HDR... a soapbox discussion moment.
Discussion
...Mole... said:
Thought I'd open a can of worms.
HDR - it's bloody great, but it's not a photographic representation is it?
I mean, it never, ever, ever looked that way did it.
It sure is art, and I know of the time and effort that goes in (been there)... but in 30 years, I bet you (at least a pound) that we'll be sick of 'fabricated' photography and will want things to look 'right' again.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Using HDR to digitally blend photos to get the image to look as it looked to us is one thing, but this trend for massive 'art attack', is almost a different branch to photography... but does it tell the real story?
Most HDR photos I see these days look almost impressionistic. Again, 'nout wrong with that - but IMHO nature does it best, not 5 photos and Photomatix.
OK, We've been using techniques to enhance photographs and film to emphasise our take on what we see since the French accidentally invented it. But I'm starting to get a little bored of Top Gear's OTT techniques, and for the first time am starting to look at photos now and just think: Yea, but it's just HDR.... Give me a real photo.
Discuss.
(Ducks for cover)
Too often it's used to attempt to hide core composition failings of a photo.
99.9% of HDR photos I've seen are technically poor shots, and the photographer tries to rescue them with excessive PP.
As a learned friend of mine often says; "sh*t in, sh*t out - you can't polish a turd".
I do however think that in camera HDR is possibly the future.
99.9% of HDR photos I've seen are technically poor shots, and the photographer tries to rescue them with excessive PP.
As a learned friend of mine often says; "sh*t in, sh*t out - you can't polish a turd".
I do however think that in camera HDR is possibly the future.
ofcorsa said:
devils advocaat
says what we see in a jpeg/raw is never how our eyes really saw it anyway?
says what we see in a jpeg/raw is never how our eyes really saw it anyway?
...Mole... said:
ofcorsa said:
devils advocaat
says what we see in a jpeg/raw is never how our eyes really saw it anyway?
Good point but I think there is a good mid point between jpgs and HDR. I don't see things like most HDR photos I have seen and I think most people over process them. I prefer to see HDR used sparingly and not as in your face as most are.says what we see in a jpeg/raw is never how our eyes really saw it anyway?
It does have it's place but I think it is a bandwagon that people have jumped on big time but I do like the picture in the OP.
I think it's a bit of a grey area.
Where HDR can be great is to enhance PP so that what the shot shos is very close to what the photographer saw. In these cases is shouldn;t be evident that HDR was actually used.
Where it is more excessively used, it usually stands out as an HDR shot rather than one with standard PP, and this is where people opinions vary. It's also where the discusions about HDR come in.
Personally I think the Ford digger shot is the dogs danglies, and it gets away with it even though it has obviously been through the HDR processing plant on the way.
Where HDR can be great is to enhance PP so that what the shot shos is very close to what the photographer saw. In these cases is shouldn;t be evident that HDR was actually used.
Where it is more excessively used, it usually stands out as an HDR shot rather than one with standard PP, and this is where people opinions vary. It's also where the discusions about HDR come in.
Personally I think the Ford digger shot is the dogs danglies, and it gets away with it even though it has obviously been through the HDR processing plant on the way.
this is the original photo i created this image from. when i took the shot i had no intention to make and HDR image out of it( which is why i generated it from three files from one exposure instead of seperate exposures. I preffered the result of the HDR image to the original one.
I just see HDR photography as a way of expanding what you can create with a camera and thats the way i intend to use it and is why i have only created 2 HDR images to date.
I think its all just a matter of what people enjoy to look at, not whats right or wrong.
Whitefly Swatter said:
ofcorsa said:
...Mole... said:
stunning picture.the other 99% of the stuff i see however, look gash.
i guess for me, it's ok to use it in a subtle way as above,to compensate for the limits of our sensors.
Edited by Scho on Wednesday 3rd September 17:30
GetCarter said:
DucatiGary said:
i really like moles fantastic contribution and hope they don't stop posting pics after this thread!
Nor me. As I said... a really great photo!(we love mole)
but not in a gay way, right?
Whitefly Swatter said:
Think back to the good old days when you dogged in the sky and held other areas back on the enlarger table
I think you mean dodged - but in fact we usually used to burn in (ie darken) the skies, and dodge (ie lighten) other parts.These days you dog in the local car park. Or at least they do around here.....
Every time I see an image (and it's obviously been HDR'd) I wonder what was actually wrong with the original shot. I suppose it's like Warhol's Campbell soup painting - we know what a can of soup looks like but when you mess with the colours it takes it to a different perspective. HDR does exactly that - the same image is there but it's been worked so it looks different.
The above shot is nice though - but I doubt very much that's how it was when Mole took the shot.
