|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
So, what is your opinion on hdr photography?
Rik Williams wrote: That argument there is only for the eye, I am discussing the eye/brain combination. In a very few moments (far less than a second) we build images in our head that exceed that dynamic range by a dramatic amount. Jul 12 14 09:04 pm Link Hugh Alison wrote: Exactly. Tell Rik. Jul 12 14 09:06 pm Link Mark Reeder Photography wrote: It's a bogus question. Jul 12 14 11:19 pm Link Al Lock Photography wrote: Lol you're the expert Jul 12 14 11:26 pm Link Al Lock Photography wrote: Hey don't tell me, tell the scientists who've proven the eye can't see any more than 5-8 stops at best. Jul 13 14 12:38 am Link I think most HDR is awful... mostly in real estate photography, I find the HDR stuff absolutely HORRIBLE. There's nothing worse than looking at a property and finding some nut cake wanted to get all artistic and the result is glowing furniture, floors, and lamps that look like they're from outer space. I want to see a home interior online as a representation of what I can expect when I actually view the property. HDR, in the context that most people think of it, has absolutely no place in business related photography in my opinion. While I am very cognizant that HDR is very prevalent in architectural and commercial buildings photography (hospitals, schools, universities, hotels, office buildings, etc..) most professionally done HDR techniques do not yield the same horrid funky colours that I see which looks like a photographer purchased Photomatix and went buck wild. HDR (in the above context) makes me cringe. Jul 13 14 12:42 am Link Just a statement, that I hope will stop some of the bickering. A photographic capture can only reach (0), (absolute black), on the dark end, and 255, (absolute white) on the high lit end, regardless of whether it is film, or digital, in capture. The goal, of any capture, is to fill that range, and make the tones look good in everything between. The only reason one would take more than one exposure, (it doesn't really matter how many one chooses), is to get a SINGLE image that falls within those boundaries. To optimize that image, (regardless of how many exposures are taken), one has to make it stretch the whole range, (0-255). (The same applies for one, or many captures). filling in the details in the whole range is possible, IN ANY WAY THE ARTIST DESIRES, in both one, or many exposures. The range can't be exceeded, or else the histogram spikes up one or both sides, and one has lost details in that range, where many pixels are either pure white, or pure black, or both, and they are "clumped together". If one exposure is captured, and it keeps the image within the boundaries, (0 and 255), that one exposure is all that is needed in order to get an optimal image. If more than one is required, for that purpose, then one takes the extra exposures, on a tripod. and makes a single image that fits within those boundaries, (0 to 255). In that case, everything in the scene has to be absolutely stationary. Now, the image still needs to be optimized. The details "should be visible in the dark areas", (the way that we usually see those tones with our naked eyes, naturally), and the high lit areas should have "body", and the details should be visible also, (the way our eyes see them). The boundaries (0, and 255), are the same regardless of how many exposures were necessary, and the optimized details are the same, regardless of the number of exposures that were necessary in order to fall within the boundaries of the histogram. (unless there are unimportant details that you decide don't need to be seen in the image). The optimized image is the same, regardless of the number of exposures taken, and the look can also be the same, (in either case, it can be any look that is desired), The boundaries are absolute, and the image, and the histogram can be identical in every way, in the optimized image. THAT is understanding the range of tones in an image AND controlling them to whatever degree one desires, (within the boundaries). This is what is, or can be, exactly the same, between true HDR, and a single exposure. One can choose to do anything else they desire, but there is only one "optimal image" - one that spans the whole range, and the details are visible in the dark areas, and high lit areas, THE SAME AS OUR EYES SEE THEM. and the "local contrast" is as the eyes saw it. When one chooses a bit depth in Photoshop, the number of tones in an image becomes