| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/22/2011 06:01:15 AM · #51 |
| I blame Kristin Shepard for all of this. From what I understand she was the first to shoot HDR. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 06:05:54 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
HDR... HCB,... you have to be a genius to vote anymore. Whatever happened to "Purple IV"? |
I hear ya, except even then we had to debate the RGB of what purple truly is. :-)
FTR I like HDR, but I also don't like HDR - depends on my mood and may depend on what I've entered in the challenge. May even depend on what else is entered in the challenge. Good stuff, bad stuff, over the top HDR, and those where you can't tell if HDR was used or not.
That's my "quiet word about HDR" - perhaps more to come after the challenge has finished the voting stage. Wouldn't want to accidentally influence any voters or anything. Know what I mean? :-D |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 06:53:33 AM · #53 |
Separate from if you agree with or are fond of the HDR aesthetic, it is still a distinct aesthetic. "Good" HDR and "Bad" HDR are both their own niche. Why is so much attention paid to this one segment, yet so little to blur, or grain, or street on DPC? Everybody talks about how they rail against the aesthetic, but really, it's an absurdly arbitrary decision. "I will rail against the _______ aesthetic"
This isn't an argument for everybody to have the same taste, but rather, for people to consider the fact that there are many different sets of aesthetics out there, plenty of which deserve our attention. Revel in that which we have all created, definitely. Don't like everything, I don't want you to, but if you think the vision portrayed here is any different in its arbitrary nature from loving over/undercoooked HDR shots, I urge you to rethink your philosophy. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 07:12:21 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
... Why is so much attention paid to this one segment, yet so little to blur, or grain, or street on DPC? ... |
It's not, except when one of the active (in voting) challenges is about HDR - otherwise you'd be hard pressed to find a thread discussing it specifically (any more than the other subjects you've mentioned). |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 07:21:27 AM · #55 |
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Even when HDR is not a challenge topic it comes up periodically. "HDR horribleness this" "HRD horribleness that". It's funny to me, because people continue to be "super HDR looking" and alternately "very non-HDR-looking" just to avoid the aesthetic. Sometimes I wonder if people aren't against HDR because it's the anathema of the aesthetic here lately, though it certainly was the defining point in times past.
What I mean is that people are MUCH more vehement against HDR than infants, or flowers, archetypical stock shots. I find that curious. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 08:00:03 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Even when HDR is not a challenge topic it comes up periodically. "HDR horribleness this" "HRD horribleness that". It's funny to me, because people continue to be "super HDR looking" and alternately "very non-HDR-looking" just to avoid the aesthetic. Sometimes I wonder if people aren't against HDR because it's the anathema of the aesthetic here lately, though it certainly was the defining point in times past.
What I mean is that people are MUCH more vehement against HDR than infants, or flowers, archetypical stock shots. I find that curious. |
Hmmm...well, I haven't seen that. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :) |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 08:06:45 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
What I mean is that people are MUCH more vehement against HDR than infants, or flowers, archetypical stock shots. I find that curious. |
I had actually tried to HDR my infant holding a flower in his toothless gums. I had to scrap the whole idea though as I broke all our wine glasses when dropping him in. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 08:14:12 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
What I mean is that people are MUCH more vehement against HDR than infants, or flowers, archetypical stock shots. I find that curious. |
I had actually tried to HDR my infant holding a flower in his toothless gums. I had to scrap the whole idea though as I broke all our wine glasses when dropping him in. |
Hopefully you dropped the baby over a bathtub and managed to capture some amazing splash / waterdrops!!! |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 08:47:45 AM · #59 |
This maybe an ignorant question to some of you pros, but how is an HDR image aquired of a moving subject? If at least two or three exposures are required, how are some of the shots not looking like double exposures. What I mean is how is the moving subject a solid peice if HDR requires more than one exposure?
Not sure if that makes sense, but hopefully someone knows what I mean... |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 08:49:40 AM · #60 |
Well easily it could be of water???
I actually tried to do this for this entry..
Long exposure tunnel shot, with -2, 0, +2 but I didn't have my tripod with me. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 08:52:53 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
This maybe an ignorant question to some of you pros, but how is an HDR image aquired of a moving subject? If at least two or three exposures are required, how are some of the shots not looking like double exposures. What I mean is how is the moving subject a solid peice if HDR requires more than one exposure?
Not sure if that makes sense, but hopefully someone knows what I mean... |
Within advanced rules, you can't. Outside of them, you can take a shot exposed for your main (moving) subject, for example a car over a very bright (or very dark) background, then shoot other photos a few seconds later to get good exposition(s) of the background (without the car). Then blend the whole (manually, probably).
Message edited by author 2011-11-22 08:54:03. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:02:37 AM · #62 |
Then how come there are entries of moving subjects on the current challenge?
A moving bicycle comes to mind...
Message edited by author 2011-11-22 09:03:58. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:04:13 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
This maybe an ignorant question to some of you pros, but how is an HDR image aquired of a moving subject? If at least two or three exposures are required, how are some of the shots not looking like double exposures. What I mean is how is the moving subject a solid peice if HDR requires more than one exposure?
