[carlosodze]

Hi, i am learning different ways of exposure blending, and i would like your opinion of what you consider the best way of doing it; manually with layers on photoshop? auto blending in programs like photomatix? is there another way? i wouldn't consider hdr because i like a more natural look.
Thanks for the responses

[mikeSF]

there is no "best" way of doing it, but if you learn a few techniques, you can choose what is right for the particular image. I use manual blending and HDR for most of my work, sometimes combining an HDR layer in a manual blend.

[RGlasel]

i wouldn't consider hdr because i like a more natural look.

I think you are confused about either HDR or "a more natural look."

[carlosodze]

I think you are confused about either HDR or "a more natural look."

Just saying it aint going to help me, is it.? So Please explain, as i mentioned before i just started looking at the different techniques.

[RGlasel]

If you mean closer to what our mind sees as "a more natural look", HDR is just a technique to extend the dynamic range of the recorded image to get closer to what we see. If you are using exposure blending to do anything other than extending the dynamic range of the image, what you end up with is less "natural" than an HDR image. That's a contradiction I can't resolve, unless your definition of natural is different than mine. Before suggesting techniques for altering your images, we need to better understand what kind of "look" you are trying to achieve.

[baro-nite]

This thread has links to an HDR tutorial from one of the Photomatix team; it includes many excellent examples of naturalistic HDR processing.

I do a lot of manual blending but there are certain scenes where something like Photomatix is the best tool.

I've also found that except for strongly backlit scenes (e.g., sunsets where you want shadow detail), often it isn't necessary to exposure-bracket -- there's plenty of shadow detail in a well-exposed raw file.

[tuco]

You can manually exposure blend and have it look really natural. In fact probably more natural than the results of a lot of HDR work people do. People say HDR looks like they see it. Maybe if you are wasted on hallucinogenic drugs from some of the HDR work I've seen. It all depends on how many stops you combine if it's going to look natural or not, IMHO.

[carlosodze]

thanks a lot for your responses, specially to the one with the link, i am going to give it a read tonight, it looks very interesting.

[mikeSF]

People say HDR looks like they see it. Maybe if you are wasted on hallucinogenic drugs from some of the HDR work I've seen. It all depends on how many stops you combine if it's going to look natural or not, IMHO.

Tuco, you are equating HDR with the subset of cartoonish over saturated images, when you may not be noticing all the more practical applications of HDR, many of which yield more natural looking results than using grad filters or even manual blending.

baronite, thanks for the link. I havent clicked it yet, but will check it out.

[tuco]

Tuco, you are equating HDR with the subset of cartoonish over saturated images,

Right. Like I said, it all depend on how many stops you combine. If you take 9 shots at a stop or more apart, that is hardly natural to see no shadows, no?

[mikeSF]

Right. Like I said, it all depend on how many stops you combine. If you take 9 shots at a stop or more apart, that is hardly natural to see no shadows, no?

9-stops? that is way at the extreme end. I use 2-stops.

[tuco]

9-stops? that is way at the extreme end. I use 2-stops.

Yes but were talking about the hallucinogenic HDR people do not the natural ones.