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.
Isn't HDR "high dynamic range"? I understand what HDR is, since it's a very old technique to improve the dynamic range of film (years ago), and now digital photographs. I used three ND filters to achieve the same effect on film years ago.
So is using ND filters "fake"?
Quote:
One still can use the same filters with digital cameras, but it's a lot easier to shoot RAW and expose multiple identical images differently, and then let PhotoMatix do the rest. My point was that a digital sensor by itself is capable of higher dynamic range than film (explained in the link I posted), but film has an advantage on color rendition.
So does that make digital photography fake since it has great dynamic range than film?
Quote:
I am not arguing with you about the advantages/disadvantages of HRD to enhance ones photos (that was not my intention). I also agree with you that there is nothing wrong with including HDR for photo enhancing, if that's what one wants to do. I just don't consider HDR "natural" to photography , because it's nothing more than image manipulation past the sensor's (or film) capability. Lets say that I run one of Nik's Software plugins to enhance the look of any of my photos. In this case, and just like increasing the dynamic range (HDR) of the photo, I am just manipulating the image past natural to achieve a certain effect.
That's all I am implying, and have done so following the titled of the OP, which was as follows: Dramatic photography v.s. Natural "as seen" photography?
HDR and a bunch of other effects are "dramatic," simply because these are image manipulations to surpass what a sensor, film, and often what the human eye, can see.
What about shooting RAW? It's adds a stop or two over shooting JPG. In fact, to turn it into a JPG you have to tone-map it into the lesser dynamic range of a JPG using a RAW conversion tool. The result is an image that has a wider dynamic range than if you'd shot JPG. Is that fake?
What about Velvia and Provia films with have a higher color saturation than other kinds of film. Are they fake?
Again I will remind you that the eye can see 20 stop of light, but your camera sensor can show maybe 8 stops of light at the very most. That means the eye is more than 8,000 times more sensitive to light than your camera sensor is. So what's so "natural" about either film or digital photography, HDR, filters, wide color gamut film, etc? Why nothing. There's nothing natural about photography in the first place.
Quote:
-------
That said, I am not fan of HDR and consider it fake.
Heard ya. For me, HDR is just another one of many tools in my toolbox.
yep there is no absolute in photography. film was post processed by the labs so we didnt do it nor did we think about it but it was done..
the type of film gave you the look of your photos..i love velvia 50.....
some of that rivals what i do with digital .
if you print the guy running the printer sets things up to his specs and you get photos based on his calibration and auto corrections.
digital cameras are subject to the color profiles the manufacturer gives you if you shoot jpeg or the way you adjust it yourself.
nothing is produced the way it really is....
like i said,want proof ????? try to capture the red of a coke can just the way it looks... good luck! it still hasnt been done as far as i know with a dslr
I think the opposite about photos. I haven't noticed that photos are more gloomy. I don't do portrait photography/anyone posed or city photography, though. Would that be the type of photography that's more gloomy/dark in your opinion? Urban settings and portraits?
I'm addicted to the total opposite or what I call the comic book special effect when it comes to some buildings/structures and some unposed people but not scenery. Scenery doesn't lend itself to that effect, in my opinion. It's better applied to less busy objects/people. Super saturated, super contrast, black outline.
I think it has to do with the habit I suspect many of us have of most frequently viewing photos on a backlit computer monitor or on the camera screen instead of in print. I have yet to see a photo in print (unframed) that looks better than what it does on my computer monitor. The tendency is to want to make those flowers, birds and butterflies look more vivid with the backlighting. I usually punch up the photos I take during Fall foliage time on the computer, too.
My camera seems to oversaturate nature photos so to compensate, I deliberately dial down the saturation setting on my camera to a negative number. That means when I actually see the photo, I might use the computer to punch it up again. Sometimes, I worry it's too vivid/fake looking.
So is using ND filters "fake"?
So does that make digital photography fake since it has great dynamic range than film?
No. Filters aren't fake. What is fake is the result of using filters to change the photo into something that is not natural in relation to a photo taken with film or sensor. HRD is image manipulation to attain a certain effect beyond the capability of both film and sensor.
Quote:
What about shooting RAW? It's adds a stop or two over shooting JPG. In fact, to turn it into a JPG you have to tone-map it into the lesser dynamic range of a JPG using a RAW conversion tool. The result is an image that has a wider dynamic range than if you'd shot JPG. Is that fake?
RAW is not a fake. RAW is much like a film negative. Now, what you do with the RAW image can turn into a fake or not, although most photography applications don't alter the original RAW.
Quote:
What about Velvia and Provia films with have a higher color saturation than other kinds of film. Are they fake?
The film by itself is not fake, but the resulting image is. Again, when you look at a landscape through your camera's viewfinder, does the landscape look to you in a sort of "Velvia or Provia effect? On digital images, all you have to do is to manipulate the image to take a "polaroid, previa, velvia, or any other effect you like, but these are still fakes.
Quote:
Again I will remind you that the eye can see 20 stop of light, but your camera sensor can show maybe 8 stops of light at the very most. That means the eye is more than 8,000 times more sensitive to light than your camera sensor is. So what's so "natural" about either film or digital photography, HDR, filters, wide color gamut film, etc? Why nothing. There's nothing natural about photography in the first place.
