HDR: overused, boring or something really special?

petemc said:
As an artist, I just take pretty pictures. I'm not interested in physics and aerial perspective vs linear perspective. I see something I like, I take a photo.
Click to expand...

Quite agree Pete, but I don't see photography as taking "pretty pictures", or painting come to that.

Aerial and linear probably matters more in painting, where the artist is 'making' the picture, but understanding the difference can help a photographer compose a nicer image; or recognise one when it appears.

:).
 
I do. I've never studied art or anything. Theres no big complex deep arty meaning to my work. I simply take photos of what I like. My exhibition is just pretty pictures of Liverpool.
 
I don't think I can claim any deep meaning for my work, but I don't class them as 'pretty pictures'. Don't denegrate your own work Pete. Others are always too ready to do that about anyone's efforts.

John
 
there is a crack team of moderators just waiting to jump in....

if you took 3 shots of a cat, one with the nose in focus, one with the eyes in focus and one with the ears in focus, and combined them, you would have a picture of a cat with its face in focus, thats not the same as hdr...and i thought perspective was holding your fingers up by someones head and seeing that head in the fingers, like your going to crush their head..or am i missing someones point?
 
I think John's referring to atmospheric perspective; a point which is valid.

But i think we have a new version of the Oliver North defence, the 'Pete Carr Defence'. :lol:
 
done well can look good

done badly can look really ****


personally I dont like it in general but then most I have seen have been overcooked and the picture loses its soul.

difference between a photograph and a piece of graphic design IMO. Both can be nice but when one tries to be the other it doesnt seem to work
 
I'm a small voice in the wilderness here but I like it. I probably overuse it but I don't think I abuse it!

To me, done well, it adds a certain zing to an image that pleases me - its Photographic Art (PhArt)

There are some great exponents of it on this forum - you know the names I'm sure.

I use it mainly on architecture shots and I enjoy the creative process of getting the image I like!
 
I have no problem with HDR used well there are plenty of people on this site like pete who produce some stunning images that really show this technique off.

but I'm sick and tired of seeing images like this all over the web! People seem to assume that cooking it until it's dead will make a mediocre image look great which it won't!

HDRSNOW5-resize.jpg


HDR like selective colouring and all other post processing techniques has the ability to make some incredible images but in the wrong hands can result in stuff that makes your eyes bleed.

As others have said it is important to get a good image in the first place and then consider what if any post processing to apply. A good picture can always be improved with a few tweaks or even some major tweaks like HDR but a rubish photo will always be a rubish photo.
 
I like HDR's ability to help an underexposed shot when the tonal curves or levels can't save It as well. They don't have to even look like the above or a good composed one.
 
petemc said:
As an artist, I just take pretty pictures. I'm not interested in physics and aerial perspective vs linear perspective. I see something I like, I take a photo.
Click to expand...

You are an inspiration.
I don't mean to lick arse or anything here, but isn't that what photography is about?
You see a pretty scene, you take a picture, you make that picture pretty, and job done.

Why do photos have to have a meaning behind them?
My photography teacher would slice my neck if he heard me saying this, but its so true. :shrug:
 
Jonnyreb said:
You only actually record in 12bit (14 bit with the newer models) in any case ;)
Click to expand...

No, I really do shoot in 16 bit and I really do get 12 stops of latitude. It doesn't change the fact that half of that data is in the first stop of course but the bottom stop is just as usable as that on a 12bit DSLR. :)
 
dazzajl said:
No, I really do shoot in 16 bit and I really do get 12 stops of latitude. It doesn't change the fact that half of that data is in the first stop of course but the bottom stop is just as usable as that on a 12bit DSLR. :)
Click to expand...

:eek: What beast of a Camera are you using?
 
HDR is like any other technique or tool, its there to be used, but there will always be people who use it to extremes, I have never liked the OTT attempts people do with HDR to the point of the image looking like a painting, thats not what HDR is supposed to look like, its supposed to represent dynamic range that the eye can see and the camera cant record in one exposure.
If you look at a good HDR there should be full tonal range and dynamic range, but it should look so natural that the eye immediately accepts it as a photograph and NOT as a painting or manipulated image.
What a shame that the majority of users of HDR dont even know the reasoning behind it.

Fi
 
What beast of a Camera are you using?
Click to expand...

Mamiya 645 with a Leaf Valeo back. Although I might treat myself to a preview screen and upgrade to an Aptus this year, now they're old enough ;) :D
 
foodpoison said:
Why do photos have to have a meaning behind them?
Click to expand...

The people who think that are maybe over dramatic arty farty types or vain people maybe?:gag:

..but what with digital SLRs now selling like mobile phones did when they become accessible to the masses, are there simply too many 'photographers' who point-and-shoot and rely on the software like Photomatix to 'rescue' what was dull in the first place?...
Click to expand...

How many of these people buying SLR's like hotcakes are doing good pictures though? The majority on hosting sites Including some of my own could be under or over exposed for example.:rules:
 
dazzajl said:
Mamiya 645 with a Leaf Valeo back. Although I might treat myself to a preview screen and upgrade to an Aptus this year, now they're old enough ;) :D
Click to expand...

You utter, utter, utter @%^&$*!!!!

Me, jealous..........? :D
 
Tsukiyomi said:
The people who think that are maybe over dramatic arty farty types or vain people maybe?:gag:
Click to expand...

No, not all of them. I've taken photos that have meaning attached and can appreciate them. I just don't really think that way so the majority of my work is simply pretty pictures.
 
Can't beleive it, I've started a thread and it's acually kept active for more than an hour - phew!!! :)

The varying reasons we take photos aside, it seems there are a lot of folk on here who accept that digital manipulation, like darkroom/film processing manipulation (cross processing etc), has to be done within the levels or normalcy to be truly effective.

