I've dabbled with HDR, but only in Photoshop CS2, and no photo has yet emerged from my laboratory that I think is any good. I suppose I will try again when I have a moment to set up a tripod. Some HDR photos look extremely interesting, but some just funky, which is not usually the effect I try for. See this Flickr group (HDR) for expessions of both.
Was It Done With a Lens, or a Brush? - New York Times
a software technology known as H.D.R., for high dynamic range photography. ...H.D.R. is one of many digital darkroom techniques catching the fancy of amateur photographers. With the rising popularity of digital single-lens reflex cameras and more powerful personal computers has come a growing interest in visual experiments.At the same time, software makers like Adobe are increasingly automating many of those processes, including H.D.R. While they may not always be straightforward, tricky digital techniques no longer require months of experience or hours of study.
Although H.D.R. photos are often compared to paintings, they are an attempt by software makers to allow photography to more accurately mimic human vision.
Dynamic range measures how great a difference between light and dark can be captured by a digital camera or film. Relative to the human eye, all photography has a limited dynamic range, and digital photography suffers even more than film.
..The H.D.R. pictures produced by Photoshop CS and Photomatix vary in much the same way as photos taken with different brands of film. The Photoshop images are technically more accurate and make details visible in all areas of the photo, regardless of their lightness or darkness.
Photomatix pictures after one mapping are far more dramatic, although sometimes at the expense of some details and an increase in image noise.
