Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Clodhopper, May 23, 2011.
And I think even then the only real problem is the overuse.
That's not too far from saying that a piece of furniture crafted from wood by a master is still a tree. Patently it isn't.
Sorry, should have been more detailed. Fujifilm HS20 bridge camera. Has bracket mode that stacks exposures into one final image I have read in reviews.
What you are doing I believe does fit into HDR. But it can be done so that the viewer is not aware the DR has been helped. Some photographers raise the DR to a level that then produces a noticeable effect.
So I am assuming you are commenting on when the HDR is very noticeable as a effect.
Yes it is too far - absurdly too far. To return it to photography, it's saying that the print is still a tree, not a representation of an image in paper form,
I have to agree about 125% with this
hang on that's overuse of percentages isn't it.....
The wood that the master began with isn't a tree either but they are both chunks of wood.
I'm not sure which post you think is absurdly too far but if it was mine then I disagree. OK I pushed it a long way, attempting to be a little humorous, but the fundamental truth is, er, true. The raw material and the finished statue are still stone. The tree, the piece of 4 by 2 and the furniture are all wood. The original image, the print, the projected version, the sepia version and the HDR version are all photographs. to claim otherwise is the absurdity.
If you actually go back and read my post, you'll see which post I was replying to, and it wasn't yours, because:
I quite agree.
OK but even re-reading it's not entirely clear to me. It is clear, of course, that you quoted TimF.
Glad that you agree.
Click on the little arrow thingy icon next to the poster's name in a quote and it takes you to the post being responded to.
I like it:
The HDR scene modes on my compact takes 3 shots and puts them together in-camera...great fun IMHO
I don't often do HDRs with a DSLR but have had a go. I can usually get away with using a graduated filter and prefer to minimise editing time....I like the old fashioned way more.
Those I quite like Andy....not overcooked at all
It's a HDR out a point and shoot....honest
Yes, I am commenting on HDR which is achieved through software which can produce a very "unrealistic" appearance. However, this can be very effective for some shots. I wouldn't really consider using grad filters to hold back the sky or exposing part of the image for less time to be true HDR in the modern sense, and I suspect most people would agree?
But manipulation of images is nothing new - use a soft focus filter or blur it a bit in photoshop, it's still distorting reality...
The main grump with HDR seems to be the "unreality" factor. Like I've said before, I'm not a fan because it tends to produce a rather gritty, bitty and harsh image. I'm heading the other way and softening and smoothing my images more these days.
Skimming through this thread only convinces me that I am right to stick to loving my dog and hating slugs.
Although Andy has illustrated something I have long maintained. That cameras are far more capable than the majority of users.
I like having the option to bracket shots and HDR is an easy way to make up for not taking my filters with me, I do like to try to keep them looking natural if possible. Some overcooked HDR shots that I have seen have looked good but a lot just look spoiled. I think as long as the person who took the picture is happy nothing else matters.
I wouldn't really consider using grad filters to hold back the sky or exposing part of the image for less time to be true HDR in the modern sense..!!
If I can tell it's HDR, it's been taken too far, IMO.
I used to be a fan of Joe Cornish's work, but I came across some of his greetings cards yesterday, which struck me that he's been tempted down the HDR path. Pity, it's restricted my choice, but I did find one which was acceptable.
Separate names with a comma.