HDRi

kind of,  you either take several pictures of the same image in different true exposures or just use a RAW image.

i can show you a cool tutorial for it

They look neat when done right. I've done a few and learned they work best at dusk. Unless you're shooting more than +-2 f-stops then just shoot in RAW. Theres a cool tutorial on a guys site called "stuck in customs" google it.
ps. most people just say HDR image, not HDRi

Its pretty cool. I learned about it in a class I took last semester dealing with computer graphics.

here is a cool tutorial:

http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials.html?id=49

yah most people just say HDR ...but yah ive used it often and i like the effects a lot, creates some really amazing shots

it's great fun. don't use it as a crutch tho. in moderation. i struggle with that a lot.

I hate HDRs

they look way too fantastical. they can barely ever ADD to an image, they mostly just take photographs and make them look like they are some sort of photoshopped digital painting monstrousity.

all of them have that dumb sky halo too.

whatever floats your boat, but I hate them. gimmikery.

personally, i really like hdr..i use it from time to time but i havnt got any amazing results yet..waiting for the right time i guess. But the photos you get look amazing

I think lens light streakng is the coolest thing you can do with it

Never seen a good HDR image.

this is how HDR looks when it's well done...

http://www.treyratcliff.com/

many photographs are "extended dynamic range" it's not like the usual HDR where pixels themselves are exposed individual but just regular photoshopping to extend the dynamic exposure of the picture.

The porpous of the HDR was to expose all parts of a photo properly.

For example if you were to take a shot of a lake with mountains behind it and sky what you would do is take 3 pictures, one picture would expose the water properly with proper exposure time, 2nd picture would expose the mountains properly with the proper exposure time, and 3rd picture would expose the sky properly. If you'd rather not take 3 photos to accomplish that you can shoot RAW and change the exposure times that way.

But sometimes if you would rather get an HDR the easy way, it can sometimes easily be accomplished by using a Neutral Density filter on your lens. It wont work in some scenerios but in many applications it has saved me the time rather than doing an HDR.

Aswell a good HDR is hard to come by, most people that are learning will often come out with halo's that are around subjects in their photo.

Quoted from the site:


"This is why, many times, people get home after a vacation and sigh at their pictures and tell their friends, “Well, it was much better when you were there.” So hey, it’s 2008, why not use software and the built-in ability of your camera to make a beautiful rendition of what YOU really saw? Some of us see life in HDR and some don’t… There’s a lot of HDR-hatahs out there… just ignore them… Don’t hate the playa, hate the game… or tell them to get back in their dark rooms with their smelly hands."


It's not how you see life. this guy is up on his high horse, when all that he really does is point and shoot digital photography, then he runs it through a compter program to look "cool". It's exactly like all the horrendous digital photoshop filters.

My advice? don't worry about HDR. it's a crutch. Learn to use your camera, and produce good photos on your own. HDR is no longer photography, it's digital imagery.

I'll stick to my smelly hands if it means I am actually working and knowing what's going into producing good photos, and not letting a computer fantasy land dictate what my pictures look like.

In the end all that HDR is is a crowdpleaser... "Wow that's sooo cool". It's just like a bunch of barneys cheering louder for a backflip than a sick spin.

DISCLAIMER

Im not trying to bash on anyone. If you have fun making HDRs, then do it. I just really don't like it.