Talk about HDRI

  • Thread starter Thread starter TONYmkPhoto
  • Start date Start date
T

TONYmkPhoto

Guest
How do you think of HDRI? Do you think it is helpful to make high quality pictures?

Which HDRI software do you choose for making HDRI photos?
 
I think if it's done well, it can produce some stunning images.....
If it's done badly or on the wrong style of image, it looks naf.

I'm no expert and all my HDR images (using the Photoshop automation) look crap.
 
PS CS2 HDRI function does not work very well from my experience. If we choose a nice HDRI software, we can have very nice image quality.
 
TONYmkPhoto said:
Do you think it is helpful to make high quality pictures?
Click to expand...

Ofcourse not, to agree would be to say any image not buggered up by HDR is of low quality anyway, which is rubbish, obviously.
HDR is only marginally useful photographically.

hmm...cheese and onion

:popcorn:
 
joxby said:
HDR is only marginally useful photographically.
Click to expand...



I totally agree with this statement

:thumbs:

Except where it's totally wrong

:lol:

The HDR technique is only marginally less useful than having a camera in some instances; and completely unnecessary in others

DD
 
Ive never heard it called HDRI before. I assume the I stands for Image after the High Dynamic Range.
 
In the research area, HDRI is very hot topic and HDRI related topics are very popular in every year's Siggraph conference. Thus I think it is not just marginally useful photographically, otherwise big money in research would not be invested in this area.:)
 
There must be a point where an over manipulated image is no longer a photograph, it becomes something else since there is virtually nothing left of the original.
Digital art maybe ?
So for making pictures (digital art) its an excellent tool, for photography, its useful to a point.
Where that point is, is up to you I suppose..
Oh, I dunno, peeps don't think about it much these days, it suits them better to say anything goes.
 
HDR is a technique and a style. (IMO, there was a thread on what it was a little while ago)

As a style (when done hard) it can produce more 'digital art' style shots, that can bear little resemblance to the original image. It can be argued that B&W (a style) could also be classed as digital art, as when did you see a B&W landscape?

As a technique, when done to enhance detail/shadows i'd say it's a very useful tool, sometimes it's impossible to know someones used it. In this way I would say it ws no different to using the levels/curves/saturation/etc. tools in PS.

So yes, I think it helps make high quality picture, be they 'digital art' or photographs with a slight HDR to them, just like any other technique.
 
Amp34 said:
It can be argued that B&W (a style) could also be classed as digital art, as when did you see a B&W landscape?
Click to expand...

B/W is a......style.
like....colour is a style ?
Its not digital art, its simply a B/W photograph, historically unavoidable.
Non of my b/w landscapes are digital art, heck, they're not even digital:lol:
A photographic style is created over a period of time, it isn't defined by the medium you use or the processing you employ. imho
You might have a processing style:)
B/W is a medium you choose, not a photoshop filter

there's a thread about that somewhere too...:lol:
 
joxby said:
B/W is a......style.
like....colour is a style ?
Its not digital art, its simply a B/W photograph, historically unavoidable.
Non of my b/w landscapes are digital art, heck, they're not even digital:lol:
A photographic style is created over a period of time, it isn't defined by the medium you use or the processing you employ. imho
You might have a processing style:)
B/W is a medium you choose, not a photoshop filter

there's a thread about that somewhere too...:lol:
Click to expand...
:lol:

No, colour is what's there, B&W is a style, just like HDR. Both are not what you see in real life. Yes historically it was the only way of taking a picture, but it still doesn't negate the fact it isn't faithful to life.:)

Ok yes, not all B&W is digital but I would say it is more 'art' than a standard colour photograph, therefore digitally shot B&W is 'digital art' in my book.

Talking only about digital here, B&W is not a medium, it is very much a photoshop style (a digital RAW is never in B&W). Even film B&W (nowadays) is a concious decision by someone to shoot something that way.:)
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:naughty:

Digital will never catch on, film is king!

...now where did I put those multiple exposure negatives I just processed.

HDR, its not really new, don't you know. ;)

...thats my opinion.
Click to expand...