With regard to the use of HDR, there really some great exponents of its use – off the top of my head, Petemc is just one who's managed to get it right on here and uses it in the right amounts depending on the shot. I suppose that the point of view that it's only through experimentation that people learn how to use something like HDR properly is indeed the right approach.

The point of this thread was to voice my opinion as someone who's stood well back from overtly obvious digital manipulation, not to pooh-pooh those who decide one course of action is superior to another when processing their work.

I love Photoshop – always have, always will – because it allows me to do things that I can't do otherwise in-camera. If I was in the fortunate position of having a fully functioning darkroom I suppose I may still be sepia toning prints and devving my own film. The fact of the matter is that film's now too expensive to D & P and digital is a quicker route to getting the images I want. Computers allow me produce the images I want and publish them but I'm still aware that it's photograpehr who makes the shot, not the software.
 
I will admit, I started a big debate on my Camera Club forum about HDR. Mainly because I posted a picture [the last and more contrasty one] from This thread and still as a newbie to photography and manipulating my images, I was looking for constructive criticism. One of the guys who is a "Pro-Bird-Photographer" commented saying "Great Image - Screaming for HDR IMHO" my argument started with - as a newbie, and not knowing/wanting to know/not far "advanced" in photography to use/want to use/etc HDR how was that a constructive amount of criticism.

I know when we had the TP Meet in York, almost everyone bar me, processed their images via HDR to get the best from their images.
Well.....mine got some pretty damn good reviews too - they werent processed with HDR - they werent even taken with a wide angle lens!! :lol:

I havent used HDR, and majoritiy of it is overcooked. Some people. [looks up the list of those who have already posted ;)] Use HDR, and dont overcook it. Uses HDR on things most people wouldnt use HDR on - and doesnt scream that they use HDR - and I cannot tell which images are and are not HDR'd of theirs because they do not over-cook them.

It is something that I probably will have a "try" in the future - but I do wonder if there is this big HDR thing - because of the snobbery of some people [not just on this forum] when it comes to HDR - I now several people who have been asked [not by me] on how they achieved their results by using HDR, only to be snubbed.
Like Inaglo said - dont be so damn precious about it. :)
 
Dellipher, you've got it spot on there: if it doesn't need HDR then don't use it and if it does, make it look like it's not overcooked.

By the way, the re-processed shot (the moodier B & W one) is a techniclaly great shot IMO. :)
 
I'm sure on the 400D you can take the 3 exposures necessary for a HDR picture with only one click, could somebody point me in the direction of the correct menu settings as I'm thinking of having a play with this at the weekend, but have lost my manual. Does the camera 'physically' take 3 shots, or does it automatically process the 3 when you hook up to a PC??
 
I've only known about HDR for about 3 weeks and have had a go myself. Having looked at lots of other people's work it's fair to say that it can be overused and abused. You need a decent picture to start with rather than rely on the technology to improve it for you. I liken HDR to cross processing of old, when you discovered it you thought this is cool lets use it on everything before realising it only suits certain shots and you back off a little.

The thing is knowing when to stop messing about with the tone mapping. Having messed around with Photoshop and Photomatix it's obvious that you seem to get a more natural look in Photoshop using the curves and a more extreme look in Photomatix. I've only been out once to specifically shoot some HDR and have produced some obviously HDR shots and also some more standard looking ones which are less obviously fiddled with.

You still need a reasonable amount of skill and ability to take good shots in the first place.
 
candlestick said:
I'm sure on the 400D you can take the 3 exposures necessary for a HDR picture with only one click, could somebody point me in the direction of the correct menu settings as I'm thinking of having a play with this at the weekend, but have lost my manual. Does the camera 'physically' take 3 shots, or does it automatically process the 3 when you hook up to a PC??
Click to expand...

What you after is auto exposure braketing, you camera will take three photos in quick succession with different exposure levels for you to combine later. it's esential to keep the camera still so everything lines up so either a tripod or a convenient shelf/rock/window sill will help.
 
a1ex2001 said:
What you after is auto exposure braketing, you camera will take three photos in quick succession with different exposure levels for you to combine later. it's esential to keep the camera still so everything lines up so either a tripod or a convenient shelf/rock/window sill will help.
Click to expand...

Where abouts is that within the menu system??
 
candlestick said:
Where abouts is that within the menu system??
Click to expand...

Menu/Sheet2/AEB

Set it to 2

Then set camera to continuous shoot, hold for your 3 shots.

AEB is automatically turned off when you power off your camera, if you dont power off it will continue to shoot at different exposures.
 
if you use the self timer it will take all three in sequence after the 2sec delay
 
specialman said:
Dellipher, you've got it spot on there: if it doesn't need HDR then don't use it and if it does, make it look like it's not overcooked.

By the way, the re-processed shot (the moodier B & W one) is a techniclaly great shot IMO. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you very much :)

Tsukiyomi said:
It might still work though as a nice Image.:D
Click to expand...

:lol:
It might, and I did consider trying it - UNTIL the argument about HDR started on my forum, and I am now not trying it out of spite! :D
 
petemc said:
Despite all the good work produced by everyone else? :p
Click to expand...

:shrug: There's KenCo and I suppose me but I can't think of anyone else. :p;);)
 
I love HDR. I'm not ashamed to admit it either, I do agree that it is getting more widely used and the percentage of seeing a very over cooked example is higher these days. In my opinion it's not the best camera, or the best software or equipment that makes a great image, its the chimpin.

I'm quite fond of the sayings "one persons medicine is another's poison".

Also, "all good things in moderation"

and "you can't polish a poo" or more directly "crap in crap out".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top