Sam, you're hitting strong on multiple fronts with this latest one.
Old abandon vehicle, HDR and Rust!
Whoopy!
Don
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook.
I wonder why we feel the need to explain that this is an HDR. We don't tell folks that this is a "color" image, or that this is a "B&W" image. Nor do we point out that an image is Monochrome except for a small spot of color in the subject. We let the viewer interpret the image.
I agree. I never tell folks if a shot of mine is HDR. You either like it or you don't. I had somebody tell me recently in the landscape forum that I needed to turn down some Photomatix setting on a particular image. I took great delight in pointing out that it wasn't an HDR.
And what bothering me is that many many people wanting me to do HDR as much natural as i can, i asked myself, if you want that HDR to be natural, then why use HDR technique?!!!
I think i have to redo most of my work to show my HDR shots as more natural look and less fake/artificial/surreal effect, but then i feel i didn't apply HDR at all then or i can't see any HDR effect on my shots if natural look is all what is matter.
Well here are my thoughts on HDR. I love it! I think it is just a personal opinion people either like it or they don't. I like how it makes your pictures look a little bit surreal. It is an art form for photography and everyone has their own style. Trey Radcliff is my hero when it comes to HDR, he is awesome! Anyway, I think all of these shots are great and it is always fun to try something new and different! Will post a few of mine later. Great job everybody!
And what bothering me is that many many people wanting me to do HDR as much natural as i can, i asked myself, if you want that HDR to be natural, then why use HDR technique?!!!
I think i have to redo most of my work to show my HDR shots as more natural look and less fake/artificial/surreal effect, but then i feel i didn't apply HDR at all then or i can't see any HDR effect on my shots if natural look is all what is matter.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. HDR is useful for shots that would be very difficult or impossible to take with a single exposure because the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the camera.
For example, here's a re-post of something I did about a year ago:
The building was in bright sunlight and is almost pure white, while the foliage was in shadow. There was no way (without using flash, which I wasn't carrying) a single exposure could get any color in the trees without blowing out the building and the clouds.
That said, there's no rule that says a pic must be natural looking. With or without HDR, everyone is free to use whatever techniques they like to realize their vision. The main problem I have with over-the-top HDR is that the processing overpowers other aspects of the image--composition, subject, narrative, light. Rather than expanding dynamic range, it seems to flatten it and relies more on unnatural colors than on contrast. Obviously, this is not an inherent problem with the tool, but rather how it is frequently used.
I agree with Richard on this one. To say that there is no point in using the HDR tone mapping process unless you want to make your image surreal looking is a little strong. HDR tone mapping is just another tool. I use for situations when the dynamic range of a scene exceeds the capability of my DSLR. As such, I still want to maintain a natural feel to the photo and simply use it to combine exposures. Honestly, I often combine the exposures through layers in PS and then manually mask them together. However, sometimes this doesn't work well and using an HDR program yields a better result. Like in this image I've posted below.
I think it looks pretty natural. It's how the scene looked to me at the time I shot it and how it would have been captured by my camera if it had the capability. I could have made this shot look surreal but that wasn't my goal. That's not to say that those that do go for the surreal look are wrong or produce worthless images. I actually dig some of the HDR's I've seen... many of the ones on this thread. However, it's not something I do personally with my own photos.
At the end of the day it's how you want to use the tools you have. Some use a chainsaw to cut down trees... others use them to make ice sculptures. I wonder if you find similar threads on Lumberjack forums arguing points on the correct usage of a chainsaw??
anonymouscuban: discussion aside, I see this image as lovely and well rendered. The image allows me to perceive the place as if I were standing there my self- now that's surreal!
Difficult example, not sure if it is a good example about the high contrast DR, but i gave it a try, i will try with another example another time i hope
Original out of camera:
Non HDR processed [added warmth]
HDR
I am sure others can process this shot without HDR better than what i did, then what do you think between the non HDR well processed and HDR comparison shots?
I agree with Richard on this one. To say that there is no point in using the HDR tone mapping process unless you want to make your image surreal looking is a little strong. HDR tone mapping is just another tool. I use for situations when the dynamic range of a scene exceeds the capability of my DSLR. As such, I still want to maintain a natural feel to the photo and simply use it to combine exposures. Honestly, I often combine the exposures through layers in PS and then manually mask them together. However, sometimes this doesn't work well and using an HDR program yields a better result. Like in this image I've posted below.
I think it looks pretty natural. It's how the scene looked to me at the time I shot it and how it would have been captured by my camera if it had the capability. I could have made this shot look surreal but that wasn't my goal. That's not to say that those that do go for the surreal look are wrong or produce worthless images. I actually dig some of the HDR's I've seen... many of the ones on this thread. However, it's not something I do personally with my own photos.