Multiple exposures on negatives...hurr, that's not going to work, film doesn't work like that, you'd need to take separate exposures, digitize them and HDR them to get the same effect, well, any effect, exactly the same as digital.
But why would you want to, HDR was developed to improve the dynamic range of digital photos to match film, but y'awl went a bit mental with it, so your licence has been revoked:lol:
But hey, whatever, this isn't a film v digital discussion...and I'm not arguing for or against either, so why are you ?
probably not doing Tonymk any good either:schtum:

Amp34 said:
:lol:

No, colour is what's there, B&W is a style, just like HDR. Both are not what you see in real life. Yes historically it was the only way of taking a picture, but it still doesn't negate the fact it isn't faithful to life.:)
Click to expand...

It doesn't make it a HDR pixel wash cycle & 1200 spin at 60 degrees either.
Was it a "style" when there was no colour.:)

Amp34 said:
Ok yes, not all B&W is digital but I would say it is more 'art' than a standard colour photograph, therefore digitally shot B&W is 'digital art' in my book.
Click to expand...

All photography is art, b/w is no more art than colour, the fact it is shot on digital is irrelevant.

Amp34 said:
Talking only about digital here, B&W is not a medium, it is very much a photoshop style (a digital RAW is never in B&W). Even film B&W (nowadays) is a concious decision by someone to shoot something that way.:)
Click to expand...

Some DSLR's shoot b/w, can't quite see the point in it though.
Out of everything, I find calling b/w a style, the oddest way to look at it, and a degrading for those that shoot it by choice and are masters at it.
Be damn dull if we all thought the same rubbish though:thumbs:
 
What is this HDR of which you all speak?

I think this can be debated until the cows come home (they have been out all night, the naughty girls!) but there are always going to be people who hate it and people who can see its usefullness....and then the people in between. Personally I love it and find it really usefull.
 
joxby said:
Multiple exposures on negatives...hurr, that's not going to work, film doesn't work like that, you'd need to take separate exposures, digitize them and HDR them to get the same effect, well, any effect, exactly the same as digital.
But why would you want to, HDR was developed to improve the dynamic range of digital photos to match film, but y'awl went a bit mental with it, so your licence has been revoked:lol:
But hey, whatever, this isn't a film v digital discussion...and I'm not arguing for or against either, so why are you ?
probably not doing Tonymk any good either:schtum:
Click to expand...


I know how it works :thumbs: I was kinda jesting....not arguing at all. ;)

I was trying to make the point, that merging exposures to cover a greater dynamic range isn't a new thing, photographers have been bracketing and altering, layering and masking exposures for effect from day one in the dark room, the new digital version of that is simply called HDR.

--

I disagree with all you guys on the 'natural' factor though, and 'the original image' statement. ... what makes you think a traditionally processed shot is as it should be? ...its certainly not as your eyes saw it ...is it?
It because we're taught to understand what is correct and incorrect right...
.... I could easily argue, that HDR does in fact produce photographs nearer to reality, certainly nearer to what the eye sees.
 
I think it all depends on the strenght of the effect. Unfortunately digital sensors don't have the dynamic range that our eyes have.
I sometimes use HDR just to boost the dynamic range of the photo. I don't really like those photos where you can tell they where processed for HDR and I am sure you know which photos I mean.

This was HDR.
2293078223_7fe906c124.jpg

I didn't want to give it the HDR effect, i just wanted to retain detail in the shadow areas. I didn't have any studio gear at the time and I had to improvise with desk lamps and my flash and still didn't get what I was aiming, so I used 3 differently exposed photos in Photomatix to get the effect I was after.
 
I agree with Forbiddenbiker. Some people say that HDRI is not real, because we are not completely familar with HDRI. We have been seeing conventional image for a long time and always think the photos should be like that style. However, if we carefully compare the conventional photo with real scene, we can find that the difference is huge.

Also, i think that some current HDRI is not real because that quite a few them are over-cooked. If we can avoid this and take the advantage of HDRI (bright out all tones together), I would like to say HDRI is not just digital art. :)
 
I'm of the opinion that HDR has gone from being a 'cult' extension of software-based manipulation, to now being a way that every Tom, Dick & Harry can jazz up what is usually a totally crap shot.

You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear as they say...
 
specialman said:
I'm of the opinion that HDR has gone from being a 'cult' extension of software-based manipulation, to now being a way that every Tom, Dick & Harry can jazz up what is usually a totally crap shot.

You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear as they say...
Click to expand...

So like photography when digital came out. Like photography when Photoshop came out, when Photoshop Elements came out making it cheaper. Music used to be cool but now anyone can sing. Painting was great until someone pointed out the paint shop selling cheap brushes. Sure it's more popular now days but it doesn't mean that there aren't talented people using it.
 
people do the same with converting to black and white, cause loads of blown areas or the colours dont look good.... i think processing whether it be cross processing, black & white or HDR etc.. can make or break a picture.
 
Which software do you choose to making HDRI? Let discuss this a little bit. :)
 
PeteMC, I'm just saying that there are a lot of shots that wouldn't make it wihtout HDR. You're right, there are some great exponents of HDR, but a lot of poor ones too.
 
specialman said:
PeteMC, I'm just saying that there are a lot of shots that wouldn't make it wihtout HDR. You're right, there are some great exponents of HDR, but a lot of poor ones too.
Click to expand...

I realise what you're saying but my point was that its not a problem with HDR, its a general problem that can be related to almost anything. BitTorrent is a brilliant delivery system for large files, but it got twisted by piracy. Music is amazing but anyone can destroy a song with a guitar if they think they can play when they really can't. Not everyone is creative, but we are all given the chance to try.
 
Surely its all about perception. As has already been mentioned, there is an argument to say that hdr will actually produce a picture much closer to what your eye sees than any camera could. The fact that technique is used to go on and push the limits to create something more artistic is something that can be appreciated when done with skill. If people are getting it wrong, well its a learning curve and afterall, who exactly has the right to say what is right and wrong?

Lets take art, the sort with paintbrushes - I like many of the old masters type paintings, the sort where the final result looks like the scene that was being painted [and even there, they would push the limits on high and lowlights to achieve the result they wanted], yet stuff like Picasso's work leaves me cold because it has no meaning to the original subject for me personally but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why other do like it - its personal taste - and in this day and age, with the greater accessibility to digital techniques for the masses, people have access to these resources and they won't go away, so surely the best idea is to encourage creative ability and mastery of the technique, because soon enough the next one will be along, and just maybe, you will wish they had never got past hdr ;)
 
joxby said:
It doesn't make it a HDR pixel wash cycle & 1200 spin at 60 degrees either.
Was it a "style" when there was no colour.:)
Click to expand...

Yes in a way, because it is a certain way of taking a shot. Actually on that i'm half inclined to take back my 'colour isn't a style' comment, as in a way it is, but I wouldn't see it as quite such a style as B&W (I know that doesn't really make sense..):lol:


joxby said:
All photography is art, b/w is no more art than colour, the fact it is shot on digital is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to disagree, most art is yes but not all, a forensic shoot of a crime scene isn't art for example. People rarely take shots in B&W for non art photographs but do with colour (not that all colour shots aren't art). Colour being the default in our time. I would class a style as something that an artist specifically chooses their shot to be, eg. B&W, solarised, high/low key etc. You make a specific move to process the shot in a certain way to get the shot you want.:)



joxby said:
Some DSLR's shoot b/w, can't quite see the point in it though.
Out of everything, I find calling b/w a style, the oddest way to look at it, and a degrading for those that shoot it by choice and are masters at it.
Be damn dull if we all thought the same rubbish though:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Why do you class using a style degrading? What's so bad about using a style, most artists seem to have a specific style(s) they work with/use most. It's not a bad thing by any means.
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
What is this HDR of which you all speak?

I think this can be debated until the cows come home (they have been out all night, the naughty girls!) but there are always going to be people who hate it and people who can see its usefullness....and then the people in between. Personally I love it and find it really usefull.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the same as any other 'style'. Be it B&W, duotone, high key etc..

I think it has the stigma attached to it because it's a relatively new technique (that can create HDR style pictures). Just wait until it is displayed regularly in art galleries and I bet the stigma will vanish.:lol:
 
Amp34 said:
Just wait until it is displayed regularly in art galleries and I bet the stigma will vanish.:lol:
Click to expand...

Hasn't happened yet. I've exhibited mine a bit including the National Media Museum. I know a guy who's been published by the Smithsonian magazine and works for Getty. Its a very long process to establish something.
 
petemc said:
Hasn't happened yet. I've exhibited mine a bit including the National Media Museum. I know a guy who's been published by the Smithsonian magazine and works for Getty. Its a very long process to establish something.
Click to expand...

Exactly, by regularly I meant over say 20-30 years. The more HDR becomes 'mainstream' and the more gallerys display them the more they will become accepted.:)

Colour was once upon a time though of in the same way, well now look...:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top