Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 07, 2011, 12:35:37 am
-
Hi,
I started on writing a small article on using HDR tone mapping on ordinary non HDR images. I have most of the images in place, but will fill in more text.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image
The image may be slightly psychedelic, but the ideas may be useful.
Best regards
Erik
-
A question for discussion. Why is tone mapping on this image (or any other) any different than using the myriad of tone and color controls available in Photoshop, Lightroom and Capture One? It seems to me that HDR is one more tool for the photographer to deliver her/his message, feeling or emotion.
Nice job Eric.
-
Hi,
Best info I have found as for now, regarding "Local Adaption":
"This is the most flexible method and probably the one which is of most use to photographers. Unlike the other three methods, this one changes how much it brightens or darkens regions on a per-pixel basis (similar to local contrast enhancement). This has the effect of tricking the eye into thinking that the image has more contrast, which is often critical in contrast-deprived HDR images. This method also allows changing the tonal curve to better suit the image."
Quotation from this article: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm
Best regards
Erik
A question for discussion. Why is tone mapping on this image (or any other) any different than using the myriad of tone and color controls available in Photoshop, Lightroom and Capture One? It seems to me that HDR is one more tool for the photographer to deliver her/his message, feeling or emotion.
Nice job Eric.
-
Effectively it is (local) dodging and burning.
-
From my limited experience most images that have had HDR techniques applied to them didn't - from a technical sense - need them. As previous posters stated there are simpler techniques available. I have posted images on Flickr that viewers thought had been through HDR but was only a little aggressive PS. This is where most advocates of HDR go amiss. They choose images that don't need HDR and the technique as a whole gets panned.
-
Hi!
The problem I have with this image that it is very boring without the techniques described. If you happen to read the article you may understand the issue a little better. The idea with the article is to share experience, someone may find it useful.
Best regards
Erik
From my limited experience most images that have had HDR techniques applied to them didn't - from a technical sense - need them. As previous posters stated there are simpler techniques available. I have posted images on Flickr that viewers thought had been through HDR but was only a little aggressive PS. This is where most advocates of HDR go amiss. They choose images that don't need HDR and the technique as a whole gets panned.
-
A question for discussion. Why is tone mapping on this image (or any other) any different than using the myriad of tone and color controls available in Photoshop, Lightroom and Capture One? It seems to me that HDR is one more tool for the photographer to deliver her/his message, feeling or emotion.
Nice job Eric.
I think it is useful to distinguish between A)the synthesis of exposure bracketed images, and B) the application of fancy tonemapping to render the HDR source into LDR. Most people mean both A) and B) when saying HDR, and that makes it more difficult to discuss things like this.
I see no reason why e.g. Lightroom cannot offer tonemapping-like controls for HDR and single-shots alike. In fact, I would be surprised if it does not happen soon. The main (only?) difference is that you can "go further" if the source is a large series of brackets, if the scene is demanding.
As have been said, tonemapping is generally local (as opposed to global), non-linear and adaptive. But it is perhaps fair to say that tonemapping algorithms tries to automate what photography editors "with good taste" does when dodging and burning: lift out interesting details from the shadows, clamp down seemingly clipped areas, maximize the visible information _while_ keeping the look somewhat natural. My take on this is that regular LDR images shown on LDR displays with little curves/levels applied is actually a special kind of global tonemapping: clipping the shadows and highlights (if present). It is a very intuitive way to do it, and one that we have been historically brought up on, but nothing warrants a fundamentalistic view that it is always more "realistic", while any other tonemapping operators are "artificial".
Are there any cases where the scene is e.g. 100:1 DR, and the display/paper is 100:1 DR, but we may want to artificially limit the DR to something less for artistic reasons? If such cases can be argued for, then we have a very similar case to radio stations that limit 16-bit CDs to 5-6 bits of effective DR prior to transmitting them on a 16-bit capable digital radio channel.
-h
-
Lr already does offer such tools. For example, Fill Light and Clarity work on the whole image, but are locally adaptive to the scene content. There are also local tools (e.g., local Exposure) for local tuning. All of these are really tone mapping or "tone management" tools.
-
Lr already does offer such tools. For example, Fill Light and Clarity work on the whole image, but are locally adaptive to the scene content. There are also local tools (e.g., local Exposure) for local tuning. All of these are really tone mapping or "tone management" tools.
