Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photos' started by dave6253, May 10, 2012.
Nice flurry Dave
From yesterday in the PNW
Somewhere in Central Java-Indonesia
Overlooking Lake Okeechobee.
One of the added benefits of using a single exposure is that you never have to be concerned with ghosts. They don't exist there.
Absolutely! It never ceases to amaze me how much latent information is hidden within a single jpeg image. Going back over what I thought at the time were some pretty good photos when they were taken 6 to 10 years ago, and converting them into HDR's, the difference is astounding.
While RAW would undoubtedly yield even better results, unless you insist upon photos in the 99th percentile, a jpeg can be more than adequate for viewing over the internet... as Dave's examples prove.
There is no extra information in jpegs that you can't see in the original if you just brightened them or darkened them. Putting them through HDR software is not getting you any extra information and is not actually making an HDR image, all you are doing is tonemapping an image. HDR images are definded as having a larger dynamic range than a normal image so just tonemapping an image is not HDR.
There are different uses of the term HDR in photography. Saying a single JPEG cannot be an HDR may be technically correct with the strictest use of the term. If this is true, then a single RAW is also a Low Dynamic Range photo.
There is a broader definition of the term HDR and is more often what people mean when they use the term.
Notice it says "often" not always.
From Trey Ratcliff of StuckinCustoms.com:
Since Trey is probably the most popular photographer of the internet age you can probably blame him for the bastardization of the acronym of what used to be a technical term.
Did you guys know HDR photography techniques were pioneered as early as 1850!:eek1
People have been arguing over it ever since.
For most of us, if the detail doesn't display on our monitors, then it doesn't exist, even if the camera actually captured it. Even if I use HDR software to gain artistic effects in a photo that doesn't even have over and underexposed areas, I will continue to refer to them as HDRs.
I just think that the use of the term HDR for anything that is tonemapped (blame Trey!!!) is the reason HDR has got such a bad name. As soon as it became popular on the net people started churning out single jpg HDRs that were best described as clown vomit. I am not one of those people who insist on 100% photorealisim but im sure you know the type of images I mean.
The reason I really don't like the term is it is used to describe any image processed by HDR software now. There is non HDR software for example Topaz Adjust which are designed for tonemapping single images. Topaz adjust does not have HDR capability (cannot work on an HDRi file or merge images). It just tonemapped single images for effect. The result is that with a single jpg you are doing exactly the same thing using topaz adjust or with photomatix. Guess which one is called HDR and which isnt? If just running an image through the right program makes it HDR I could write a script that would run my whole image library through photomatix on the default setting and make my whole library HDR! In face my HDR images might come out as HHDR! It just diminishes the effort made by people doing "proper" HDR using tripods, shutter releases, calculating the amount of exposures needed etc etc then spending tones of time in photomatix/photoshop trying to fix all the imperfections and make a realistic looking image.
Anyway bitching aside as long as people are enjoying the images they are making it doesn't really matter. This thread has made me want to go out and takes some photos now, TGIF
I debated whether to post this or not, as it's a single frame, but I did play with it in photoshop using tonemapping and shadow/highlight, but I like the way it turned out.
I'd like to do more HDR photography, unfortunately my camera only does 3 frame bracketing.
Technically, you are correct. But be careful when you nitpick, as it can, and frequently will, backfire on you. Just sayin'.
"Clown vomit" can be churned out in disgusting volumes via a variety of methods, thanks to the proliferation of digital cameras with oodles of gigabytes of memory and programs like Photomatrix and Photoshop. But it is not exclusive to such. Some people can produce clown vomit with the barest necessities.
The purist will always look down on someone doing similar work by a simpler method. What matters to the viewer is the end result, not the method by which it was accomplished. And clearly, some viewers prefer extreme HDR/tonemapping effect while others prefer that such processes not be noticeable. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In the end, I will continue to call the photos that I put through Photomatix "HDR's" whether they are tonemapped, fused images, or technically correct High Dynamic Range composites. Reason: It's a heck of a lot quicker to type "HDR" than "tone-mapped".
Those kind people at Photomatix gave me a free licence for Pro. At last an advantage to working in Arts education. Any teachers/lecturers/instructors out there automatically get a 60% discount - which brings Pro down to the price of Essentials. If you teach/instruct photography (or as in my case) graphic design, you might well get a free licence. I know you can pick up a hack licence easily, but I always prefer to 'pay the price' for useful software so development can take place.
I've got to say, I'm really inspired by all your HDR'd pics, even the 'over-processed' ones I just need to get out and take some photos to experiment with now!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just playing with jpegs from last year's trip to Austria & Italy...
Don't sweat it. Your photo looks good. For me, the technical details of HDR aren't my thing - only that the photo looks good.
I've seen some that look life-like, others that look like water color paintings. Right or wrong, if the scene and effect looks good, it's successful.
I absolutely agree. Nice set crazyman.
blue72beetle, That is a perfectly cool use of HDR. The bike is sitting in the shadows and the background is lit by sunlight. The original probably looked pretty uninteresting. Very nice processing.
VERY creative use of HDR
Reality becomes part of the mural.
I'm just telling you straight up I'm going to steal this idea and try something similar myself
Been looking at this thread off and on and find the photos interesting as well as the debate as to what HDR "really" is and its legitimacy. Experimented a bit myself with it on landscape scenes thinking it would be my answer to the Dynamic Range limitations of cameras I've previously owned. I think I like both, the "fanatasy" type of processing as well as the "real". My own personal definition of "real" would be the ones where I can't tell it's HDR, which is what I was striving for and never quite got there. My current camera has enough DR in the raw files to pull shadows and tame highlights for what I do, so I kind of got out of HDR, but really enjoy looking at these.