Options
HDR What's your take?
jimgoldstein
Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
Personally I can't stand most versions of it, but I have a preference for more natural looking tonality. I put up some thoughts on this on my blog "Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn" and I was curious what the take of others might be on this.
Jim
Jim
0
Comments
said in two words and an acronym: "I hate HDR".
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
But porn in HDR - it's sounds very promising
Do you have any samples ?
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)
I have only tried CS2's HDR merge, and my impression is that it is more trouble than it's worth. I can get similar results using bracketed exposures combined with masks, and I find it easier to correct for motion problems that way.
Dynamic range limitations are the most vexing problems digital photographers face today. I would expect technology to provide some help in the near future--the new Kodak sensor filter sounds promising, for example. However, the output side seems to be more problematic, and until that changes, there's only so much one can expect from software.
Regards,
is it just me, where's the porn?
Like everything new I think human nature has a tendency to over do it... I know I do... What really set me at Peace was reading some comments on Flickr... from readers posting their first images and the present ones... I think most have gone originally for the "outrageous"... look... why not? It is new... and as time goes by most have feathered the tones down for the pictures to look "natural"... which is already what I am trying to do!!!
Anthow,,, just my two cents here... I am just an amateur into the learning curves...
Be well...
Ara & Spirit...
(not HDR!!!)
My Gallery in progress...
On the road, homeless, with my buddy Spirit...
The only puzzling thing is why you chose the word "hate" to descibe your feelings about a technological process. To me your hyperbole gives HDR more power than its usage has demonstrated.
Thanks for all the great input. It's interesting the one thing about HDR that seldom is discussed is unlike other software based techniques that are engineered to work with in the parameters of the what our computers and printers can display HDR is not. HDR output is handicapped as current monitors and printers can't output 32-bit files. People seem to be pushing the limits to show on 8-bit devices that they can achieve a "difference". Unfortunately most output (not all) is truly a waste and an over-extension of the technique.
It seems to me that you are missing the point. Most DSLRs capture 12 bits worth of dynamic range which is more than any output device can handle. Every photographer, whether he or she is aware of it or not, faces the question of how to capture the dynamic range of the scene and then how to compress it to the capabilities of an output device. A 32 bit HDR file, a 16 bit PSD file and a 12 or 14 bit RAW files are all intermediate formats along that path.
When one is faced with a secene that has more dynamic range than the sensor of the camera, sometimes the best answer for handling that scene is to capture multiple exposures. Once you have those multiple exposures the question you are faced with is first how to blend those exposures and then how to compress the resulting dynamic range. An HDR file is a tool which can help blend the exposures.
The real crux of the question, however, is how you are going to compress the dynamic range to fit the output device. The simplest approach is just to scale the range to fit, however in many cases that leaves the image looking flat. So we explore more sophisticated technique. Most of the more sophisticated techniques work essentially by applying a gentle high pass filter to the image, reducing the global contrast while preserving the local contrast. A grad filter over the lens does that, an exposure blend in photoshop does that and local adaption of an HDR file in Photoshop does that. Which one is best? They all have their merits and drawbacks. I find I get the best results by matching my compression techniques I use to the image at hand. I use some flavor of local adaption on almost every image I shoot (Clarity in Lightroom/ACR and large radius USM are both local adaption techniques) whether or not I use an HDR file to get there. On more difficult image I usually combine techniques.
Back to the quesion of HDR files. I find they are most useful when I am going to do a great deal of compression using local adaption. I find the best choices for that approch are scenes where the blending mask would be inordinatly complex; conviently these are also typically the kinds of scenes where the halos generated by local adaption don't show.
And I keep my hate for really important stuff - like the opposing baseball team.
Website
Basically if I don't notice that you have used it (i.e. you've used it make the image more as it would look with the naked eye...which has a far greater dynamic range than any man-made product could duplicate), than good on ya. If it is the first thing that I notice, then I am too distracted and cannot see past that to actually enjoy the photograph.
If using it for purely art sake, who cares. Use it to your hearts content. However, I mainly see it in landscape images where the intent is usually not abstract art.
To each his/her own...
Cheers,
D
www.dlphotography.ca
www.redbubble.com/people/dlibrach
PHASEONE P20+ | MAMIYA 645 AFD II | 55-110mm f4.5 AF Zoom | 80mm f2.8 AF | 120mm f4.0 MF Macro | 150mm f3.5 AF
I agree with one of the above comments: you shouldn't realize its an HDR image.
Last year I fiddled a bit with HDR. This is one example. BTW: it was dane from te same exposure.
It's all about the person shooting the pic.
These were made from 9 exposures.
If you don't like them, oh well.
Enjoy my porn!
Same tecnique
I dig the images! Viva Le Porn!
First ever HDR. Decided to Demo a new HDR program just see what I came up with.
2. My first attempt at hdr
Used for the right effect, or with the right photograph, its the right thing to do.
Sadly, like all good things, its usually over used and abused... ( like Photoshop lensflare was a few years ago), but because its sorta 'the new black'.
Its a great tool to have in your toolbox.
You should try messing with HDR & Mono and playing with the sliders a bit, some of the results are pretty good.
At the end of the day though, there is no substitute for a well taken photo.
C'mon guys, Just go out and shoot and stop crying already!
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
Canon AE-1 Program l FD 28mm 1:2.8 l FD 50mm 1:1.8 l Sunpak Auto 821 Dedicated
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
Sorry - the devil made me do it.
Sharpening, Focus Stacking, Curves, Saturation and Vibrance sliders, Dodging and Burning, HDR, cropping, levels, etc. are all just techniques which can be used or abused - it's up to the individual.
I'm sure everyone has seen some horrible sharpening jobs - should we avoid sharpening?
Yes - and the horrible HDR images. New tools generally get overworked.
I must admit though...ryan & rustinginpeace have some nice HDR's.