Hdr

HIMUPNORTH said:
I don't want to come in and add fuel to a fire here however there is a misunderstanding between HDR and Tone-mapping.

As cameras extend their dynamic range (thus becoming hdr) and is commonplace we will stop referring to HDR as an opt-in post process but will decide how we want our image to be represented in dynamic range terms as part of our picture taking. This situation (or similar) being the case we can say that HDR is here to stay.

Tone-mapping however will most likely remain within programs like Photomatix or as plugins for Photoshop and will, similarly, remain a thing for one's taste.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely, and so you might see why I find Les's HDR bashing a little tiresome. A matter of taste will rarely be a matter of fact.


HIMUPNORTH said:
I don't like the mud-slinging here and think you should apologise Benneh for the strength of your comments however Les you too should be aware that you appear almost Pythonesque in your dislike of HDR
Click to expand...

I can understand why you would see my comment as being abrasive, and if I honestly thought that I was in the wrong I would apologise (I'm really not a confrontational person). But I don't see the point. Regardless of whether I apologise or not Les will be along in a fortnight or so to troll another HDR discussion. My comment may have been a bit strong, but in comparison to the mild fear a person gets when choosing whether to add the letters H-D-R to a TP thread title I think I might have been quite easy going! (and I think you'll find it's rarely the unbiased/pro HDR members that kick up a stink). I don't seem to find it on other tog forums?.

In short, as I said earlier: I'm sure Les is a fine fellow, but he is a little OTT when it comes to HDR, and it's a bit full on.
 
Les McLean said:
I take your point (to some extent), but isn't it far better in the process of helping develop your skills as a photographer, to make mistakes , particularly in exposure, learn from them and strive for a well balanced exposure rather than rely on HDR to try and 'rescue' an image?
Click to expand...

How far do you take that though?

Don't use photoshop because it's doing things you should achieve with your skills as a photographer? Ever corrected the white balance? Why didn't you get it right in camera? Ever adjusted the levels? Why didn't you get it right in camera? Ever used curves for more contrast? Why didn't you get it right in camera?

etc. etc.

edit - I also think, were you presented with some well processed natural HDR and some non-HDR you'd struggle to tell the difference. I purposely very rarely say if i've used HDR on a picture but I bet you couldn't tell on a lot of them.
 
Well, I have a different opinion, therefore I must be trolling with Les..:razz:
I don't think anyones arguing the use of basic edit tools.
But the same line you personally draw, applys to them all, be it HDR, Saturation, Contrast whatever.
A photo with the contrast blasted up to an un realistc level, is exactly the same as a radio active blue HDR, the fact that the HDR image looks great as a picture and the high contrast image looks crap, is irrelivent.
Is a HDR image still a photograph ?, I think so, provided the scene is believable.
If it isn't believable, or is clearly manufactured, its not a photograph, it becomes something else...digital art maybe...I dunno...the scene doesn't exist, how can it be a photograph, what would you call it ?
I like all images, but it is often tempered by the feeling I'm being conned in to believing that the scene exists because it is poporting to be a photograph, when infact very little photograph still exists.
I'm all for a bit of exaggeration during processing, but not to the point where it is clearly fantasy.
And thats the trouble, peeps have different ideas about where that line is.
IMO, just because the base image began life as photograph, doesn't mean it still is one after "processing".
I defend everyones right to draw their own line where photograph ends and digital art begins....or not draw a line at all.
 
I don't personally have a problem with people who say they don't like HDR.
Not at all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I have a problem when people make statements like "not a process that's taken seriously in mainstream photography" and "has not produced any results that have merit".

The first comment is just snobbery, whether you like it or not.
Now both of those comments were made by Les, and this isn't a personal attack on you before you think it might be.
Its just, not accepted in mainstream photography?
Who decides what mainstream photography is?
It just reminds me of a situation where there are a bunch of kids wearing similar clothes, and one kid gets the **** taken out of them because they dared to wear something else.
Or the situation where the artists would stand around with their easels and their pallets and totter on about 'fine art', and then the photographer would come in with their camera, but the photographer's work wasn't considered art because it was a different medium.
 
OK, what the heck is HDR? Can someone explain it to me or point me in the direction of a website that explains it?

Oops, sorry, just found a thread lower down.
 
Originally Posted by Les McLean
I'll definitely accept HDR as a way of processing and presenting images when I see some evidence it works...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Les McLean
I really need to eat my hat, I think for the first time ever, I've seen a set of HDR images that work, and that I like.
Click to expand...

Would you like red or brown sauce with your hat?
 
Ive read this whole thread and to be honest i cant see any personal attacks at all.

Les made a blasé comment about "not being accepted into mainstream photography", this is his opinion but obviously not fact. This comment was challenged and rightly so. Unless Les is the director in world photography he cannot make that statement.

Every HDR thread that appears has this same problem and certain HDR haters always involve themselves in the threads. Why dont they just ignore HDR threads if they dislike HDR so much?

Personally i think HDR when used well is another good tool, just like photoshop, shooting in RAW, filters, ND grads.....etc
 
HDR done good = good

HDR done bad = bad

Don't see the arguement really. It's just another form of postprocessing. If you've ever used photoshop or any other post processing package on your images, you have no 'right' to vehemently bash HDR. Just my tuppence worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top