Yes, you are right. And by my own arguments, even curves and levels found in most image editors is similar to the tonemapping operators found in HDR applications. But there seems to be significant differences in parameters, feedback and end-results?
But I dont think there is a meaningful way to apply them to "raw" bracketed exposures? One is forced to use an external application to synthesize the exposures and process it into LDR (or at least some manageable intermediate format).
-h
-
Hi,
I don't think I could achieve the same effect using local adjustments, simply because I'm not good enough at using local adjustments.
The idea with the article was more to illustrate that HDR mapping can be used in this way.
The image below is made from a single exposure, just using Lightroom tools:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/20100805-DSC07994/1002864735_dkeci-XL.jpg)
While this one is from three exposures at two EV apart using "Merge to HDR" in CS5:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR/20100805-DSC07993/966794997_wt4h6-XL.jpg)
The image on top is from the darkest exposure in the series.
Best regards
Erik
Lr already does offer such tools. For example, Fill Light and Clarity work on the whole image, but are locally adaptive to the scene content. There are also local tools (e.g., local Exposure) for local tuning. All of these are really tone mapping or "tone management" tools.
-
Erik,
I'm puzzled by the fact that the clouds are so much better-defined in the second image, made from multiple exposures.
Jeremy
-
If Erik was to go back and start from scratch and re do the two images and then inspect them he would - I am confident - find differences between all four. This is the Achilles heel of his original post. The isn't a definitive way of processing images.
-
Hi,
The first image is made using LR controls from the "-2 EV" image. The second one is using "Merge to HDR" with "Local Adaption" from three exposures in CS5.
So the two images are produced by very different means. The first image is produced by using graduated filter and extensive adaption of clarity on the clouds.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I'm puzzled by the fact that the clouds are so much better-defined in the second image, made from multiple exposures.
Jeremy
-
Hi,
I never said that there is one definitive way to process images. The original article just described one way to utilize a couple of methods.
This was the original posting:
"Hi,
I started on writing a small article on using HDR tone mapping on ordinary non HDR images. I have most of the images in place, but will fill in more text.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image
The image may be slightly psychedelic, but the ideas may be useful."
Best regards
Erik
If Erik was to go back and start from scratch and re do the two images and then inspect them he would - I am confident - find differences between all four. This is the Achilles heel of his original post. The isn't a definitive way of processing images.
-
Eric I am not criticising your effort to relate something but HDR is a controversial subject and I think you won't win over many people to your way of thinking? The subject has been debated to death and possibly/probably been documented more extensively. You haven't chosen a little known technique to throw illumination on. I also suspect that - not me - there are members here who know/think they have better knowledge on the subject. Good luck.
-
... using HDR tone mapping on ordinary non HDR images.
+1: Expanding the dynamic range of a single RAW file (http://imagingpro.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/expanding-the-dynamic-range-of-a-single-raw-file/)
Lr already does offer such tools. For example, Fill Light and Clarity work on the whole image, but are locally adaptive to the scene content...
No mentioning of Recovery ...
--
-
I was just mentioning examples, not meant to be exhaustive. ;)
-
I recently discovered SNS-HDR Pro. I have most of the popular HDR programs or have at least tried them. SNS is by far my favorite due to its masking capabilities. I had a single exposure image which I could not easily get the effect I wanted using LR and PS so I decided to split it into two exposures, shadows vs highlights, and import it into SNS to work on it. I got very good results.
Masking in SNS has one very powerful feature called 'Intelligent selection'. Yes it is intelligent and works very well, a surprise considering all the disappointments one encounters with market speak about all the new 'magic' tools. It works similar to the auto masking available for the local brush in LR, except that this really works. I have noticed no halos using these masks.
If I were processing Erik's image here is how I would approach it:
Low exposure and high exposure images imported into SNS.
Use setting Neutral or Natural. Adjust exposure slider and highlight recovery and other sliders to get best image.
Create first mask. Use intelligent selection to select rocks. One click of the paint bucket tool would probably work in this case. In cases where you get to much selection you can try right clicking on the unwanted area if it is significantly different than the area you want This will remove that area from the selection. Or you can use the brush with intelligent selection off and paint the area out holding the right button down. Or you can invert the mask and paint away the offending areas normally-this works good because you can see the bad areas more easily on the green overlay. Anyway there are lots of ways to easily get a good mask. This is remarkable to me considering that SNS is still in its infancy and is still missing lots of features. For example, you cannot change the brush size (oft requested), you must enlarge the view to get the effect of a smaller brush. I consider the masking outstanding and I am a intensive student of masking techniques.
