What is HDR? should..... I shoot HDR?....Are they any advantages to HDR?

HDR stands for "High Dynamic Imaging"
How this is accomplish is a combination of shooting technique, and software that will produce it.

How this works is: You take a minimum of 3 shots of a subject on a tripod.
One exposed perfectly (using any f stop of choice) and the other two...1 under and 1 overexposed changing speed.

an example below



Now using software that will line up, and combine the 3 images (I use ps)
you get better shadows and highlights, a more "Dynamic" range if you will.

The image below demonstrates this better than I can explain it.
The image left is the HDR and right the perfectly exposed image that would have been produced by the camera naturally.



A closer view below.



Why not try it! HDR works best when the image itself displays potential dynamic range.
You can not squeeze HDR from an image that does NOT have Dynamic Range in the first place.
So HDR is not suitable for every image you take. Where you have lots of shadows, and highlights works though.

Its possible to create HDR by changing exposure at raw file , it will lead you to a visually nice result , but with lots of noise and if you need the image for stock it will most probably be rejected at most of sites. The amount of noise at least from my experience is too much for  noise reduction to handle and the photo will have the plastic (lack of details) look. Even noise reduction with masking wont help much.

Miz ...please allow me to point out a few slight errors in your post:

HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range" compared to LDR "Low Dynamic Range". HDRI is "High Dynamic Range Image"

If taking three images, you probably won't get the dynamic range required with -1/0/+1. Instead you'd be better with -2/0+2 or even -3/0/+3. I prefer to take at least five exposures, sometimes seven and occasionally nine.

Most people agree that you get a much better final result if you merge your images and do the tone mapping in specialist software such as photomatix by hdrsoft. Using it's batch function on a single RAW file (I know it's sounds weird but it works) you can get an HDRI from a single RAW file. This method works much better than turning one RAW file into three differently exposed TIFFs or JPEGs and then merging those.

From what I have read on other HDR forums, the majority feel that you get the least noise by turning RAW files into TIFFS and then importing them into Photomatix. However, I feel that the ease of using RAW files directly outweighs the slight increase in noise this might result in.

Anyway, here are a couple of my HDRIs:







I tend to try and get a realistic picture that represents what I could remember seeing with my own eyes. Over-processing can lead to a very distinctive look which, whilst neither being wrong or right, is not usually the effect I am after.

Whenever I try to submit pictures where the dynamic range is compressed (good highlight detail AND good shadow detail) via various Raw manipulations I often get rejected at the micro stock agencies for "Flat lighting" Duhhh. Whereas the same picture with nice fat constrast and little shadow detail (all black) has a much better chance of acceptance.
Therefore my question: Is HDRI even appreciated by stock agencies?
Does success increase the less the picture looks like HDRI?
Phils skyline is in my oppinion the best example (night and dusk pictures of lightsources - cityscapes etc.) where HDRI is a must to show any detail in the shadows - however not often appreciated by the stock agencies.
Does labeling such a picture with HDRI help?

"Flat lighting" my a**. That's the point. (Sorry for the rant)

good idea. thanks

If you don't have photoshop CS2 at least,you will either need to purchase a plug in,or use DRI (dynamic range Increase)

Using camera on tripod, take one shot metered for highlights,and one shot metered for shadows using spot-metering

Open both images in photoshop, add light image to dark image as a new layer

Select>color range-"highlights",check"invert" click"ok"
Add layer mask
Filter>blur>gaussian blur 250 pixels
Flatten and save

resulting in details in both shadow and highlights. Regards, grizzlybear

Sorry not me...I have never had that problem. In fact I didn't know it even existed until a few guys mentioned it!

[/quote]

Done properly you shouldn't experience any increase in noise.
[/quote

Hi Phil,

What's the proper/suggested way to do this without increasing noise? I've used Photomatix, and the tone mapped images almost always have increased noise.  I think there's even a warning or info in the help indicating that the tone mapped option usually increases noise -- the last version I used was a beta they had for download a few months ago; my HD died a couple of weeks ago, and I haven't re-installed all my apps yet (so don't have Photomatix handy).  If you have any cool tips, etc for using it, it would be great if you'd post them.  Photomatix is very cool and easy to use on the surface, but I think I'm missing out on a lot of the nuances/power of the app.

Thanks,

Kevin