finite, within the dictates of that, chosen bit depth. In optimizing an image, any distribution of the tonality is possible, within the boundaries described above. Printing has even more restrictions. The final product CAN ONLY fall within the boundaries, regardless of the number of exposures that were taken. In this way, the goal of any image is the same, regardless of the number of exposures that are taken. (Or it can be, but why would one make an image any less than optimal) ? Hyper saturated colors, and hyper distinct details, in the finished product are only a choice, and could have been done differently if the artist had wanted to, and/or knew how to, (again, regardless of the number of exposures that are taken at the time of the capture). There is nothing "magical" about more than one capture, except that one can create an optimal image from a high range scene that one couldn't have without them, regardless of how many exposures were necessary to fulfill that purpose. One cannot "properly light" EVERY image, the process could be much more difficult, and time consuming, (or impossible), and it would, more often than not, look more "unnatural" than simply using the software skillfully, and with the above understanding. (THE LOOK AND THE HISTOGRAM CAN BE EXACTLY THE SAME, IN EITHER CASE - A THOUSAND TIMES) -Don EDIT: What I am saying is that there is NO "HDR" look, and NO "tone mapped" look, the look, and distribution of tones, is a choice, (or it can NOT be a choice, if the skill level is low enough), regardless of the number of exposures that are taken. Don't let the software control you, when YOU can control the software ! EDIT TWO: I like my highlights and shadows to look like highlights and shadows, and my colors to be somewhat "natural", (though usually a LITTLE more saturated), others may prefer differently - it can be done any way the artist sees fit. Jul 13 14 01:42 am Link Rik Williams wrote: Still failing to grasp the information being presented. As usual. Jul 13 14 08:25 am Link Al Lock Photography wrote: Nice putdown! Jul 13 14 08:26 am Link 3068875 wrote: You have the same problem. You and Rik should get together and try taking some continuing education classes that encourage critical thinking and English comprehension. Stretch your brains. Jul 13 14 08:28 am Link Al Lock Photography wrote: Great putdown! Jul 13 14 08:41 am Link Al Lock Photography wrote: Must have missed it the first time, that's ok, here it is again for you. Jul 13 14 12:28 pm Link  Moderator Warning!Al Lock Photography wrote: Please review the forum rules regarding insults. 3068875 wrote: Please review the forum rules regarding trolling. Rik Williams wrote: Please review the forum rules regarding trolling. Jul 13 14 12:43 pm Link Right Poes wrote: Keep putting that food on the table, brother. Anyone who views you askance for doing that does not understand priorities… Jul 13 14 02:00 pm Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: Thats pretty much the answer. HDR has actually been around for years and years, way before it was a buzzword and pro photographers have been doing it for years without saying anything and generating very high end professional photographs in the process. Jul 14 14 11:05 am Link Photography by Riddell wrote: If it's a crappy photo to begin with, it isn't worth the time it takes to process it in ANY way, in my opinion. I'd just send it to the trash can. Jul 14 14 11:08 am Link Don Garrett wrote: Of course, but try arguing that with your average amateur photographer who has just posted that crappy photo on facebook and got 28 'likes' from other amateur photographers. Jul 14 14 03:29 pm Link Photography by Riddell wrote: It's not even worth trying. Jul 14 14 03:55 pm Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: I like the way the interior looks, but the window looks like it's been blasted with soot. Is that inevitable (using HDR) when the light levels are so different inside and out? Jul 14 14 04:10 pm Link Tim Griffiths wrote: I only noticed this since you mentioned it, but it looks like the window really was in need of cleaning. Now I'll let the guy who made the image speak ! Jul 14 14 04:17 pm Link Don Garrett wrote: One word: Lazy. Jul 14 14 05:31 pm Link Tim Griffiths wrote: What has happened here is that the photographer has employed the correct techniques of manually blending exposures, but hasn't quite polished it. Jul 15 14 02:36 am Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: +1 Jul 15 14 03:31 am Link Photography by Riddell wrote: thank you - very nice. I shall have to try it. Still bugs me that I can't get the flash right, but if it does the job then ignoring it is daft. Jul 15 14 07:28 am Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: I think we're talking about the window FRAME, not the window itself, right ? Putting the multiple exposures into a single image, in Photoshop, plus the necessary curves adjustments, etc., helps get rid of those kind of artifacts. How they are blended in Photoshop is a long explanation, and NOT the "merge to HDR" feature. I do, however, mix some of the image from Photomatix into the Photoshop document. Artifacts are the bane of HDR, and tone mapped image makers, (or any other process, for that matter). Everyone who "does it right", has their own way of dealing with them, but, they HAVE to be dealt with. Those who complain about "HDR" images, are probably referring to ones made by those who do NOT deal with the artifacts, and, at the same time, try to achieve what is referred to as "the HDR look". I don't blame them for complaining. Jul 15 14 10:27 am Link I shoot a form of HDR every day. I am a Real Estate Photographer, and shoot HDR as part of my work flow. I also shoot flash frames as part of the work flow because I think they help the final image.  I get the "HDR sucks" thing from time to time, but considering I shoot about 70 houses a month, I don't pay a lot of attention to it.  Sep 20 14 07:29 am Link HDR if done right doesn't have to look like HDR, It can be an option of getting dynamic exposures to your shot without cartooning it. A great example it the images posted above. On the other hand, if done creatively it can be an artistic tool but it would be hard to separate those from all the other HDR "mess" we see out there, but that would be up to your composition and HDR skills. Personally I don't care for it and it seems like the flavor of the year kind of thing... its so 2012  However if I ever use it, I will treat it as a sort of bracketing to insure good exposures throughout the range. Sep 20 14 08:49 am Link Ken Warren Photography wrote: +2 Sep 20 14 08:53 am Link Randy Henderson Images wrote: These are very nicely done. I guess you can sort of tell they are HDR, but it isn't overdone. Sep 20 14 08:57 am Link Art Silva wrote: I discovered when shooting extra brackets (Grand Canyon etc.) with a plan to combine shots into an HDR image, that one of the "brackets" ended up being a better image than my attempts at HDR. Sep 20 14 09:07 am Link It is fine for what it was intended for. It does not replace good design, nor good lighting. Nor does it actually render anything very realistically, in real estate photography. It simply makes the viewer be able to see the interiors in an adequate way, although usually with a good deal of distortion in the space. Photography is about light and shadow........not lack of shadows. Sep 20 14 09:12 am Link HHPhoto wrote: I wouldn't doubt it, plus on top of that your Bracketed image is still in RAW format to at least full res jpeg. Sep 20 14 06:40 pm Link HDR is like cholesterol. There's good HDR and bad HDR. GOOD HDR: I prefer the HDR when used as a tool to bring shadows and highlight areas into a reproducible level...and as the earlier post stated.. YOU CAN'T TELL.... That's good HDR BAD HDR: When used as means for its own look.. it has been come a cliche. MHO Sep 20 14 07:02 pm Link A slightly "off the beaten path" example of HDR:  This is a composite of 3 differently edited examples of the same image - the room in general is one image, the model is a second image and the two lamps are a third image. Sep 20 14 07:04 pm Link Art Silva wrote: I save the RAW files plus full res PDFs and jpgs of everything I edit before resizing for web or email. (I should maybe also be saving uncompressed tiffs or will there always be a way to open PDFs in the future?) Sep 21 14 07:00 am Link Gary Melton wrote: If I understand you correctly, you didn't shoot 3 bracketed exposures and edit them individually before combining them. Sep 21 14 07:11 am Link HHPhoto wrote: Yes, I took a single image - then created 3 layers using 3 different edits of the single image. Sep 21 14 07:49 am Link I am finding that using color control points in Nikon Capture NX2 far more useful and giving more pleasing looks than HDR. Of course this is after I bought Corel Paintshop Pro to do HDR processing. Sep 21 14 08:19 am Link Gary Melton wrote: That's just dodging and burning. Sep 21 14 03:57 pm Link Sometimes it works. No further comment.  Sep 21 14 04:03 pm Link |