At the end of the day it's how you want to use the tools you have. Some use a chainsaw to cut down trees... others use them to make ice sculptures. I wonder if you find similar threads on Lumberjack forums arguing points on the correct usage of a chainsaw??
I also don't understand why many says that they are not against of HDR and they like some samples of HDR but they keep saying that they don't use that on their shots or it doesn't suit them, if i don't like to use my HDR on my photos or use it but didn't work then why i should say that HDR is good to use or not bad, if it is good then i can use it and can have good result, if i am unable to have subtle good results with HDR then i will never say that HDR is good to use, to be it is like either it works or not, there is no in between solution, and if the thing is that some may like HDR and others may not is not an issue about HDR, it happens to everything in life, cameras and lenses are examples there.
I am sure others can process this shot without HDR better than what i did, then what do you think between the non HDR well processed and HDR comparison shots?
Given the difficulty of the original, I think you did an admirable job in both versions. To me, the light on the grass at the bottom looks more believable in the non-HDR version. But I'm not at all sure I would have noticed that if that had been the only version I had seen.
Given the difficulty of the original, I think you did an admirable job in both versions. To me, the light on the grass at the bottom looks more believable in the non-HDR version. But I'm not at all sure I would have noticed that if that had been the only version I had seen.
Maybe this example is not a great one, but i was thinking to give a point about that i heard on many other forums that if someone can do proper exposed shots at the beginning even under those extreme DR then he will never need to use any HDR technique, i also think someone posted an example where he was with a shot where one subject in full highlight and the other is in shadow and there was a noticeable range between the highlight and shadows but he managed to get a proper nice result without going with HDR at all, so is that means that we must need HDR when the scene can't help to do natural proper exposure without HDR? And i heard a lot that medium formats as with film have better higher dynamic range than those 35mm, so if that is right then i can use a medium format on those conditions and then i can adjust/post process my images without going HDR route and get nice results, but really i can't understand you people, one come to say it couldn't happen by this and another one say that is not true, so who is true then?
I also don't understand why many says that they are not against of HDR and they like some samples of HDR but they keep saying that they don't use that on their shots or it doesn't suit them, if i don't like to use my HDR on my photos or use it but didn't work then why i should say that HDR is good to use or not bad, if it is good then i can use it and can have good result, if i am unable to have subtle good results with HDR then i will never say that HDR is good to use, to be it is like either it works or not, there is no in between solution, and if the thing is that some may like HDR and others may not is not an issue about HDR, it happens to everything in life, cameras and lenses are examples there.
Pro... I think you're taking my comment the wrong way. It's not that I think HDR is bad. On the contrary, I think it's a wonderful tool. As I've shown, I use it with my own photography. What I meant is that how you use it or apply it to your image is personal. I try to keep the contrast and color saturation within limits. That's my own personal taste for my images. However, I've seen some of your work which pushes the saturation a bit beyond what I would do, but I love them. Again, it's personal taste.
As a photographer (noob), I strive to maintain a certain feel or style to my images. It's kind of like my thumb print. Surreal-like HDR is not part of that style. It's kind of like when I wear my guayabera shirt with a fedora. I have friends that like the look, but they would never wear it. Why? Because they feel it doesn't fit their look or style. Maybe that's a horrible analogy but it's the best I can come up with right now.
Pro... I think you're taking my comment the wrong way. It's not that I think HDR is bad. On the contrary, I think it's a wonderful tool. As I've shown, I use it with my own photography. What I meant is that how you use it or apply it to your image is personal. I try to keep the contrast and color saturation within limits. That's my own personal taste for my images. However, I've seen some of your work which pushes the saturation a bit beyond what I would do, but I love them. Again, it's personal taste.
As a photographer (noob), I strive to maintain a certain feel or style to my images. It's kind of like my thumb print. Surreal-like HDR is not part of that style. It's kind of like when I wear my guayabera shirt with a fedora. I have friends that like the look, but they would never wear it. Why? Because they feel it doesn't fit their look or style. Maybe that's a horrible analogy but it's the best I can come up with right now.
Am I making any sense?
I am not talking about you, i am talking about other people who don't use HDR at all or used it once maybe and didn't like it and announce that they don't want HDR but they say in public that HDR is good tool, if it is good tool then they should learn how to use it good enough, it is like someone gave me a camera of a brand and i use it few times and unable to have great results then i say that this camera is bad and i will not use it at all and it didn't do the job for me, but in public on forums i say that this camera is nice and capable and can do the job, so either i shut up and don't say that this camera didn't work me and go to find another options or to teach myself how to use it properly or if that camera didn't work with me i just say that i didn't know how to use it and it is not the camera mistake, from many comments about HDR on different websites i feel that the fault or the problem is about the HDR tool itself and not about the people who use this tool.
I am not talking about you, i am talking about other people who don't use HDR at all or used it once maybe and didn't like it and announce that they don't want HDR but they say in public that HDR is good tool, if it is good tool then they should learn how to use it good enough, it is like someone gave me a camera of a brand and i use it few times and unable to have great results then i say that this camera is bad and i will not use it at all and it didn't do the job for me, but in public on forums i say that this camera is nice and capable and can do the job, so either i shut up and don't say that this camera didn't work me and go to find another options or to teach myself how to use it properly or if that camera didn't work with me i just say that i didn't know how to use it and it is not the camera mistake, from many comments about HDR on different websites i feel that the fault or the problem is about the HDR tool itself and not about the people who use this tool.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Some people like HDR, some don't. Some use it a lot, some only rarely and others never. In the end it's entirely up to you to use it as you see fit, and what other people say about it shouldn't matter if you are getting the results you want.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Some people like HDR, some don't. Some use it a lot, some only rarely and others never. In the end it's entirely up to you to use it as you see fit, and what other people say about it shouldn't matter if you are getting the results you want.
My point is, when i ask someone about HDR then honestly about 90% told me they don't like it, whether it is their work or other work, so it is like they are not talking about the person work, they are talking or meaning the technique itself, so when i ask someone that he can use HDR very good, he answered me that it didn't give good results whether he spent 10 minutes or 1 day, so maybe i misunderstand others but their replies showing me that they don't want to have HDR technique at all on their work because it doesn't give good results whatever they use it properly, if you tell me that you like HDR but some shots are not good this is normal, i also like HDR on some work but some of my work are very bad with HDR, but if you telling me that you never get anything good with HDR or didn't see anything good, or as many said we are not fan of HDR at all then this is another story.
Great shots! Workflow?
These are the type of shots I like and would love to know your workflow. Are you willing to share? Please email me at houstonphoto85@yahoo.com and let's discuss
Comments
Here are a few I took about a week ago at the University of Western Australia.
Ha ha
Yeah, Saturday, looks good, you can see a lot more of the structure.
Smugger for life!
Most Popular Photos
Just playing with HDR.
Sam
Old abandon vehicle, HDR and Rust!
Whoopy!
Don
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
Link to my Smugmug site
I think i have to redo most of my work to show my HDR shots as more natural look and less fake/artificial/surreal effect, but then i feel i didn't apply HDR at all then or i can't see any HDR effect on my shots if natural look is all what is matter.
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ChasingSky
Fall In The Canyon
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ChasingSky
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. HDR is useful for shots that would be very difficult or impossible to take with a single exposure because the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the camera.
For example, here's a re-post of something I did about a year ago:
That said, there's no rule that says a pic must be natural looking. With or without HDR, everyone is free to use whatever techniques they like to realize their vision. The main problem I have with over-the-top HDR is that the processing overpowers other aspects of the image--composition, subject, narrative, light. Rather than expanding dynamic range, it seems to flatten it and relies more on unnatural colors than on contrast. Obviously, this is not an inherent problem with the tool, but rather how it is frequently used.
YMMV, of course.
I think it looks pretty natural. It's how the scene looked to me at the time I shot it and how it would have been captured by my camera if it had the capability. I could have made this shot look surreal but that wasn't my goal. That's not to say that those that do go for the surreal look are wrong or produce worthless images. I actually dig some of the HDR's I've seen... many of the ones on this thread. However, it's not something I do personally with my own photos.
At the end of the day it's how you want to use the tools you have. Some use a chainsaw to cut down trees... others use them to make ice sculptures. I wonder if you find similar threads on Lumberjack forums arguing points on the correct usage of a chainsaw??
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
Also this is a forum where info and feed back are more freely given.
Yes.....HDR is simply another tool. Each can choose how and where to use it.
It definitely has a place both in totally realistic photography and photography with a more artistic approach.
anonymouscuban,
I agree this image looks very natural.
Sam
http://www.jamiecunninghamphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Franconia-NH/Jamie-Cunningham-Photography/165561066804213
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113458738664148
Original out of camera:
Non HDR processed [added warmth]
HDR
I am sure others can process this shot without HDR better than what i did, then what do you think between the non HDR well processed and HDR comparison shots?