Would be interested to see how much post processing had actually taken place though
The above shot is nice though - but I doubt very much that's how it was when Mole took the shot.
Would be interested to see how much post processing had actually taken place though
The art will always follow the technology.
My field of work is in audio recording. The theory follows is video/photography too.
Audio recording spent 50 years using technology to try and recreate as accurately as possible the original music. They then realised that the technology could be used creatively to do something different. Instead of using a microphone at a distance to emulate what the ear would hear, now 95% of recordings are made with a microphone within a few feet of the sound and instruments mixed together that were never played at the same time.
Thats what the punters want though.
My field of work is in audio recording. The theory follows is video/photography too.
Audio recording spent 50 years using technology to try and recreate as accurately as possible the original music. They then realised that the technology could be used creatively to do something different. Instead of using a microphone at a distance to emulate what the ear would hear, now 95% of recordings are made with a microphone within a few feet of the sound and instruments mixed together that were never played at the same time.
Thats what the punters want though.
For me HDR is just one of the tools we can use to convey what we want in the image.
For instance I really like the image posted at the top of the thread. I know it's been processed as HDR but I like it, it's a good image in it's own right.
Looking round the web 99% of what has been done for HDR is not to my taste. I personally prefer the very subtle use so you can hardly tell it's been done, but that's just me.
To give you a slightly different example I went to a Turner exhibition recently and after a while you get the feeling that he developed a look of the sky that he wanted and after that painting, a very similar sky appeared in a number of his works. I suspect he painted that from memory rather than was lucky enough to have very similar lighting and could formations for each of the sketches he did
See Turner knew about layers before Photoshop was even invented.
There's very little new in the world of art I suspect.
Chris
For instance I really like the image posted at the top of the thread. I know it's been processed as HDR but I like it, it's a good image in it's own right.
Looking round the web 99% of what has been done for HDR is not to my taste. I personally prefer the very subtle use so you can hardly tell it's been done, but that's just me.
To give you a slightly different example I went to a Turner exhibition recently and after a while you get the feeling that he developed a look of the sky that he wanted and after that painting, a very similar sky appeared in a number of his works. I suspect he painted that from memory rather than was lucky enough to have very similar lighting and could formations for each of the sketches he did
See Turner knew about layers before Photoshop was even invented.There's very little new in the world of art I suspect.
Chris
I think that photographers have been using HDR style techniques for decades using dodging and burning to bring out or darken different areas to get the overall exposure they wanted. The difference was that if this was done well it was largely was invisible.
With some HDRs now I think that we're looking at the technique rather than the image - I've no issue with that but the only HDR images I actually tend to like are those not obviously created this way.
dumbfunk
With some HDRs now I think that we're looking at the technique rather than the image - I've no issue with that but the only HDR images I actually tend to like are those not obviously created this way.
dumbfunk
Shaolin said:
. I hate the stupid graduated filters of Top Gear.
why do you hate them so much? ND grads expose the sky better. Far preferable to a pure white burnt out sky. Video cameras have a very poor contrast ratio compared to film, so for me, nd grads are essential filter. I do think top gear over do it sometimes, and use heavy grads when they could have used lighter ones, but that said, theyre going for a certain look tooThe best HDR shots for me are the ones that most people think they're just a normal photo. I say most as quite a few of us here look at a lot of photos and will spot the tell tail signs. It's a good tool, but mostly misused.
For example :-
How many different exposed shots do you think where used here? 1, 2, 5? You can't tell, and most people would say 1. That's good in my book.
The danger with HDR is the same as 99% of those Photoshop filters that we all try once when a new version comes out. All we're really doing is trying to make a bad photo better, and unsurprisingly 99% of the time failing.
The photo in question?
I'd say it's good. It's obvious to us it's HDR because our photo brains are saying 'Hang on, the front of the JCB looks lit as does the grass around it, but the Sun is obviously behind it. Ha, you're HDR and I claim my £5!'.
But, here's a thought for you. What if we found the effect was produced buy using a bloody great light on the end of a pole pointing from top left?
For example :-
How many different exposed shots do you think where used here? 1, 2, 5? You can't tell, and most people would say 1. That's good in my book.
The danger with HDR is the same as 99% of those Photoshop filters that we all try once when a new version comes out. All we're really doing is trying to make a bad photo better, and unsurprisingly 99% of the time failing.
The photo in question?
I'd say it's good. It's obvious to us it's HDR because our photo brains are saying 'Hang on, the front of the JCB looks lit as does the grass around it, but the Sun is obviously behind it. Ha, you're HDR and I claim my £5!'.
But, here's a thought for you. What if we found the effect was produced buy using a bloody great light on the end of a pole pointing from top left?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff