Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2016 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?

  
 
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


I'm reminded of when the first Apple McIntosh computers were introduced. For the first time those who created written documents were not confined to the output of the dot matrix printer. It opened up the world of different fonts.

Unfortunately, many documents created back then looked more like ransom notes than serious correspondence. Here was a great new tool horribly misused.

It's the same with HDR. HDR isn't bad, it's just too often applied by the talentless and those with no subtlety or taste.

I was confronted by a scene of a windmill in the Netherlands last summer. It was a brilliant day with nice clouds. The sun was directly behind the windmill. An exposure that would retain detail in the windmill would blow out the sky and an exposure to get a nice sky would have made the windmill a silhouette. I did something I'd never done before - I set my 5D2 to exposure bracketing and handheld a succession of frames.

At home I loaded the frames in Oloneo and it did a great job of aligning the images. The result was a photograph that captured what I saw, one that escaped the technical constraints of the camera sensor.



Nov 08, 2016 at 09:22 AM
schlotz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


Kevin, I agree this was a good exercise and thank you for it. The hot topic of HDR brought out many highly opinionated responses. In an attempt to sum up what I got out of this thread:

- many point a critical eye at the number of aspects regarding the application of HDR to a particular scene
- the gamut ranges from the purists to the impressionists thus the conflicts ensue
- what one person likes and tries to justify is another's disdain
- precise composition (term seems a bit nebulous doesn't it) can be a solid basis to PP from but not always was it applied during the creative moment that drove the photographer in taking or editing a captured scene.

After having gone through the thread I re-examined my initial reaction.

#1 I still like the rendition but would like it more if the colors were reduced a bit and the obvious low light areas were a shade darker.

#2 is a pleasing shot in general but IMO the intensity of the blue in the night sky is more than seems natural or at least more than I prefer. The frame most likely is leveled correctly but my eye continually wants to see it slope a degree or so more down towards the left. Maybe instead a bit more of the river showing on the right would balance things?

#3 is the compositional one for me. No question the ornate nature of the church was the driving force in capturing and PP. Definitely a challenge and one I would want to tackle as well. Gorgeous detail throughout the church waiting to be shot. Personally, upward angled frames are difficult for me and for that composition a tilt-shift lens would really have helped. Yes I know, you shoot with what you got. Alternately could've the frame been wider to allow some perspective adjustment in PP? Although, not certain that much perspective could be accomplished. Lastly, in the zest to show all of the details, some of the very important grandeur is lost. IMO shadows are an important aspect and the angled lighting effects should be maintained even if some of the details fall into the shadows.

JMTC

Matt



Nov 08, 2016 at 10:53 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


dmacmillan wrote:
I'm reminded of when the first Apple McIntosh computers were introduced. For the first time, those who created written documents were not confined to the output of the dot matrix printer. It opened up the world of different fonts.

Unfortunately, many documents created back then looked more like ransom notes than serious correspondence. Here was a great new tool horribly misused.


That's a blast from the past! No doubt that the freedom of real fonts and the ability to use them led to a lot of people doing wild and crazy things. I suggest that's what happens when any new technique (artistic otherwise) becomes available.

I wrote my dissertation with a "skinny Mac" and a bootleg Word beta. Used a friend's Laserwriter (first one I'd ever seen) to print all 200+ pages of it.

Every graduate college has a "wicked witch of the west" who maintains the holy grail of "proper formatting." Font (at the time only pica and elite al la the IBM Selectric), margin, order, etc. I handed her my "finished" copy and she kicked it back because my margins were .25" too narrow. So buddy and I went over at night fixed the margins, reprinted.

Showed up next day and handed it in again. She was stunned that I'd gotten someone to retype that fast. Running her fingers across the page (paper type was also specified), and she said "How'd you get this done so fast, and why isn't there the strike imprint on the paper?" I noted that it had been printed on a laser printer. She had a cow. "This isn't acceptable. It must be typed!"

I pulled out the style bible and pointed out to her that while the format and font were precisely defined, nothing was said about device or technology involved. Much muttering and a few days later she handed it back - accepted.

Yes, people did off the wall stuff with the first bit-mapped screen and printer, but they had a lot of fun. HDR has come a long way from its first inceptions. If you don't like/want the tool, fine. Don't use the technique. To arrogantly say that no one else can use it because (fill in the reason), well that sounds a lot like photographic fundamentalism. I don't have much use or respect for those (of any discipline or persuasion) who insisted that there is "Only one true way."

Robert



Nov 08, 2016 at 11:44 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


OntheRez wrote:
HDR has come a long way from its first inceptions. If you don't like/want the tool, fine. Don't use the technique. To arrogantly say that no one else can use it because (fill in the reason), well that sounds a lot like photographic fundamentalism. I don't have much use or respect for those (of any discipline or persuasion) who insisted that there is "Only one true way."

Robert


Especially if their way is the only or best way...and especially if they don't follow up any claims with sample images.



Nov 08, 2016 at 11:54 AM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


schlotz wrote:
Kevin, I agree this was a good exercise and thank you for it. The hot topic of HDR brought out many highly opinionated responses. In an attempt to sum up what I got out of this thread:

- many point a critical eye at the number of aspects regarding the application of HDR to a particular scene
- the gamut ranges from the purists to the impressionists thus the conflicts ensue
- what one person likes and tries to justify is another's disdain
- precise composition (term seems a bit nebulous doesn't it) can be a solid basis to PP from but
...Show more

Hi Matt. Thank you for taking the time to study the shots and write down your thoughts. I really appreciate the time you've taken.

1 In general I'm happy with this. I'm still playing around with the degree of HDR 'effect' (a nice control slider is included in Aurora 2017 so you can decrease/increase the perceived effect very quickly and easily to the changes made via luminosity masks), however it's pretty close to what I was looking for. I know on FM it won't be as popular as it is with, for example, family & friends who aren't photographers but I still feel confident it will be a good seller for me to the general public.

2. Unfortunately I had 15/21/55 & 100mm lenses with me. A 35/40 would have been perfect for that shot as I did want to include more of the river (that shot is virtually 100% as shot, maybe 1-2 degrees of alignment adjustment), the Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron I'm buying would have been great but you shoot with what you have and a different perspective wasn't possible.
The shade of blue deepens the longer into Blue Hour we go of course and I haven't changed that, possibly bringing out all of the detail in the buildings strengthens the effect though.

3. The shot that attracts the most attention. People either love it or hate it, no middle ground ! I *will* go back to it and play with the shadows, however as I have no intention of putting that one up for sales I probably won't spend too much more time on it. It was just an effort to show the remarkable interior/detailing in that magnificent cathedral that I'd encourage anyone going to Tuscany to visit.

Thanks again Matt.



Nov 09, 2016 at 12:03 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


Paul Mo wrote:
HDR is like makeup - the less noticeable the better.


Good way to put it. It too easily takes over photos.



Nov 09, 2016 at 06:16 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


Results suggest a bimodal distribution. Interesting.

EBH



Nov 09, 2016 at 08:47 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


Frogfish wrote:
Here's three recent shots, obviously HDR (processed in Aurora 2017) and for some they will be OTT but personally they enhance what I was seeing (gorgeous sunset, bringing out the building details during blue hour and a spectacular cathedral interior that is very hard to depict) and hopefully impress that upon the viewer.

These are gorgeous photos of some of my favorite places. At first I thought the interior was of San Gimignano instead of Siena. Did you get there? The interiors are similar. We were there last December. I want to go back!



Nov 10, 2016 at 08:26 AM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


dmacmillan wrote:
These are gorgeous photos of some of my favorite places. At first I thought the interior was of San Gimignano instead of Siena. Did you get there? The interiors are similar. We were there last December. I want to go back!

Thank you very much D. I appreciate the kind words and glad to hear you enjoyed them !

We were going to visit San Gimignano on the way from Siena to Pisa (where our onward flight left from), there are buses that run Siena-San Gimignano-Pisa (though no trains of course).
However we thought it deserves more time (at least a couple of days and not the 4-5 hours we could donate) and so left it for now. I've very pleased to hear it has a cathedral similar to the magnificent structure in Siena (currently our favourite town in Italy), we will most certainly include it on our next Florentine trip !




Nov 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · HDR - How do you feel about it ?


I'm OK with it in most flavors, but I really don't like when it's super over the top...it's just not my aesthetic. When I use it, I try to generally maintain a fairly natural look to it. I hate the big halos that can come with too-processed HDR. There are occasions where I'll go for a more unnatural look, but for the most part I try to keep it fairly subtle. Often, I'll use HDR to simply get a cleaner version of an image that I can produce with a single shot, simply to clean the noise in the shadows.

Here's a simple example of an HDR shot I recently took that I don't think looks HDR at all (it's only a mediocre shot, but still

http://www.jordansteele.com/2016/columbus_distant_sunrise.jpg

Sometimes I go a bit heavier:
http://www.jordansteele.com/2016/rock_house_bw.jpg

Frankly, I often have a hard time remembering which of my shots used HDR, as the look I go after is pretty close to a standard shot.

I did two recent panorama HDRs, though, below. The first is a bit more obvious than the second, but I still don't feel it's really over the top.

http://www.jordansteele.com/2016/riverfront_fall_pano.jpg

http://www.jordansteele.com/2016/columbus_night_supermoon.jpg

In a lot of cases, though, with sensors as good as they are, I find myself not needing HDR as much as I did a few years ago. When I was trying to find samples, I thought to myself, Well, I'm sure the shots I did of the sun setting over the Pacific last year were done in HDR...and I went back and looked and they're all single files, but almost have an HDR-like feel to them due to the already wide dynamic range, such as this shot:

http://www.jordansteele.com/2015/pacific_sunset2.jpg



Nov 17, 2016 at 09:30 AM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.