With the first mask made, make a copy and invert it. We now have masks for the sky and the rocks. You can work each mask separately, changing exposure, contrast, local contrast, details, saturation, black points, color temp... almost everything. I would play with the sky area by playing with the sliders to see their effect. Midtone contrast, microdetails, and microcontast would probably have the most effect.
Then switch to the rocks mask and do the same.
Probably have a decent image by now but there is more that can be done. Create a new mask and use intelligent selection to select the blues of the sky. Now you can lighten/darken the blues, add saturation, change the hue, change the color temp and so on. As long as you don't go insane, the changes will blend in seamlessly. Note that I now have two masks for the sky area: the whole sky and just the blues. Making changes on one may involve going back to the other to adjust for effect. It is an iterative process.
Do the same for the rock area. I would like to see the highlights on the rocks brought out a little more. Increasing contrast seems to lead to a harsh result so I would try selecting a prominent highlight area as a mask and work on that.
Depending upon what you want to achieve you can get very natural results or go over the top.
Forgive my long post but I am really stoked over this program and no, I do not have any affiliation with this program. I just want to get the word out that it is worth checking out. That said, a few warnings. There is little documentation available. You have to learn by trial and error but it is not too bad. It took me awhile to figure out that the right button press converts the selection tool to erase. The rest is pretty intuitive as you can see the effects as you move the sliders. The little colored boxes beneath some sliders allow you to change the color effects by dragging points up or down, ie increase yellow saturation but nothing else. There are some major things still missing such as chromatic aberration removal, variable brush size, etc but there are usually workarounds. The developer has said he is working on these things and updates come frequently so expect things to get better. He seems to be a one man band but has done excellent work.
Some other things I have noticed. The control over color is very well done. Unlike some of the other programs, the color transitions are smoother, not harsh and contrasty. The colors have good saturation but don't look garish. Control of highlight recovery is well done. I shoot into the sun a lot for sunrises and sunsets. On some programs the transition from the sun to bright sky areas gets all funky-banding and weird colors introduced such as sun area, a red/yellow area around the sun (normal), the a greenish area (not normal), the back to the red sky. I have not noticed this with SNS.
I have attached a recent example that I did in SNS. Multiple exposure catch, I think I used two exposures in SNS. I almost deleted this image as out of the camera it looked pretty worthless. Now I rather like it. Made extensive use of masks and it did not take too long to process.
Erik, if you are still here would you be up to sending me the file? I would process it as I normally would and would keep track of the steps in tutorial form and post the results. It would be interesting to see what could be pulled out of it. I would aim at a fairly natural rendition a little on the dramatic side.
Larry
-
Hi,
Here is the original DNG image, with my initial adjustments.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Psychadelic/20100801-_DSC7524.dng
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik, here is a quick edit. I used 6 masks, none of which took over a minute or two to create. I tried too keep the look similar to what you sent. Notice the extra detail in the rocks. I selected a bright area of one of the rocks to create a mask. The mask contained only the rock highlight areas so one pick did it. I then lightened and adjusted midtone contrast of the rocks mask slightly for a little more snap.
Also note the whites in the sky selected with one click. I opted for more contrast in this area but I could have made it as soft as yours if desired. None of the whites are blown. Seemed to achieve good detail in this area. The sky mask was made with one click selecting a blue. Brightness was reduced and saturation increased. Increased color balance warmth-more for the foreground and less for the sky (to keep good blues). One click selection of golden grass tones-played with saturation and brightness.
Took into LR. I usually make my final tweaks there as I know how it is going to print for there. Increased contrast slightly, added a little vibrance, and put a graduated filter on the foreground grass running diagonally (-.5). Reduced saturation of blues slightly as I had too much in SNS. Cropped to 16:9 as yours. So you like the 16:9 ratio? I use it quite frequently as I use a GH2 and the aspect ratios can be changed very quickly without any penalty for cropping. This allows me to see the final composition in the camera without trying to visualize what the crop would look like.
I could have gone many different routes with this image, all quickly and without too much effort.
But the image I was referring to was your second image on Dec. 8. I think I could do more with that.
If there is enough interest, I will put together a PDF with screen shots and how the masking process works. If not enough interest, skip it, for it is a lot of work to put together.
I could have probably obtained a similar result using just LR and PS but this was much easier.
Thanks
Larry
On looking at the conversion after posted, it looks a little flat and could use more foreground staturation. Oh well, I don't usually process for the web, I usually print anything that is worth anything. In other words for the web I would push it more over the edge for more drama and to compete with other images. For the web, I think you can get away with this as the image is usually on viewed briefly. In print it lives a longer life and the jarring impact wears thin.
-
Here is a quick adjustment done on a virtual copy in LR. Increased color temp warmth, increased fill light, increased brightness, and increased vibrance. It has more of the look of a low, warm, diffused sun rather than a dull overcast.
Larry
-
Larry,
Here are the "U-boat images". This rock from Gotland (Sweden) reminds me of an U-boat ;-)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Articles/U-boat_1/
Thanks for sharing!
Best regards
Erik
Erik, here is a quick edit. I used 6 masks, none of which took over a minute or two to create. I tried too keep the look similar to what you sent. Notice the extra detail in the rocks. I selected a bright area of one of the rocks to create a mask. The mask contained only the rock highlight areas so one pick did it. I then lightened and adjusted midtone contrast of the rocks mask slightly for a little more snap.
Also note the whites in the sky selected with one click. I opted for more contrast in this area but I could have made it as soft as yours if desired. None of the whites are blown. Seemed to achieve good detail in this area. The sky mask was made with one click selecting a blue. Brightness was reduced and saturation increased. Increased color balance warmth-more for the foreground and less for the sky (to keep good blues). One click selection of golden grass tones-played with saturation and brightness.
Took into LR. I usually make my final tweaks there as I know how it is going to print for there. Increased contrast slightly, added a little vibrance, and put a graduated filter on the foreground grass running diagonally (-.5). Reduced saturation of blues slightly as I had too much in SNS. Cropped to 16:9 as yours. So you like the 16:9 ratio? I use it quite frequently as I use a GH2 and the aspect ratios can be changed very quickly without any penalty for cropping. This allows me to see the final composition in the camera without trying to visualize what the crop would look like.
I could have gone many different routes with this image, all quickly and without too much effort.
But the image I was referring to was your second image on Dec. 8. I think I could do more with that.
If there is enough interest, I will put together a PDF with screen shots and how the masking process works. If not enough interest, skip it, for it is a lot of work to put together.
I could have probably obtained a similar result using just LR and PS but this was much easier.
Thanks
Larry
On looking at the conversion after posted, it looks a little flat and could use more foreground staturation. Oh well, I don't usually process for the web, I usually print anything that is worth anything. In other words for the web I would push it more over the edge for more drama and to compete with other images. For the web, I think you can get away with this as the image is usually on viewed briefly. In print it lives a longer life and the jarring impact wears thin.
-
Erik, here is a quick version of the U-boat rock image done in SNS. This is a three image HDR.
I completed a tutorial explaining how SNS masks work. I don't have a web site so don't know how I will distribute it to anyone who wants. It is 7.2 mb in size and a PDF.
Thanks
Larry
-
Erik, here is a quick version of the U-boat rock image done in SNS. This is a three image HDR.
I completed a tutorial explaining how SNS masks work. I don't have a web site so don't know how I will distribute it to anyone who wants. It is 7.2 mb in size and a PDF.
Thanks
Larry
Only had a quick look, but very, very nice. I would be very interested. One suggestion would be to get a free DropBox account. You then could provide a link to the file in this forum.
Andrew
-
Hi,
You can put it on my website if you want.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, here is a quick version of the U-boat rock image done in SNS. This is a three image HDR.
I completed a tutorial explaining how SNS masks work. I don't have a web site so don't know how I will distribute it to anyone who wants. It is 7.2 mb in size and a PDF.
Thanks
Larry
-
Link to SSN Tutorial.PDF
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8ETvhCd81aFMTUyMTU4OTctZGQxZS00NTBmLWE5MDgtMDIwNWM1ODA3M2I4 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8ETvhCd81aFMTUyMTU4OTctZGQxZS00NTBmLWE5MDgtMDIwNWM1ODA3M2I4)
It is on my google plus account. I new to this so don't know if this works. Under 'file' drop down at the top is the option to download. Images are too small on google to see what is happening. Viewed full size in a PDF gives a much better idea.
Larry
-
The Google download works just fine for me.
Very nice, clear description of the process. I think I will try out SNS.
Thanks for posting this.
Eric M. (not Erik K.)
-
Larry... or anybody,
From my own limited experience with HDR (Photomatix, CSx) I find that the tone mapping required to render the synthesized bracketed images to LDR either end up giving unnatural results or require a lot of work to end up with a naturally looking end result. Often all I really want to do is something conceptually simple - equivalent to using layers for digital blending to synthesize split neutral density filters. However this cannot be done if you use LR and at any rate I find the process relatively complicated.
Are you aware of any plug-ins that allow blending to be achieved quickly? Does SNS-HRD allow that? I had hoped that Photomatix Exposure Fusion would do this, but I find that the results still need a lot of work.
Thanks
R
-
I find that I get the most natural results using SNS. I have purchased Nik, Photomatix, Oleoneo, and CS5. I have tried the 30 day trials of a couple of others that did not make the grade.
The natural preset as it comes out of SNS is a very good starting point. My approach to processing the file is to conceptualize it into areas of interest and to work on each area separately. You have to pay particular attention to the sliders microcontrast, microdetails, and midtone contrast. There is a tendency to pump them up and say "Wow! Look at the increased sharpness and detail." But this comes back to bite you with a non-natural look. I tend to take some of these down a bit from defaults if the area is say in shadow. If the area were brighter I might bring them up a bit. You tend to see less detail and sharpness in shadow, so this is what you expect in the image. Bright areas are just the opposite. The beauty of working these areas with mask is that you can have both in the same image. Other programs I have worked in raise the details globally which is OK is some parts of the image but not others. Then you have to do a lot of work to balance things out. The same goes with saturation. Dark areas are naturally less saturated, bright areas more so.
Although I really like SNS I must warn some about its warts. Little documentation or online info on how to use it. But it is fairly intuitive and playing around goes a long way to fixing that. There is no undo! At least that I have found. Again you develop workarounds. The brush sizes are not changeable-you must enlarge the view to get the same effect. No chromatic aberration removal. You must do that in LR and then export .tif's into SNS. No LR integration means a somewhat awkward workflow if you need to export .tif's into SNS. And a few other things that I may have forgotten. But the good news is that the developer has stated that he is working on many of these things. Considering that the developer appears to be a small one man outfit in Poland it is remarkable what he has already come up with. So, considering that, it is understandable for the lack of some feature. He does come out with frequent updates that address some of these shortcomings.
The good points:
Very natural results if desired.
The masking tool is awesome!
Many controls that address a wide range of adjustment possibilities. For example, the brightness, midtone contrast and few other tools have an option to effect only the brighter ranges. For example, saturation, has the option to effect only the saturation of the brighter areas. This is just the kind of thing that is useful and parallels how we see things.
I have not noticed any halos or artifacts - yet.
The blending of the very high areas is very smooth with little banding or color shifts. I shoot into the sun frequently and other programs have resulted in banding around the sun area which shows harshly and often with weird colors introduced. For example, I have often gotten slightly greenish bands around the sun area. I have reprocessed some of these files and have gotten excellent results without this banding problem. You can checkout and example here on this forum (without the color shift, but showing smooth transitions). Look at Erik Kaffehr CS5 version of the rock image. Look at the sunspot. The look at my SNS version latter in the post.
The controls are generally pretty intuitive and easy to use. I've used others that I had a hard time figuring out what the controls did or they forced you into some convoluted workflow. Had to do things in a certain order and going back to make adjustments was a pain.
If I seem over the top in pushing this program it is because I want this guy to make money. I want him to be able to keep pushing out all this good stuff so that I can use it. Or maybe Adobe to buy him out or hire him and bring this stuff to LR and PS.
Check out my SNS-Tutorial (post above), it will give you an idea of how the program works and its results.
Larry
-
Hi!
I'm impressed by your processing, but my "aimpoint" differs from yours. I want to keep the rock in the foreground dark, but with ample detail.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, here is a quick version of the U-boat rock image done in SNS. This is a three image HDR.
I completed a tutorial explaining how SNS masks work. I don't have a web site so don't know how I will distribute it to anyone who wants. It is 7.2 mb in size and a PDF.
Thanks
Larry
-
Erik, I respect your artistic vision. As I said, it was a quick conversion. I often process an image and then look at it latter and think to myself "What was I thinking". It usually takes me a couple of rounds with time in between to come up with a final version.
Anyway, here is a version with the rocks darker. It was very simple to do. One click on the dark rocks to create a mask. Bring down the brightness and play with the other sliders to get something that looks good. I could have easily gone darker, had the highlights brighter, or one of many different variations. It all depends upon your final vision.
I was initially focused on the area around the sun spot and how well SNS handled it. I've had problems with sort of thing in other HDR programs.
What impresses me the most is the quality of the mask and ease of creation. Note that there are no halos between the sky and rocks. I have considerable experience in creating masks in PS and and I could not have done as well with manual masking without considerable manipulation and time spent.
Subsequent changes are easy in SNS if you save your original SNS file in their proprietary format (.sns). You can then reopen the original file and make changes and then export to tif for LR or PS. So I reopened my original file and just made changes to the rocks, the sky I was happy with so no changes.
Larry
-
Are you aware of any plug-ins that allow blending to be achieved quickly? Does SNS-HRD allow that? I had hoped that Photomatix Exposure Fusion would do this, but I find that the results still need a lot of work.
Thanks
R
Perfect Layers (http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-layers/?ind)?
I haven't tried it myself yet. Unlike SNS-HDR it also runs on Mac.
-
> Are you aware of any plug-ins that allow blending to be achieved quickly?
I am happy with ImageFuser. Donation ware, simple, intuitive, and includes alignment. It can do both Exposure Bracketing and HDR. I have not tried the latter though.
Good light!
-
Unlike SNS-HDR it also runs on Mac.
Hi,
From what I've heard SNS-HDR runs fine on a Mac, under Parallels.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
From what I've heard SNS-HDR runs fine on a Mac, under Parallels.
Cheers,
Bart
Or Fusion.
Jeremy
-
Link to SSN Tutorial.PDF
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8ETvhCd81aFMTUyMTU4OTctZGQxZS00NTBmLWE5MDgtMDIwNWM1ODA3M2I4 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8ETvhCd81aFMTUyMTU4OTctZGQxZS00NTBmLWE5MDgtMDIwNWM1ODA3M2I4)
It is on my google plus account. I new to this so don't know if this works. Under 'file' drop down at the top is the option to download. Images are too small on google to see what is happening. Viewed full size in a PDF gives a much better idea.
Larry
Thank you for that! I'm a big fan of the program but haven't had much chance to play with it since the layers tool was added.
-
Ben, I hope you get a lot out of the masks (layers) feature. I find it fantastic. I understand that there are lots of goodies coming in new upgrades.
Larry
-
Here is an image that I "tuned" up with PS
-
This is an example of why many photographers dislike HDR. Sorry not my taste. :(
-
I do a lot of HDR myself, but I agree with Stamper.
I personally prefer HDR to give a result that more closely approximates the scene as viewed.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Here is an image that I "tuned" up with PS
Is that a joke? It's one of the ugliest photographs I've seen posted here.
Come to think of it, scrub the last two words.
Jeremy
-
Here is an image that I "tuned" up with PS
I agree with Stomper: That's very much the style many photographers think of when talking about HDR.
Not my cup of tea, too.
If you're happy with the picture and it looks like the picture you had in your mind I will not argue with that.
But don't expect much appreciation. To me it resembles a beginner's first enthusiastic steps in Photomatix.
Ciao, Walter
-
Well thanks for all the encouraging remarks, it really make me feel at home here.
Bob
-
Well thanks for all the encouraging remarks, it really make me feel at home here.
Bob
Sorry, bud ... I'm gonna have to agree ... that's an image only a mom could love.
-
It could have been worse. Everybody could have praised it and it would have encouraged you to do some more. There is more to photography than HDR and you should look at other and "better" techniques. Did you expect or want a pat on the back?
-
Well thanks for all the encouraging remarks, it really make me feel at home here.
