chadbro
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 convince me exposure fusion, blending, any sort of stacking is way different than HDR | |
There are a lot of good, thoughtful answers in here. Just what I was hoping for. I hesitated posting the question because I didn\'t want it perceived as trolling.
I can certainly appreciate the natural-ness as opposed to less-so. But, as Jim alluded to, and Sunny at the beginning, is it simply a question of the sophistication of the software?
Without a doubt, Karel\'s point about the HDR software never being at the scene yet the person doing the manual blending has, draws a clear distinction between the different approaches.
Mainly there is an aversion to the simplicity, and therefore crude-ness, of using a automated process. Similar to a comparison that can be made between working with a RAW file in Lightroom 3 or simply hitting the \"I feel lucky\" button in Picasa 3.
Which ultimately leads me to my next question that I don\'t think is total thread drift.
With the evolution of software and bracketing, are we simply chasing a end-all, be-all look to a photograph? That is to say, I see a lot of helpful, and in most cases, by most posters, welcome\'d critique that seemingly pushes folks, of many talent levels, towards a specific look?
What I mean is, while the feedback given is certainly the POV of the poster, just as the photo presented is the POV of the original poster, there is an awful lot of critique expressing a certain shutter speed is useful for water, and to more thread-appropriate extent, the desire to \"bring out more in the shadows\".
As the software becomes more sophisticated, are we expecting, and is it fair to expect, similar dynamic range in most photos If the shadows are dark, is our first reaction, \"the shadows are too dark\"? Does the knowledge of what is capable with software limit our ability to see what the photograph is, and more importantly, if that\'s what the statement of the photograph should include?
|
