1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HDR

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by geoid, May 27, 2011.

  1. geoid

    geoid Well-Known Member

    I've just been peeping at ephotozone website. they have some stunning galleries over there, very nice photographs. But everything ( including the macro shots) or at least it looks like everything has some HDR noodlings. It certainly covers up a lot of flaws, and makes for a certain depth and colour on most photographs.

    I like it, but I get the feeling that it's a second to take the shot, 2 hours of faffing with photoshop afterwards! Is this what good photography is? Post processing skills?
     
  2. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Partly - in the 'old days' a good neg meant one with the capacity and latitude from which to print the desired effect. This would mean test strips and a certain amount of dodging and burning (techniques whic can be replicated digitally). I think in that sense, things have not changed - a good digital image starts with a raw or dng file that has the information to manipulate into the finished result.
    What is different is the ease with which anyone can easily access and use digital manipulation, often to good effect but the opposite is also true! Time, nowadays, is an increasingly rare commodity and many of us do not have the time to spend getting it right at the point of taking - so we look to 'sort it out later'. It's also true that modern digital cameras and processing are a lot more forgiving than film and chemicals. Bottom line, I believe, is that the most effective time is spent looking through the viewfinder, not at the computer screen.
    One final comment - I don't think HDR photos per se are unappealing, but the technique I currently in vogue and therefore, much more likely to be misused (IMHO):)
     
  3. geoid

    geoid Well-Known Member

    Yes. Well put! Must say, think I'll visit that site more often. Looks good. There is macro picture from biker11 on there, wonder if its Andrew?
     
  4. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    I have just had a look at ephotozine and stumbled upon their HDR Landscape Photography Tips page - the sample "photo" they use is absolutely AWFUL, IMHO. It just shows what is wrong with HDR - HDR done properly (i.e. balancing out the over and underexposed areas of a photograph) should show a natural looking picture, not this awful rubbish - it reminds me of the pictures on a CD of Photochrome images I bought off eBay some time ago (and never used) - this is not photography, it is more akin to computer drawing.

    I hope this fad soon dies out.

    http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/...phy-tips-16521/images/Castle_on_the_coast.jpg
     
  5. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    HDR = "Highly Dubious Rubbish" :rolleyes:

    BigWill
     
  6. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    :D:D:D

    I seem to find that the only HDRs I like are the ones that I didn't immediately recognise as HDR......
    .....I suppose that's the point with most (any) techniques - they should aim to enhance the original shot, not be an end in themselves...!?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
  7. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Here is a JPEG picture that I manipulated using a method shown to us at my camera club. It takes about 5 minutes, and equalises the exposure and doesn't look like HDR. The first picture has overexposed sky, which has been corrected in the second picture.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  8. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Great example Roy - Illustrates the sort of thing I was talking about.
    Cheers.:D
     
  9. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    It is truer to what your eye thinks it sees, than to what a camera does.
     
  10. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    however I prefer the original, which takes some looking at, than the (I agree, quite subtle and well done) follow up. Why do we need this if the tones exist enough in the original?

    "Course the haloed amateur botches that proliferate do not count, but these two are sutle, both acceptable, but still I like the one 'as taken'
     
  11. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Have to say I prefer the original too, though the difference is slight. It just seems to have a touch more depth than the reworked version. If they were black and white I can imagine the second might be on the blandly grey-ish side.
     
  12. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Good question. It is not a great example of where HDR really helps. If you wanted that lightness (which I agree is very flattening), you could easily get it with selective levels.
    Shadows add modelling and give depth to a picture, so you remove them at your peril.

    This is my 5min, not being very careful, answer using levels, curves and a dab of contrast:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    !! on the button, rover (are you a super collie that does photoshop?) that is exactly what I meant - lovely result using digital equivalents of what we would have done with a print 50 years ago, totally believable and enhances the (quite good really) original. But that's this particular case, as you rightly say, didn't really need HDR in the first place ('cos it was well exposed - lesson learned?)
    That's not to say that a stylised interior with a sunlit garden thru' the windows hasn't got a dynamic range that does require HDR, just that its overuse is not the best method.
     
  14. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Al, Isn't there a contradiction here?
     
  15. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Not me....although might have a look around later. Haven't been on there.

    Have been out shooting a few HDRs this last week or so though.....
    [​IMG]
     
  16. lisadb

    lisadb Well-Known Member

    Great example Andy. :)
     
  17. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Thanks Lisa....the HDR scene mode gets well used on my compact.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Some scenes are a bit much though....
    [​IMG]

    I had a DSLR and tripod with me but about all I managed to achieve was swap the halo round the hills for a double impression of the tall tree on the right:eek:
     
  18. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    dear Daft Biker;
    the first folly shot is fine (envious dribbling) the second less so but still very good.
    the square block tree is really nice, observation composure act all spot on.
    The mountains with the outline effect sorry ugh - like a digital version of boiling film in Beutler developer, a true offense to the composition (which I have to admit, was really fetching)
    Good juxtaposition of effects; square tree = HDR almost invisible, result lovely, the edged mountain one = the effect swamps the shot and ruins it.
    You have done a good job of revealing the case at hand, very well done (wish I had half your process skill)
    cheers Sir!
     

Share This Page