Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Crawl to the top  (Read 2897 times)

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2856
Re: Crawl to the top
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2012, 04:47:10 AM »

I have posted HDR images on this site to favourable review.
When I have let on that it was processed using HDR techniques surprise has been expressed along the lines of - "it doesn't look like an HDR image."

Personally I have no interest in the so-called "grunge look" that is obviously so hated.


Tony Jay

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: Crawl to the top
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2012, 10:47:56 AM »

Despite my complaints about HDR and the terrible things it does, it's worth noting that Ansel Adams essentially did it. He, simply did it appropriately, and only to a degree that it was invisible to the naive viewer. You simply believe the appearance of a wider tonal range than is possible, unless you really start looking closely.

I agree with this. The zone system was developed to squeeze more information out of a scene that normally isn't possible. HDR is the same thing but like anything else more is not better and used in moderation HDR can do things for digital that the zone system did for film.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10075
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Crawl to the top
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2012, 02:09:39 PM »

Ah, yet another thread to veer into the why-I-hate-HDR discussions ;)

But that's OK, I hate it too (except when I use it ;D).

So... allow me to chip in and re-post what I said about a year ago, for the benefit (or not) of newer members (and with apologies to the old ones):

... HDR defenders would often say "let's not confuse bad HDR (aka saccharin, nuclear, etc. HDR) photography with good HDR photography". My view on this, admittedly extreme:

There is no good HDR photography! If it is that good, it is not perceived as HDR. If it is good AND perceived as HDR, it has, more likely, already crossed from photography into digital art. And again, that's cool... there are people who love digital art.

If i want to be generous to HDR and mellow the above statements, I would qualify them as pertaining to HDR resulting from the use of automated methods, rather than manual blending.

What's my beef with (automated) HDR? In a word: EVERYthing.

Good thing about HDR: tones down highlights and opens up shadows. Enhances details and colors.

Bad thing about HDR: tones down EVERY highlight and opens up EVERY shadow. Enhances EVERY detail and EVERY color.

It is like the difference between pornographic and erotic: some things are simply more exciting when covered, hidden or hinted.

Emphasizing  everything defies the very nature and purpose of photography. It is often said that painters add and photographers subtract. Namely, a painter starts with a blank canvas and adds elements, but only those he chooses. A photographer, on the other hand, is faced with a world in front of him with too many already existing elements, hence he needs to simplify, subtract and hide those unimportant ones, by lens and standpoint selection, composition, and, often, post-processing. HDR, by revealing everything, reverses that effort and defies the purpose...
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up