Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Do you hate HDR too?  (Read 330342 times)

lensfactory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #140 on: December 15, 2008, 11:00:33 am »

Quote from: jjj
I linked to a specific image, who cares if the site design is less than stellar [    ], it was a link to a solar eclipse image, done using some sort of HDR?
You seem obsessed with irrelevant 70s music, maybe it's because your mind is stuck so far in the past.  

Still waiting for you to condemn all photographs ever taken, just because some weren't to your taste.


Isn't that my mind is stuck in the past...it's that most HDR imagery is aesthetically equivalent to bad 70's prog rock.

THe original OP was "do you hate HDR too".  Well...I do. The images in this thread have only confirmed this....you can say that nonsense about it being just a tool, and it is the artist not the tool etc...but I have yet to see much where that is true. It is NOT 'just a tool'..it has a distinct look with distinct aesthetic qualities.
The litmus test , to me, for a good  photograph is it holds up to repeat viewings, especially if there are multiple layers/depth of content and meaning.
I find all the HDR photos  shallow...flat...the eye goes nowhere. At least this is what i've mostly seen anyway I am generalizing sure, as a good eye can be sensitive and achieve some good results...it's just that ,as a tool, the  HDR process seems to not enhance this, but rather kills the compositional dynamics of tone values.

Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #141 on: December 16, 2008, 03:34:41 pm »

Quote from: lensfactory
It is NOT 'just a tool'..it has a distinct look with distinct aesthetic qualities.
Still not quite sunk in to your conciousness yet, that HDR has many different looks, some are obviously HDR, some aren't. You obviously don't like the obvious overcooked variety [not that keen myself] but like any tool it can be used in many ways, some good, some bad.
For example you said this
Quote
Isn't that my mind is stuck in the past...it's that most HDR imagery is aesthetically equivalent to bad 70's prog rock.
But would you champion against guitars because you dislike bad 70s's prog rock? I don't like Rush either, but I don't blame their instruments for their music.

Also I've been asked about the HDR images on my website, despite my never having done any HDR and the images in questioning in fact predate Photomatrix and similar software. They are also not like the cartoon HDR, but the very different gritty HDR look and not flat which leads to this point.

Quote
I find all the HDR photos shallow...flat...the eye goes nowhere. At least this is what i've mostly seen anyway I am generalizing sure....
You sure are.  
Quote
...as a good eye can be sensitive and achieve some good results...it's just that ,as a tool, the HDR process seems to not enhance this, but rather kills the compositional dynamics of tone values.
You can have tonally flat images without using HDR and some people do so deliberately as they like that look or it complements the subject they are photographing.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Alexandre Buisse

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • http://www.alexandrebuisse.org
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #142 on: December 16, 2008, 04:30:08 pm »

@lensfactory: I'd be curious to know if you include the images I posted at the end of page 6 in your description. I go a long way to make them not look like "flickr" HDR.
Logged

Gordon Buck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 425
    • LightDescription
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #143 on: December 16, 2008, 04:53:22 pm »

If a truly "High Dynamic Range" sensor were invented would it be hated as well?  Why do we want more dynamic range in our cameras and at the same time dislike HDR processes that extend the dynamic range of existing equipment?  The dislike has little to do with HDR except as related to "tone mapping".

So this post should be entitled "Do you hate overdone tone mapping too?".

Of course, I also dislike overdone tone mapping but my definition of "overdone" might be different from that of others.
Logged
Gordon
 [url=http://lightdescription.blog

lensfactory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #144 on: December 16, 2008, 07:36:54 pm »

Quote from: Alexandre Buisse
@lensfactory: I'd be curious to know if you include the images I posted at the end of page 6 in your description. I go a long way to make them not look like "flickr" HDR.

No I wouldn't actually. They look o.k. Im not sure that any HDR would be necessary in those shots though... I would rather see a strong composition of light and tone WITHOUT any HDR. Thats what is pleasing to my eyes anyway...

Im OBVIOUSLY talking about the quote HDR unquote look that is prevalent in HDR photography...not simply photographs with an increased dynamic range.

It's that glowy,tonally undynamic, super-real look im talking about..but then you know what I mean.

Logged

lensfactory

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #145 on: December 16, 2008, 07:42:34 pm »

Quote from: jjj
But would you champion against guitars because you dislike bad 70s's prog rock? I don't like Rush either, but I don't blame their instruments for their music.
.

I said BAD 70's prog-rock...and yes, I DO blame the instruments. WHen they moved from the Mellotron ,Minimoog and the recording techniques of the first half of the seventies, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and used ever more sophisticated technologies that lacked that distinct warmth and tone qualities that are pleasing to my ears.

Hemispheres is actually a well produced/recorded album...I should have said "Power Windows". Or most prog rock after 1974-75.

So yes the tool has a great bearing in my view.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #146 on: December 16, 2008, 08:20:01 pm »

Quote from: lensfactory
I said BAD 70's prog-rock...and yes, I DO blame the instruments.
But the concept of good and bad HDR is however not possible? Why is that?

Quote
WHen they moved from the Mellotron ,Minimoog and the recording techniques of the first half of the seventies, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and used ever more sophisticated technologies that lacked that distinct warmth and tone qualities that are pleasing to my ears.

Hemispheres is actually a well produced/recorded album...I should have said "Power Windows". Or most prog rock after 1974-75.

So yes the tool has a great bearing in my view.
Do you think tools are entities that take over the minds of their users or something?!?

As you will never be convinced that it is the person and not the tool he/she uses that is responsible for the end result, do you also assume your taste to be better than everyone else's? As I'm sure there were many people who liked prog rock [what a crap name for a genre] both before and after 74-75. Just as there are many people who like HDR even the cartoony stuff.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

daws

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 282
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #147 on: December 16, 2008, 11:59:33 pm »

Quote from: jjj
As I'm sure there were many people who liked prog rock [what a crap name for a genre] both before and after 74-75. Just as there are many people who like HDR even the cartoony stuff.
Amen.

With apologies for veering OT, I'm reminded of the recent mass management salivation in the animation industry over 3D animation: the groupthink that the 3D Look was what audiences were buying, hand-drawing be damned. Megabucks of story-bombs later, the pendulum is slowly swinging back (no doubt toward the next Technique craze). What works in 3D is what works in 2D: good stories, told visually and well.

Notwithstanding my lifelong tech lust, the older I get the more I'm convinced that all tech is passing through on the wind. We take what tool excites us, use it awhile, then let it go and grab the next as it drifts by. Tools don't talk. High end digital backs or sheets of foil in silver fumes, it's the brain, heart and hands that tell the story.

Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #148 on: December 17, 2008, 09:19:57 am »

Quote from: daws
Megabucks of story-bombs later, the pendulum is slowly swinging back (no doubt toward the next Technique craze). What works in 3D is what works in 2D: good stories, told visually and well.
Absolutely. It's always the story that is important. Everything else should be subservient to telling hte story. In animation sometimes 2D will be better than 3D animation, sometimes the opposite. Same applies to films of any genre. Except maybe porn!  
One of the reasons why Pixar is so succesful is not the techincal skills, but the fact that the story always comes first and everything else follows from that.
Even their original 'lamp' demo had a nice little story and didn't just rely on the novelty of computer animation.
I have to say I'm not a fan of the 3D look of most recent animation, particularly when it tries to look real, as it so obviously doesn't. One of the things I like about animationis it's unreality and the 2D nature can give a different dimension [so to speak].

Quote
Notwithstanding my lifelong tech lust, the older I get the more I'm convinced that all tech is passing through on the wind. We take what tool excites us, use it awhile, then let it go and grab the next as it drifts by. Tools don't talk. High end digital backs or sheets of foil in silver fumes, it's the brain, heart and hands that tell the story.
Looks are like anything else fashionable. They come and go. New tools give new looks, new fashions arise and not long after, become old fashioned and a new look will emerge or an old one exhumed.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1827
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #149 on: January 01, 2009, 07:50:53 pm »

I like HDR in its concept: high dynamic range.

I hate what the photography communnity has made of it today:
- Users who don't have a rudimentary knowledge of what DR is and can't wait to download Photomatix and create terrible images.
- Users who simply cannot differentiate the concept 'HDR' from the concept 'tone mapping'
- People who shoot 6 times the same scene because they think in that way the result will be better, but didn't take care to check what the real DR of the scene was, what the most adequate number of shots, and how many stops apart they should be
- HDR tools focused in providing quick tone mapping tools that easily lead to unreallistic results, but incompetent in doing a proper blending of several shots (so far no HDR tool has effective anti-ghosting capabilities for example).

I propose some of you do this exercise: blend and tone map the following 2 RAW files with a reallistic result in mind using any software around. They correspond to a high dynamic range scene (more than 12 f-stops) with a moving element:
- RAW 1
- RAW 2

I got this:



BR
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 07:59:27 pm by GLuijk »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #150 on: January 02, 2009, 03:16:00 pm »

That's a nice looking result, very natural and shows how good HDR can be - when used well.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #151 on: January 02, 2009, 03:29:11 pm »

Quote from: GLuijk
(so far no HDR tool has effective anti-ghosting capabilities for example).

What do you mean by "anti-ghosting"?

