Is this HDR?

[peter2108]

In a mailing list (panotoolsNG@yahoogroups.com) there was a discussion of the pictures here: http://www.ktp123.com/home.php?request=homeofthemonth. The OP admired the pictures and wondered how they were done. Were they "HDR" pictures?

The opinion was that the miraculous clear windows were done by pasting a background in Photoshop.

As for HDR it looks to me as if they are (saving the windows as mentioned).

But some people thought they were done in Photoshop (using layers and masks?)
and not with an HDR blending programme. Actually I could not follow the drift and my plaintive request for illumination was ignored (so far).

I have put two examples up at http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_2108/.The picture "photomatiux" was blended from two exposures using Photomatix 4.0. The picture layer_mask was done manually with Photoshop CS3. You can see the boundary where the underexposed image gives way to the normally exposed one. That's the sort of artefact I mean and think that something like that is going to appear if you try and manually blend in Photoshop via layers and masks. So it must have been with and HDR program. [[ Edit: I have removed the pictures from Flickr now 29/11/2010]]
But I am no expert at Photoshop!

Eager to see what people think .....

Peter

[David deSousa]

Hi Peter,

I do not know of any way for an HDR image to be "discovered" per se. I know of some very good interior photographers who can make a picture with very good dynamic range with lighting equipment. Some of these that you link to are of that kind, I think. One or two clearly are not.

Your link is broken, BTW.

Cheers, D.

[Wirefox]

Peter, if they have been subjected to HDR processing it has been done well (no Tom and Jerry backgrounds in that lot). However, I suspect David is correct though. I think they are well lit and well exposed with a possibility of some tone mapping applied to a single exposure. A little to holiday brochure for my tastes but having said that they have a job to do and that may limit some artistic license that may otherwise be applied.

[arith]

You cannot see the reflection of the clouds in the water; I think therefore it is a fake sky added, and it goes on quite a lot you know. It is a favourite trick by many to make an otherwise boring photo interesting.

[Pedro]

Hi, Peter

No, those are, imo, 3d computer generated images (CG), probably retouched in Photoshop
The confusion happens because they are made to have a broad dynamic range and show, for example, an interior and an exterior ambient under very different light conditions (exposure, white balance,...) in the same picture, just like the HDR process in photography.

My brother is an architectural CG Artist and you may want to check some of his work to compare:
Alvaro Cabral

Oh, and your link got an extra "http://" in the beginning
Here is the right link for everyone:
http//www.flickr.com/photos/peter_2108/

Cheers, Pedro.

[David deSousa]

You cannot see the reflection of the clouds in the water; I think therefore it is a fake sky added, and it goes on quite a lot you know. It is a favourite trick by many to make an otherwise boring photo interesting.

Roger that! I do it all the time. Except I add the reflections and shadows and more. Someone said on another forum that if no one knows what you've done, then how do you say it is fake? I have shown photos on the other side of the coin too, where the picture was totally real and unedited but skeptics decried it as trickery and fake ~ as though they alone have seen everything in the universe.

Photographs are not the real thing anyway. We all know that. So it is a matter of degree then, with some skill and legerdemain we create illusions all the time. N'est-ce pas?

[peter2108]

The house of the month will not link for me now so I was browsing around the site and I found this:

The KTP photographers have years of experience in real estate and architectural photography. Using our optimized image process the photographer takes multiple exposures of each scene; one exposure for the outside, one exposure for the inside and one exposure for shadowing. This results in the combined exposures producing a vibrant and visually appealing image.

(https://www.ktp123.com/home.php?request=services) so it is certainly exposure blending of several (apparently three) exposures.

There was an interesting thread on tonemapping on this forum a while ago which has a sample image that reminds me of these: Tone mapping comparision: TuFuse vs SNS-HDR

Anyway thanks for the help.

-- Peter

PS @Pedro - these are some great images. I liked 25 and 72 interiors. Unlike the above they have real shadows.