I think John you made some valid points and I will further add that learning the art of HDR is something that is not picked up easy and as a novice, I have found it somewhat hard to find the balance of the cartoon images and the professional images i have scene above, I further understand the value in getting constructive criticism and critique from people that have demonstrated the ability to master such HDR programs.
I have look at the above images and aspire to have the ability to produce such quality images, however, we as individuals should have the right to change a image to produce something that is pleasing to us, for instance nature photos of birds give me hump and have less than no interest, however i can appreciate the work and skill set that is required to take such photo, just not my cup of tea
Ok I'm down off my soap box, the first question to you talented HDR's is that do you only process in the HDR tab only or do you Tone Map (other tab in Photomatix) to get the image to look the way you like it, I guess as a extension of that is are the two related.
I think the biggest "problem" with HDR is that people who use it too much get to a point where their eyes don't really REMEMBER what the scene was like -- and you get these over saturated over vivid images that scream 'Look at me look at me, I'm over done HDR!". But the people don't realize it because they've spent so much time looking and processing those images, they've lost their grasp of the reality of the moment they were trying to capture.
Very well said! I've been trying to come to grips with HDR and trying to put to words the problem with it. You've just written the best description of the problem I've ever seen. All too often I'm looking at these images and the back of my mind is screaming "but if the light is that strong over here, it should be over there too!" and "oh how nice that it just happened that the clouds peaked out at #fefefe at a few pixels, and the shadows, how awesome that they dropped down to #010101 for you... and that apple on the tree, the highlights just perfectly worked out to #ff0000? so amazing."
There are folks that have been doing exposure blending for a long time and many of us probably never even knew it. Then there are mathematical pixel hackers trying to extract the most dynamic range they can out of an image and encode it into 8bpp jpegs that use every possible color value. One of these two groups is killing the technique. (and yeah, I realize that's a pretty broad generalization that polarizes folks... and reality is that most folks live somewhere along the spectrum in between.)
And as catspaw said, hate me if you want, I don't care... it's just my opinion on this issue.
Now since I feel bad commenting on the issue without actually adding to the conversation, my own HDRs:
Two separate exposures, hand merged in PS.
One raw processed two different ways and then merged.
One raw processed two different ways and then merged.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Just Another Tool
Love the Chateau picture Chris ...
I am not an HDR expert by any means, but I continue to pursue it for two reasons:
- a tool for high contrast situations and bringing realism to the view
- a tool for bringing emotion to a scene
The latter falls into the gray area I think ... that's where the tone mapping might get a bit more aggressive. In the end though, I find HDR to be an amazingly handy tool to have by your side in challenging situations. Like some other posts have noted and I've found ... often times the HDR process simply speeds what could have been done with a raw image and patience on the curves / highlights / shadows .... maybe a second exposure and some dodging / burning ..
So, yes, I will post one of my own as well ... this was both a challenging scene and one I wanted to project as a bit more ominous ... so many birds in one tree can't be up to any good.
Great thread by the way, love seeing all of the opinions
Ok Dan, I generally love your work, so don't take this personally... one of your images just happens to perfectly demonstrate one of the issues I have with mechanically generated HDRs:
So everything in the image is "perfectly exposed" and well lit. But where is the light on the ceiling and beams coming from? I see very obvious light sources that are shining in the opposite direction, into the eye. Normal human vision would not see that ceiling that well, it would be wrapped in shadow and obscured by glare. But there are virtually no deep shadows in that image anywhere... almost all the play of light and shadow in the scene is stripped away and replaced with a flat, boring, uniform, omni-present light source. That kinda thing may work in some very limited cases, but in a lot of images, it just results in a yawn for me.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Very well said! I've been trying to come to grips with HDR and trying to put to words the problem with it. You've just written the best description of the problem I've ever seen. All too often I'm looking at these images and the back of my mind is screaming "but if the light is that strong over here, it should be over there too!" and "oh how nice that it just happened that the clouds peaked out at #fefefe at a few pixels, and the shadows, how awesome that they dropped down to #010101 for you... and that apple on the tree, the highlights just perfectly worked out to #ff0000? so amazing."
........
And as catspaw said, hate me if you want, I don't care... it's just my opinion on this issue.
Thanks Cabbey Of course, now having said that, I have some of my own HDR stuff to play with and I only hope my eyes and brain keep me in check..... pot. kettle. none of us are perfect
Ok Dan, I generally love your work, so don't take this personally... one of your images just happens to perfectly demonstrate one of the issues I have with mechanically generated HDRs:
So everything in the image is "perfectly exposed" and well lit. But where is the light on the ceiling and beams coming from? I see very obvious light sources that are shining in the opposite direction, into the eye. Normal human vision would not see that ceiling that well, it would be wrapped in shadow and obscured by glare. But there are virtually no deep shadows in that image anywhere... almost all the play of light and shadow in the scene is stripped away and replaced with a flat, boring, uniform, omni-present light source. That kinda thing may work in some very limited cases, but in a lot of images, it just results in a yawn for me.
Thanks Cabbey. Appreciate the constructive feedback
Amazing shots in here! Nice work guys and gals. I love HDR... whether it's overdone or not. Call it art... call it a photo... call it whatever you want. Doesn't really matter. If it looks good(and most HDR does) then that is all that matters in most people's eyes. I understand the whole debate on what qualifies as a "photograph"but HDR shots ARE still photographs. Processed photographs, right?
Here's a few of mine... from a little Sony P&S. They look good to me and to all my family and friends who don't know any better. They love the image and don't care what anyone calls it. Try telling the average person that they really aren't looking at a photo though.
I am in awe of all this...I have nothing to say about anything except I am trying to be a sponge and learn cuz thus far I am clueless still an infant to this art, and you are all my mentors.
I'm largely in favour of any technique/process that allows for the range of results that we've already seen in this thread alone. There is some outstanding work in here.
I think processing preferences and the effects they ultimately create are beautifully personal and what one tog might see as perfect, another might completely disagree.
For me, that's one of the joys of being a photographer in this digital age.
I've come fill circle with HDR a number of times and have often used differing techniques when shooting the same subjects/scenes.
In certain instances, I've manually blended 2 or three exposures in CS3 only:
Same church, processed in Photomatix first and then finished in CS3:
Panorama manually stitched and blended:
Again, same scene - processed completely differently:
However, my favourite HDR image I've ever produced is this one and the reason I like it so much is because it's true to how the scene appeared at the time, 6am on a freezing cold Winter's morning:
Cameras: Gripped 30D, EOS 33 35mm, Ricoh KR10, Sony DSC-H7. Lenses: Canon 17-40mm f/4 L USM, Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM. Lighting: Canon 430EX II, Nikon SB24, Konig stand, Stofen omnibounce, 33" brolly, DIY beauty dish + diffusers. Misc: UV+CPL filters, reverse mount adapters, Velbon tripod. Photoshop CS3
However, my favourite HDR image I've ever produced is this one and the reason I like it so much is because it's true to how the scene appeared at the time, 6am on a freezing cold Winter's morning:
Beautiful. The mist on the water really makes the shot for me.
Your second church is also great. Really creepy feel. Nice work.
You know what's funny? This same conversation could have and probbly did happen in the 1870's when impressionism really began to take hold. I can hear the same arguements. doesn't look real, those colors weren't really there.
I wonder where Manet, Monet, Degas, Cezanne, Renoir and Cassatte would have taken HDR. My guess is probably past the limiting factor of realism. It's art people, push the envelope. Or not. It's your choice
I have looked at some shots that have it done(over done) and not a big fan, however, with every other technique if it is done correctly it can make a huge impact.
I should state that I have no idea how to do it but would like to find out how.
You know what's funny? This same conversation could have and probbly did happen in the 1870's when impressionism really began to take hold.
Or when Jerry Uelsmann became an absolute master darkroom manipulation (including shooting with the intent of having think or think negatives to facilitate masking and other printing techniques).
Or when Jerry Uelsmann became an absolute master darkroom manipulation (including shooting with the intent of having think or think negatives to facilitate masking and other printing techniques).
I know it's not a tractor but Crack Log Splitter isn't a funny.
It is a while since I have used Photomatix but it runs in my mind that on the home page of Photomatix there was a Blending facility. This is no longer there or am I imaganing things in my old age? I am using Photomatix 3.2 (64 bit)
Cheers
Bob
Even though the shot in this thread's first post is mine, I actually rarely use it.
Personally, I shoot very few things that are suitable (in my eyes) for HDR or similar treatment. Most of my shots involve people.
Yesterday, I found a new use for HDR, for me. I was asked by a friend to take a few shots of the inside of his house, since he is going to be selling it.
I tried Photomatix on 3 bracketed shots (-1.33, 0.66, +2.66) for each image. I still have to get used to it a bit, but it seems to work well!
Comments
I thought some of my HDRs were ok.. but man.. some of the stuff here, I won't even bother posting mine..
My Site
My Facebook
Oh go on.......
Become a fan of Chris Humphreys Photography
I think John you made some valid points and I will further add that learning the art of HDR is something that is not picked up easy and as a novice, I have found it somewhat hard to find the balance of the cartoon images and the professional images i have scene above, I further understand the value in getting constructive criticism and critique from people that have demonstrated the ability to master such HDR programs.
I have look at the above images and aspire to have the ability to produce such quality images, however, we as individuals should have the right to change a image to produce something that is pleasing to us, for instance nature photos of birds give me hump and have less than no interest, however i can appreciate the work and skill set that is required to take such photo, just not my cup of tea
Ok I'm down off my soap box, the first question to you talented HDR's is that do you only process in the HDR tab only or do you Tone Map (other tab in Photomatix) to get the image to look the way you like it, I guess as a extension of that is are the two related.
Regards
Chris
" The cartoon HDR person "
Very well said! I've been trying to come to grips with HDR and trying to put to words the problem with it. You've just written the best description of the problem I've ever seen. All too often I'm looking at these images and the back of my mind is screaming "but if the light is that strong over here, it should be over there too!" and "oh how nice that it just happened that the clouds peaked out at #fefefe at a few pixels, and the shadows, how awesome that they dropped down to #010101 for you... and that apple on the tree, the highlights just perfectly worked out to #ff0000? so amazing."
There are folks that have been doing exposure blending for a long time and many of us probably never even knew it. Then there are mathematical pixel hackers trying to extract the most dynamic range they can out of an image and encode it into 8bpp jpegs that use every possible color value. One of these two groups is killing the technique.
And as catspaw said, hate me if you want, I don't care... it's just my opinion on this issue.
Now since I feel bad commenting on the issue without actually adding to the conversation, my own HDRs:
Two separate exposures, hand merged in PS.
One raw processed two different ways and then merged.
One raw processed two different ways and then merged.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Love the Chateau picture Chris ...
I am not an HDR expert by any means, but I continue to pursue it for two reasons:
- a tool for high contrast situations and bringing realism to the view
- a tool for bringing emotion to a scene
The latter falls into the gray area I think ... that's where the tone mapping might get a bit more aggressive. In the end though, I find HDR to be an amazingly handy tool to have by your side in challenging situations. Like some other posts have noted and I've found ... often times the HDR process simply speeds what could have been done with a raw image and patience on the curves / highlights / shadows .... maybe a second exposure and some dodging / burning ..
So, yes, I will post one of my own as well ... this was both a challenging scene and one I wanted to project as a bit more ominous ... so many birds in one tree can't be up to any good.
Great thread by the way, love seeing all of the opinions
Paul
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
So everything in the image is "perfectly exposed" and well lit. But where is the light on the ceiling and beams coming from? I see very obvious light sources that are shining in the opposite direction, into the eye. Normal human vision would not see that ceiling that well, it would be wrapped in shadow and obscured by glare. But there are virtually no deep shadows in that image anywhere... almost all the play of light and shadow in the scene is stripped away and replaced with a flat, boring, uniform, omni-present light source. That kinda thing may work in some very limited cases, but in a lot of images, it just results in a yawn for me.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Thanks Cabbey
Ron
http://ront.smugmug.com/
Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
Thanks Cabbey. Appreciate the constructive feedback
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Here's a few of mine... from a little Sony P&S. They look good to me and to all my family and friends who don't know any better. They love the image and don't care what anyone calls it. Try telling the average person that they really aren't looking at a photo though.
Thanks Ron, appreciate that kind comment very much
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
[IMG]http://<a href=http://eyebehold.smugmug.com/Photography/Things-that-caught-my-eye/12201274_TVhDc#875657680_QCr4G-A-LB target=_blank>[/img]
"It's awesome to be ALIVE!"
I think processing preferences and the effects they ultimately create are beautifully personal and what one tog might see as perfect, another might completely disagree.
For me, that's one of the joys of being a photographer in this digital age.
I've come fill circle with HDR a number of times and have often used differing techniques when shooting the same subjects/scenes.
In certain instances, I've manually blended 2 or three exposures in CS3 only:
Same church, processed in Photomatix first and then finished in CS3:
Panorama manually stitched and blended:
Again, same scene - processed completely differently:
However, my favourite HDR image I've ever produced is this one and the reason I like it so much is because it's true to how the scene appeared at the time, 6am on a freezing cold Winter's morning:
Lenses: Canon 17-40mm f/4 L USM, Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM.
Lighting: Canon 430EX II, Nikon SB24, Konig stand, Stofen omnibounce, 33" brolly, DIY beauty dish + diffusers.
Misc: UV+CPL filters, reverse mount adapters, Velbon tripod. Photoshop CS3
*clicky flickr clicky*
Beautiful. The mist on the water really makes the shot for me.
Your second church is also great. Really creepy feel. Nice work.
I wonder where Manet, Monet, Degas, Cezanne, Renoir and Cassatte would have taken HDR. My guess is probably past the limiting factor of realism. It's art people, push the envelope. Or not. It's your choice
Hello, :thumb Mi Smug :
http://erikgodderis.smugmug.com/
http://www.godderis.be
I should state that I have no idea
Or when Jerry Uelsmann became an absolute master darkroom manipulation (including shooting with the intent of having think or think negatives to facilitate masking and other printing techniques).
http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/jerryuelsmann/masterworks/index.htm
Ed Zachary. That's some beautiful work.
I know it's not a tractor but Crack Log Splitter isn't a funny.
It is a while since I have used Photomatix but it runs in my mind that on the home page of Photomatix there was a Blending facility. This is no longer there or am I imaganing things in my old age? I am using Photomatix 3.2 (64 bit)
Cheers
Bob
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Sam
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Lots of interesting discussion but since it is in Jomamma, I must warn you that some comments might be unsuitable for some people.
Personally, I shoot very few things that are suitable (in my eyes) for HDR or similar treatment. Most of my shots involve people.
Yesterday, I found a new use for HDR, for me. I was asked by a friend to take a few shots of the inside of his house, since he is going to be selling it.
I tried Photomatix on 3 bracketed shots (-1.33, 0.66, +2.66) for each image. I still have to get used to it a bit, but it seems to work well!
I am pretty happy with these for a first try
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug