. Thought I'd pass it along if anyone needs a breath of inspiration as they work on their landscapes!
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1095
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1095
Level Design Inspirational photography of Russia
- Thread starter Britney Federline
- Start date
The first couple made me laugh out loud at the PS-nukage but the guy seems to calm it down a bit later. Some pleasing scenes there 
Upvote
0
Beautiful country. Very scenic. Adjusting brightness, exposures, and saturations does not mean nukage.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
It really depends on the situation. More isn't actually better all the time.
I learned that 3 images is enough (-2,0,+2) in the most scenarios.
Upvote
0
so what, can you take any image you have, alter the brightnes in photoshop and create your own HDR image or do you really have to take each single picture manually?
Upvote
0
The problem with PSing a single image is it takes a huge amount of time to get it to look convincing. also it won't be true HDR as you simply do not have the dynamic range available in a single exposure. Damned digital exposure latitude!
Say you expose for the sky and then want to bring back the detail in the trees on one of these Russian landscapes. There are a hundred and one ways of doing it but take a common one of duplicating the image as a new layer, playing with curves and then erasing the sky - you need to be very precise in your attention to the tree line. Its an area where having a gamer mouse really helps
HDR takes all that tedious zoomed in work out. I still advise using as many exposures as you can - there is nothing to be lost in this process unless you've got fast moving clouds in your scene and can't afford to take too long snapping. The 3 exposure approach is easy as any camera can be bracketed so you can potentially do the scene in a very short time. If its a still day, or probably more usefully if you're shooting an interior - take 5, 7, 9 exposures. It all adds up to a richer scene and if it looks better with 3, just don't include the intermediate steps in the merge.
Say you expose for the sky and then want to bring back the detail in the trees on one of these Russian landscapes. There are a hundred and one ways of doing it but take a common one of duplicating the image as a new layer, playing with curves and then erasing the sky - you need to be very precise in your attention to the tree line. Its an area where having a gamer mouse really helps
HDR takes all that tedious zoomed in work out. I still advise using as many exposures as you can - there is nothing to be lost in this process unless you've got fast moving clouds in your scene and can't afford to take too long snapping. The 3 exposure approach is easy as any camera can be bracketed so you can potentially do the scene in a very short time. If its a still day, or probably more usefully if you're shooting an interior - take 5, 7, 9 exposures. It all adds up to a richer scene and if it looks better with 3, just don't include the intermediate steps in the merge.
Upvote
0
Some (the better ones
) cameras can do that automatically, you basically tell the camera make x shots with these exposures.Then you throw the images into a software to create a HDR image. Photoshop has this function since CS2 iirc, but it really sucks.
90% of the time you get an hdr image which looks really ****ty, the reason is simple: your monitor can't handle it
The most common thing is using tone mapping or a detail enhancer, depending on the image, one of them will do the job.
You are right, it does not hurt to take more images, but most of the time it isn't necessary.
Upvote
0
Some (the better ones
Then you throw the images into a software to create a HDR image. Photoshop has this function since CS2 iirc, but it really sucks.
90% of the time you get an hdr image which looks really ****ty, the reason is simple: your monitor can't handle it
The most common thing is using tone mapping or a detail enhancer, depending on the image, one of them will do the job.
You are right, it does not hurt to take more images, but most of the time it isn't necessary.
And it's finnicky. I for the life of me can't do an HDR image to save my life...yet I'm a pro. Zekky here sits at a desk all day, and can kick my @ss.
Upvote
0
Photoshop CS3 extended's HDR function sucks and HDR images looks ****ty? Never had a problem with itThen you throw the images into a software to create a HDR image. Photoshop has this function since CS2 iirc, but it really sucks.
90% of the time you get an hdr image which looks really ****ty, the reason is simple: your monitor can't handle it
. All of the other HDR functions are really cool too. 3 exposures is ok but a pic with a lot of tonal values 5 or 6 is better. All depends on what you want to do with it (size, format and media of pic) and how detailed it has to be.
Upvote
0
One thing those pics DO demonstrate IMO is that, if you can, you should use a 4096 x1024 skybox texture to do justice to those banks of cumulus clouds stretching off into infinity.
Upvote
0
So Putz, you want to volunteer to remake WonkeyDonkey to match one of these photos? That would be great and I would enjoy it kthxbai
Upvote
0