Heard ya. For me, HDR is just another one of many tools in my toolbox.
Again, I will remind you of the OP, which was titled as follows: Dramatic photography v.s. Natural "as seen" photography?
HDR effects are far from natural. HDR by itself, ND and polarizer filters (plus other special effects filters) aren't fake. What is fake are the results or effects of using HDR. HDR effects are just one in a myriad of photographic effects. All you have to do is to look at the thousands of plugins one can use with PhotoShop and other applications. All of these plugins can be used to achieve a certain look on a photo to make it look different than the original image.
And I don't disagree with you that HDR effects nor plugins are just tools one can rely on, because this is true. I just don't like HDR effects as much as I don't like the milky look of flowing water in photos (another photographic effect).
No. Filters aren't fake. What is fake is the result of using filters to change the photo into something that is not natural in relation to a photo taken with film or sensor.
I'm assuming what you did with the 3 ND filters you mentioned previously was to balance the exposure of a landcape. Correct? You darkened the sky and foreground so that the entire range of the scene could be captured by your camera. If that is correct, then you've changed the scene and using your definition, that's fake.
Quote:
HRD is image manipulation to attain a certain effect beyond the capability of both film and sensor.
RAW is not a fake. RAW is much like a film negative. Now, what you do with the RAW image can turn into a fake or not, although most photography applications don't alter the original RAW.
Wong. RAW images have a larger dynamic range than do JPGs, so by definition must be manipulated to map into a JPG space. I don't know about you, but I spend a LOT of time in the RAW converter extracting all the range out of my photos that I can. Your notion about not altering RAW data is nonsensical to me. A RAW image cannot be viewed on a computer screen, except within a RAW aware application like Adobe Camera RAW for example. Somebody has to make the transformation to JPG space. If that's not you, then evidently you are simply choosing the converter's default settings. But that in no way is "more natural" than if you set the parameters of the conversion yourself.
Quote:
The film by itself is not fake, but the resulting image is. Again, when you look at a landscape through your camera's viewfinder, does the landscape look to you in a sort of "Velvia or Provia effect? On digital images, all you have to do is to manipulate the image to take a "polaroid, previa, velvia, or any other effect you like, but these are still fakes.
Again, I will remind you of the OP, which was titled as follows: Dramatic photography v.s. Natural "as seen" photography?
HDR effects are far from natural. HDR by itself, ND and polarizer filters (plus other special effects filters) aren't fake. What is fake are the results or effects of using HDR. HDR effects are just one in a myriad of photographic effects. All you have to do is to look at the thousands of plugins one can use with PhotoShop and other applications. All of these plugins can be used to achieve a certain look on a photo to make it look different than the original image.
And I don't disagree with you that HDR effects nor plugins are just tools one can rely on, because this is true. I just don't like HDR effects as much as I don't like the milky look of flowing water in photos (another photographic effect).
It's telling that you don't like the milky look of flowing water too, as that's done most typically with ND filters, which you've already proclaimed as "not fake".
Honestly Ray, your definitions of "fake" and "natural" seem arbitrary and contradictory to me. I'm sure you have some logic there, but it alludes me. At this point I'll just say, to each his own.
I'm assuming what you did with the 3 ND filters you mentioned previously was to balance the exposure of a landcape. Correct? You darkened the sky and foreground so that the entire range of the scene could be captured by your camera. If that is correct, then you've changed the scene and using your definition, that's fake.
Wong. RAW images have a larger dynamic range than do JPGs, so by definition must be manipulated to map into a JPG space. I don't know about you, but I spend a LOT of time in the RAW converter extracting all the range out of my photos that I can. Your notion about not altering RAW data is nonsensical to me. A RAW image cannot be viewed on a computer screen, except within a RAW aware application like Adobe Camera RAW for example. Somebody has to make the transformation to JPG space. If that's not you, then evidently you are simply choosing the converter's default settings. But that in no way is "more natural" than if you set the parameters of the conversion yourself.
It's telling that you don't like the milky look of flowing water too, as that's done most typically with ND filters, which you've already proclaimed as "not fake".
Honestly Ray, your definitions of "fake" and "natural" seem arbitrary and contradictory to me. I'm sure you have some logic there, but it alludes me. At this point I'll just say, to each his own.
Again, a filter by itself is not fake. What is a fake is what results from the use of a filter, which is exactly what I used to do with ND filters and film.
I have never said that RAW images don't have more dynamic range than JPEG images (reread my post). All I said is that most applications leave the original RAW image intact by default so you don't screw it up. This way you can go back to the original over and over again. I don't use the JPEG format for any of my photos, except for cases such as posting in this forum or e-mailing them. I work straight from RAW to TIFF, 8-bit through 32-bit.
And yes, you can use ND filters for the milky effect. But in low light situations you don't have to use ND filters, and still create a milky effect (which is another fake). You can do it without a filter, with the camera on aperture priority and shutter priority as well (camera on a tripod).
We just have to agree and disagree, because over and over I have posted the OP's title as reference. HDR photography, in relation to the OP, stands on the dramatic side of things as much as every one of Nik's plugins for LR and CS5 (and a whole bunch of other plugins). All can be used to alter a photo to attain a certain effect or look, just like it's done in HDR photography.
Last edited by RayinAK; 08-24-2010 at 12:12 AM..
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.
