Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yep, when i tried that here non of the naysayers were able to pick the right photos...... the hdr's were the most natural of the bunch because they had full dynamic range to them..
what folks dont realize is that there are many ways to process those hdr images. exposure fusion, merges or detail enhancing are just a few. its the light inversions from the detail enhancing that give it that phoney cartoon look. all the other methods are as natural as can be except blacks are black and whites are white without being rendered in grays as the camera will normally do when both are in the same scene.
these are all hdr, the last one is 9 exposures to capture the white snow and black lightpost.
I can easily tell that the first 2 shots are HDR; the last one is harder, but it makes sense as it was shot in the snow.
But this is not the type of HDR I meant. Many HDR's are overdone, in my opinion. I wouldn't say these look like SOOC shots from experience, but I wouldn't describe them as overdone. Very nice work!
you could never get that dynamic range in any of them sooc..... the lighting overwhelmed the sensor in all 3..... you would have blown skies or crushed shadows but the one as good as i could get it exposure looked nothing like what my eye could see or even what was presentable as a good photo.. it took multiple exposures to encompass the scene those days
The flaw in your argument is that if it's a good HDR, you can't tell. So you really have no idea how many HDRs you've actually seen or what percentage you like or dislike. Like Mathjak says, we can post 10 pictures and you won't have a clue which ones are HDR or not.
This is true. If well done and very subtle, HDR is ok. But when you can actually tell it's HDR, it's already too much, imo.
The flaw in your argument is that if it's a good HDR, you can't tell. So you really have no idea how many HDRs you've actually seen or what percentage you like or dislike. Like Mathjak says, we can post 10 pictures and you won't have a clue which ones are HDR or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thHour
This is true. If well done and very subtle, HDR is ok. But when you can actually tell it's HDR, it's already too much, imo.
HDR is like makeup--if you can tell it's there, it's too much. Maybe not true to everyone's taste, but certainly to mine.
As for natural pictures, I've always wondered if people even perceive colors in the same way. I only know that blue is blue because that's what everyone has agreed on. A blue shade to me may look to you what I call red, and since there's no way for us to exchange brains I'll never know. All of which is just a long way of saying--the impact of an image is highly subjective.
I can easily tell that the first 2 shots are HDR; the last one is harder, but it makes sense as it was shot in the snow.
But this is not the type of HDR I meant. Many HDR's are overdone, in my opinion. I wouldn't say these look like SOOC shots from experience, but I wouldn't describe them as overdone. Very nice work!
The first 2 it is very obvious, it was very obvious the first time they were posted as well. First time posted they were larger and it was very easy to pick out in #1 the left side double imaging that occured, look closely at the statue. #2 again a double imaging issue, right side of frame in the vertical tree line. There was another image posted in reference to this same topic where the original single exposure was just too dark, the multiple exposure presented the same double imaging throughout the frame, much worse than the first 2 examples here. If I recall it was a tunnel shot with a man walking on the opposite side in the right of the frame. The 3rd it is difficult to tell and even in the larger original post there is no obvious indicator.
Im in no way picking on your work Math, I think most of your stuff is very well done. The first 2 examples here are not your best examples.
HDR is far or off from what the human eye can perceive. While a camera sensor can "see" light and shadow quite well when compared to the human eye, HDR and other software stuff is what turns an image from natural toward artificial. The human eye cannot perceive a landscape (for example) the way a HDR landscape looks like, since the eye is closer to what's captured on film or by sensor. Another example: wear a set of polarizing sunglasses, and look at what's in front of you. Take them off, place a circular CPL over the lens, and take of the same thing you just have seen. If you have exposed the photo properly, more than likely the resulting image will be similar to what you had seen when looking at the landscape through polarizing eyeglasses.
Look at things through a set of "Transition" gray or brown eyeglasses, and then take them off. You will certainly notice the difference, as it seems that without the glasses you can't hardly see in a bright and sunny day. So, while the human eye can see quite well, it's sort of blinded just the same by too much light. The same for a sensor.
HDR is far or off from what the human eye can perceive. While a camera sensor can "see" light and shadow quite well when compared to the human eye, HDR and other software stuff is what turns an image from natural toward artificial. The human eye cannot perceive a landscape (for example) the way a HDR landscape looks like, since the eye is closer to what's captured on film or by sensor. Another example: wear a set of polarizing sunglasses, and look at what's in front of you. Take them off, place a circular CPL over the lens, and take of the same thing you just have seen. If you have exposed the photo properly, more than likely the resulting image will be similar to what you had seen when looking at the landscape through polarizing eyeglasses.
Look at things through a set of "Transition" gray or brown eyeglasses, and then take them off. You will certainly notice the difference, as it seems that without the glasses you can't hardly see in a bright and sunny day. So, while the human eye can see quite well, it's sort of blinded just the same by too much light. The same for a sensor.
Sorry, Ray. I disagree. There are two issues here.
First, a DSLR can record around 8 stops of light. You computer monitor can display around 9 stops. Film, 10 stops. However, the human eye can adapt to 20 stops of light. So no, a digital camera doesn't come anywhere even close to recording what your eye can see.
Secondly, in one fell swoop you have dismissed HDR as having unnatural characteristics without even considering the possibility of how it's used. HDR strength and processing settings can span the range of almost zero change to the image on one extreme, to totally surreal on the other. Have you ever used an HDR tool? Photomatix for example has dozens of controls that can be combined in an infinite amount of ways to generate any effects or enhancement you like. It's just ludicrous to brush the whole paradigm off with a wave of the hand like you've done. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that Photoshop was a dirty word too. People would proclaim "oh, that's been Photoshopped!", as if somebody had done something impure to a photograph. That's exactly what you're doing with HDR. HDR done right can bring a scene closer to what your eye actually perceives without being overdone. I think most folks participating in this thread understand this.
Sorry, Ray. I disagree. There are two issues here.
First, a DSLR can record around 8 stops of light. You computer monitor can display around 9 stops. Film, 10 stops. However, the human eye can adapt to 20 stops of light. So no, a digital camera doesn't come anywhere even close to recording what your eye can see.
Secondly, in one fell swoop you have dismissed HDR as having unnatural characteristics without even considering the possibility of how it's used. HDR strength and processing settings can span the range of almost zero change to the image on one extreme, to totally surreal on the other. Have you ever used an HDR tool? Photomatix for example has dozens of controls that can be combined in an infinite amount of ways to generate any effects or enhancement you like. It's just ludicrous to brush the whole paradigm off with a wave of the hand like you've done. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that Photoshop was a dirty word too. People would proclaim "oh, that's been Photoshopped!", as if somebody had done something impure to a photograph. That's exactly what you're doing with HDR. HDR done right can bring a scene closer to what your eye actually perceives without being overdone. I think most folks participating in this thread understand this.
My point was as follows:
a. Look at a landscape in the middle of the day with a lot of sunlight, then put on a pair of polarized sunglasses and look at the same landscape. Do you notice how much better you can now see without having to squint?
b. Take a photo of the same landscape without a polarizer, and then take another photo with a polarizer on.
While the human eye can adapt and see a lot, it can also be blinded by light just like a sensor can.
Also, there are sensors capable of seeing in the dark a lot better than a human eye can. The technology is there, but it's expensive. And yes, I use PhotoMatix and one of Fred Miranda's actions, but by using these you are not only surpassing the sensor's capabilities by the capabilities of the human eye, therefore adding to the unnatural look of an image. Why? because the human eye is not capable of perceiving a landscape (for example) in HDR. Finally, digital sensors have already surpassed film IQ (the last paragraph): http://www.all-things-photography.co...explained.html
Last edited by RayinAK; 08-20-2010 at 10:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