John
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1827
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #152 on: January 02, 2009, 08:25:47 pm »

Quote from: button
What do you mean by "anti-ghosting"?

Hi John, try to blend the two linked RAW files using any HDR software and look at the legs of the guy in the picture.

BR
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 08:26:52 pm by GLuijk »
Logged

EasyEd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #153 on: February 23, 2009, 10:17:51 pm »

Hey All,

My first post.

I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.

I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?

I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.

Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.

I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".

-Ed-
Logged

EasyEd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #154 on: March 04, 2009, 12:16:05 am »

Hey All,

So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...

Quote
Does HDR sound like a magic bullet for photography? It may well be...  ...HDR will open upen up new subjects and a level of control that far exceeds even the techniques of Ansel Adams -- and in color."

Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.

Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.

-Ed-

Quote from: EasyEd
Hey All,

My first post.

I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.

I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?

I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.

Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.

I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".

-Ed-
Logged

01af

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #155 on: March 04, 2009, 07:36:53 am »

HDR is a nice technique to tackle a certain problem in photography, and can yield gorgeous results if mastered properly. But now I am indeed beginning to hate it. Recently I started seeing poor HDR images everywhere ... in magazines, newspapers, advertisements ... all of sudden they are ubiquitous. Browse any arbitrary illustrated magazine, and they will jump out at you. Maybe some of them are not really HDR technically---but they sure look like bad HDR, with entirely unnatural tones and contrasts. Usually they're just rotten ... screaming 'digital' all over  

-- Olaf
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #156 on: March 04, 2009, 08:17:19 am »

Quote from: gordonsbuck
So this post should be entitled "Do you hate overdone tone mapping too?".

Of course, I also dislike overdone tone mapping but my definition of "overdone" might be different from that of others.

I think this quote sums up my opinion on this topic very well

Btw, I also don't like overdone level and curve adjustments, overdone shadow/highlight, overdone saturation/vibrance adjustment, overdone clarity...... overdone "you name it".

All picture tools can be put to good use and misused. For me the most successfull HDR images are those where the tool is used to bridge DR in a scene that cannot be captured in a single shot but still the use of HDR is not apparent when viewing the picture. I've seen examples of those that I really like (unfortunately I have seen more examples where I judge it overdone, but all freedom to people who like it).

Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Bill Koenig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 361
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #157 on: April 07, 2009, 03:39:05 pm »

Quote from: EasyEd
Hey All,

So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...



Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.

Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.

-Ed-


Ed,

Thanks for bringing up "FDR Tools" After reading all 8 pages of this, I can't believe nobody has mentioned this software. Its totally different than Photomatix and the results are much less over the top.
Logged
Bill Koenig,

Enda Cavanagh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 634
    • http://www.endacavanagh.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #158 on: April 07, 2009, 05:16:58 pm »

Too true. I love using HDR photography but sometimes some of the shots you see are like they were shot on Mars. For me the point of HDR photography is too mimic what the human eye can see in the shadows and highlights and not to turn the photo into one of those old hand coloured post cards like this


Quote from: Digiteyesed
I'm a firm believer in everything in moderation. (Especially moderation.)

Hehhh.

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1827
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Do you hate HDR too?
« Reply #159 on: April 07, 2009, 05:52:08 pm »

Quote from: EasyEd
From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.

Photomatix, Dynamic Photo HDR, Artizen HDR,... why you don't even consider not using any of them? do you really think you need one of those tone mapping tools to achieve HDR? have you considered the possibility to investigate first:

1. What dynamic range really is
2. How to capture a high dynamic range with a low dynamic range digital camera
3. What's the problem to map a high dynamic range into a low dynamic range device or support (monitor, print, projector,...)

After you have done 1, 2 and 3, is when you are ready to decide whether you need (or prefer) assistance from specific software or you can do it just with basic postprocessing tools (basically any edition software allowing to do local level adjustments).

I am pretty sure this is what Ansel Adams would do today, because he was a scientist and a perfectionist. He would never try 100 pieces of HDR software designed by others, maybe efficient but black boxes to the user, to find out which one he liked best without mastering the underlying concepts first.

HDR is not a technique, HDR is above techniques, it is a concept. HDR is about mapping high dynamic range data into a lower dynamic range format. It's all about reducing global contrast at the same time local contrast is enhanced, and you don't need any specialised program to do it.

This is a very high dynamic range scene (about 12 f-stops from the ceiling to the chair shadows), it looks natural, and it was achieved just with 3 shoots of the camera and a couple of curves in Photoshop. No need for any piece of software containing the word 'HDR':



BR
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 06:01:30 pm by GLuijk »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17   Go Up