Bob
Bob, there are a good many sites where every posted photograph receives unrestrained praise. As I've observed here before, if that's what I wanted, I'd show my pics to my mother. The huge advantage of posting photos here is that you'll get honest feedback, much of it (not all, of course) from people who do really know what they're talking about. Some of us have more self-restraint than others and some are rather, er, direct in their comments.
I've learned a huge amount from this site over the last few years, both from critiques of my own photos and from those of others people's. You can't expect a soft ride just because it's your first post, I'm afraid.
If people here whose opinion I respect (and there are plenty) say they like my work, I feel very flattered. If they don't, I reflect; sometimes I don't agree and sometimes I do. Either way, I learn.
Don't be discouraged; stick around. Post more.
Jeremy
-
If people here whose opinion I respect (and there are plenty) say they like my work, I feel very flattered. If they don't, I reflect; sometimes I don't agree and sometimes I do. Either way, I learn.
Don't be discouraged; stick around. Post more.
Jeremy
Many of the guys and gals who post on this site do this stuff for a living.
Some of them are world authorities and lots of them are wonderful artists in their own right.
Don't be put off.
They might be honest but rude and obnoxious they are not.
They will be prepared to help you.
I don't know of another forum (broadly meant) where one can have a frank conversation with the best in the business.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Sorry, bud ... I'm gonna have to agree ... that's an image only a mom could love.
It's so kitsch that I like it (except for the huge halos). It has a particular ambiance that reminds me some representations of the 50's and 60's.
(I am not his mother, by the way) ;-)
-
Well thanks for all the encouraging remarks, it really make me feel at home here.
Bob
Hi Bob-
At least you got some feedback. If you look at the listings in the forum topic listings you will see that there are posts with NO replies. I think that means no one was moved enough to take the time to comment. Your image generated comment and not all posts do. There are some incredible photographers posting to this site and folks on this site can be very helpful. Everyone has their own esthetic values and all do not agree. I hope you keep posting and learning.
Michael
-
At least you got some feedback. If you look at the listings in the forum topic listings you will see that there are posts with NO replies. I think that means no one was moved enough to take the time to comment. Your image generated comment and not all posts do. There are some incredible photographers posting to this site and folks on this site can be very helpful. Everyone has their own esthetic values and all do not agree. I hope you keep posting and learning.
Now that's certainly true. Far more dispiriting than being criticised, however harshly, is being ignored!
Jeremy
-
Here is an image that I "tuned" up with PS
Bob there seems to be 3 schools of thought with HDR, theres those who hate anything at all with the words hdr attached, those who like a more subtle look and those who prefere the stronger more extreme style.
I shoot a lot of HDR and personally tend to go with the more subtle look, but it's all personal taste, neither is wrong or right, if you like your style stick with it, I do my photography to suit myself and my customers, trying to please other photographers with hdr is a pointless task, for the reasons above.
-
Quote
but it's all personal taste, neither is wrong or right, if you like your style stick with it
Unquote
Correct. You take images to first of all please yourself and that matters the most. However if you post looking for praise then you have to accept the criticism. assuming it isn't over the top. Posting a HDR image - one that is obvious - takes guts imo. If the member would post something that isn't HDR then that would be helpful? We could then judge how good a photographer he is. You can't judge someone's worth by looking at a HDR. In most cases a HDR has started as a good image and then been "ruined".
-
You can't judge someone's worth by looking at a HDR. In most cases a HDR has started as a good image and then been "ruined".
I dont understand this opinion. Is it not like saying "you cant judge someones worth by looking at a color image."?
Color images _can_ look tacky and amateurish compared to a nicely processed black & white. It is also easy to go over the top with color processing options. Nevertheless, a color image usually contains more information about the actual scene, and properly processed it can be more "visually accurate" than a B&W image.
-h
-
Eric: I like the guy on top of the hill on the left. It's a photographer shooting the scene on a tripod. I realize this has nothing to do with this thread, but thought it was interesting to mention. Nice catch. Alan
-
Alan,
Thanks for input, much appreciated.
Best regards
Erik
Eric: I like the guy on top of the hill on the left. It's a photographer shooting the scene on a tripod. I realize this has nothing to do with this thread, but thought it was interesting to mention. Nice catch. Alan
-
Here is an image that I "tuned" up with PS
The image certainly escapes from / is defying all concerns with the usual hdr dilemma,
to look still realistic (or not) ...-... by purpose (or not).
Peter
--