I also don't understand why many says that they are not against of HDR and they like some samples of HDR but they keep saying that they don't use that on their shots or it doesn't suit them, if i don't like to use my HDR on my photos or use it but didn't work then why i should say that HDR is good to use or not bad, if it is good then i can use it and can have good result, if i am unable to have subtle good results with HDR then i will never say that HDR is good to use, to be it is like either it works or not, there is no in between solution, and if the thing is that some may like HDR and others may not is not an issue about HDR, it happens to everything in life, cameras and lenses are examples there.
Given the difficulty of the original, I think you did an admirable job in both versions. To me, the light on the grass at the bottom looks more believable in the non-HDR version. But I'm not at all sure I would have noticed that if that had been the only version I had seen.
Maybe this example is not a great one, but i was thinking to give a point about that i heard on many other forums that if someone can do proper exposed shots at the beginning even under those extreme DR then he will never need to use any HDR technique, i also think someone posted an example where he was with a shot where one subject in full highlight and the other is in shadow and there was a noticeable range between the highlight and shadows but he managed to get a proper nice result without going with HDR at all, so is that means that we must need HDR when the scene can't help to do natural proper exposure without HDR? And i heard a lot that medium formats as with film have better higher dynamic range than those 35mm, so if that is right then i can use a medium format on those conditions and then i can adjust/post process my images without going HDR route and get nice results, but really i can't understand you people, one come to say it couldn't happen by this and another one say that is not true, so who is true then?
Pro... I think you're taking my comment the wrong way. It's not that I think HDR is bad. On the contrary, I think it's a wonderful tool. As I've shown, I use it with my own photography. What I meant is that how you use it or apply it to your image is personal. I try to keep the contrast and color saturation within limits. That's my own personal taste for my images. However, I've seen some of your work which pushes the saturation a bit beyond what I would do, but I love them. Again, it's personal taste.
As a photographer (noob), I strive to maintain a certain feel or style to my images. It's kind of like my thumb print. Surreal-like HDR is not part of that style. It's kind of like when I wear my guayabera shirt with a fedora. I have friends that like the look, but they would never wear it. Why? Because they feel it doesn't fit their look or style. Maybe that's a horrible analogy but it's the best I can come up with right now.
Am I making any sense?
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
I am not talking about you, i am talking about other people who don't use HDR at all or used it once maybe and didn't like it and announce that they don't want HDR but they say in public that HDR is good tool, if it is good tool then they should learn how to use it good enough, it is like someone gave me a camera of a brand and i use it few times and unable to have great results then i say that this camera is bad and i will not use it at all and it didn't do the job for me, but in public on forums i say that this camera is nice and capable and can do the job, so either i shut up and don't say that this camera didn't work me and go to find another options or to teach myself how to use it properly or if that camera didn't work with me i just say that i didn't know how to use it and it is not the camera mistake, from many comments about HDR on different websites i feel that the fault or the problem is about the HDR tool itself and not about the people who use this tool.
My point is, when i ask someone about HDR then honestly about 90% told me they don't like it, whether it is their work or other work, so it is like they are not talking about the person work, they are talking or meaning the technique itself, so when i ask someone that he can use HDR very good, he answered me that it didn't give good results whether he spent 10 minutes or 1 day, so maybe i misunderstand others but their replies showing me that they don't want to have HDR technique at all on their work because it doesn't give good results whatever they use it properly, if you tell me that you like HDR but some shots are not good this is normal, i also like HDR on some work but some of my work are very bad with HDR, but if you telling me that you never get anything good with HDR or didn't see anything good, or as many said we are not fan of HDR at all then this is another story.
These are the type of shots I like and would love to know your workflow. Are you willing to share? Please email me at houstonphoto85@yahoo.com and let's discuss
I love doing HDR.
Here's just a couple of mine.
Whislin Jack Lodge, D3 5 frames, Photomatix
Atlantis Pool, D200 5 frames, Photomatix
Naches Tavern, D3, 7 frames hand held, Photomatix.
Federal Court House, Tacoma Wa. D3, 3 frames. Photomatix.
Bombardier Q400, D3, 2 frames wide, 3 frames each, hand held, Photomatix, PTGui for the stitch.
Thanks for looking.
My Gallery http://www.peotimages.com/
My website http://anchorfrog.com/
Really dig this one.. nice shot (not to say the others aren't.. but this one stands out)
Here's a couple more.
Philly.
New Orleans.
Chicago.
Carmel Ca.
My Gallery http://www.peotimages.com/
My website http://anchorfrog.com/
Here's a couple:
Keep posting!
Shooting with a Pentax K-5 and a slew of other goodies
SmugMug | HDR Spotting | Flickr | Facebook | Google+