Technically there isn't enough data in one photo to create a real HDR. Not that the picture is bad but doesn't look HDR at all to me.

 

Although people can manipulate an image to have a broader "interpreted" spectrum, you cannot add data where it is not. Think of RAW editing as an audio signal rather than a video signal... When you have a weak signal that you want to hear, you turn up the volume or "gain". You're not adding what wasn't there, just amplifying the original. Turn it up too much and you get distortion (in video it's noise) moreover amplify a signal that is already noisy and get a clumpy image. The Internet is also extremely forgiving when it comes to noise because the colorspace (srgb) is fairly narrow, AND it's only pushing a low resolution image to begin with so imperfections aren't as apparent.

Print an image that has been amplified like this and you will see what I mean.

 

This was really just an experiment. overall I do like the original photo better than the HDR'd ones. I'll give it a try with different exposures as well, but overall i'm sure this is kind of a neat trick that will fade like the latest fad.

HDR is the Altezzas of the photo world?

 

No way. HDR is a very useful medium when lighting is a problem. Altezzas fill no niche of being useful - they're just there for appearance.

 

I don't necessarily agree that it's that useful in poor lighting conditions. Too many things need to be in place for an image to work properly. Things such as stationary subject matter, aperture, and perspective...

However, a composite image of 2 shots ie, a sky and foreground where the highlights of sky would blow out and you would lose all definition of say, the clouds if you were to expose the foreground subject matter. And the converse if you were to expose for the sky.... This is where a composite of two images would be desired and respond favorably. As for poor lighting, that's where having a camera w/ good low light performance, and RAW editing can help.

 

Ok, I didn't mean it that way. You're right, HDR can server a purpose while altezzas do not.

All I meant is that it seems like everyone is creating HDR images these days, not because lighting is a problem, but because it looks cool. Also I'm not trying to say no one should do it or that it's stupid - heck I just did one and I plan to do more - just saying it seems to be "the thing" these days.

 

It looks pretty cool when the lighting situation can take advantage of the broader spectrum.. If the image is contrived, it looks more like a photo that has color problems than an artistic process. I've seen some really good stuff done, but haven't been successful myself... Yet!