Not sure if that makes sense, but hopefully someone knows what I mean... |
Within advanced rules, you can't. Outside of them, you can take a shot exposed for your main (moving) subject, for example a car over a very bright (or very dark) background, then shoot other photos a few seconds later to get good exposition(s) of the background (without the car). Then blend the whole (manually, probably). |
You CAN create a PseudoHDR in advanced. This is done by tonemapping a single image using a program such as PhotomatixPro. There are different schools of thought about the best way to do this:
1) Tonemap the RAW image directly
2) Generate 3 or more copies of the RAW image at different exposure settings in the RAW converter and combining
So, yes, you can do an 'HDR' using a single image in advanced. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:05:20 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
This maybe an ignorant question to some of you pros, but how is an HDR image aquired of a moving subject? If at least two or three exposures are required, how are some of the shots not looking like double exposures. What I mean is how is the moving subject a solid peice if HDR requires more than one exposure?
Not sure if that makes sense, but hopefully someone knows what I mean... |
Within advanced rules, you can't. Outside of them, you can take a shot exposed for your main (moving) subject, for example a car over a very bright (or very dark) background, then shoot other photos a few seconds later to get good exposition(s) of the background (without the car). Then blend the whole (manually, probably). |
You CAN create a PseudoHDR in advanced. This is done by tonemapping a single image using a program such as PhotomatixPro. There are different schools of thought about the best way to do this:
1) Tonemap the RAW image directly
2) Generate 3 or more copies of the RAW image at different exposure settings in the RAW converter and combining
So, yes, you can do an 'HDR' using a single image in advanced. |
Wouldn't that DNMC in the current challenge? |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:06:01 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
This maybe an ignorant question to some of you pros, but how is an HDR image aquired of a moving subject? If at least two or three exposures are required, how are some of the shots not looking like double exposures. What I mean is how is the moving subject a solid peice if HDR requires more than one exposure?
Not sure if that makes sense, but hopefully someone knows what I mean... |
Within advanced rules, you can't. Outside of them, you can take a shot exposed for your main (moving) subject, for example a car over a very bright (or very dark) background, then shoot other photos a few seconds later to get good exposition(s) of the background (without the car). Then blend the whole (manually, probably). |
You CAN create a PseudoHDR in advanced. This is done by tonemapping a single image using a program such as PhotomatixPro. There are different schools of thought about the best way to do this:
1) Tonemap the RAW image directly
2) Generate 3 or more copies of the RAW image at different exposure settings in the RAW converter and combining
So, yes, you can do an 'HDR' using a single image in advanced. |
Wouldn't that DNMC in the current challenge? |
If the result is the same, how can it be DNMC....
Message edited by author 2011-11-22 09:06:24. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:07:22 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
PseudoHDR in advanced. |
I think you already answered that... |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:09:06 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Then how come there are entries of moving subjects on the current challenge?
A moving bicycle comes to mind... |
Well, it is probably made by taking a single raw exposure, make 2 extra copies, adjust exposures in PP to -2, 0, +2 and then make an HDR tone mapping on these three.
It's not true HDR, yet you can come some way with it...
edit: Also different HDR software handles ghosting differently - in some cases it can be done.
Message edited by author 2011-11-22 09:11:29. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:13:22 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Wouldn't that DNMC in the current challenge? |
Depends if you are overly anal retentive or not. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:13:35 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
This maybe an ignorant question to some of you pros, but how is an HDR image aquired of a moving subject? If at least two or three exposures are required, how are some of the shots not looking like double exposures. What I mean is how is the moving subject a solid peice if HDR requires more than one exposure?
Not sure if that makes sense, but hopefully someone knows what I mean... |
Within advanced rules, you can't. Outside of them, you can take a shot exposed for your main (moving) subject, for example a car over a very bright (or very dark) background, then shoot other photos a few seconds later to get good exposition(s) of the background (without the car). Then blend the whole (manually, probably). |
Exactly correct. Not legal within Advanced Ruleset because an element which moves or leaves the single scene would change the composition.
Furthermore, the wind can be a problem if it is moving branches or vegetation. When blending these, there will be a double exposure look which can be a distraction. (Also can be an interesting feature of the image... depends on the artistic slant.) Both PhotoMatix and HDR Efex Pro have ghost reduction adjustments. I've not found them helpful, but it depends on the degree of the ghosting. |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:16:01 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Wouldn't that DNMC in the current challenge? |
HDR stand for "high dynamic range" - you use some sort of methodology to explore and exploit the dynamic range of a photograph. A commonly accepted method is to take several differently exposed shots of the same scene, then use software to mix and match the exposures into a single finished product. Another method is to use software to explore the range already existing in a single exposure - "up" the darks, mute the "highs", etc. It is indeed a valid but perhaps less effective means of exploring and eploiting the dynamic range. So no, it is not "DNMC" and yes, you can do HDR of moving subjects.
Make sense? |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:18:01 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Wouldn't that DNMC in the current challenge? |
Depends if you are overly anal retentive or not. |
I was only asking how it was accomplished legally. I wouldn't throw the "DNMC" on it because I don't know how it was done... |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:24:43 AM · #72 |
| The challenge description says "You should employ HDR techniques when making your entry this week" so I'd say that "PseudoHDR" and tone-mapping a single image is valid since they're indeed HDR techniques... |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:24:54 AM · #73 |
My response was tongue in cheek, but, truth be told, I don't agree with people caring so highly if things are or aren't so DNMC. I try to be pretty lenient. If you're asking the question "is this really DNMC?" perhaps you already have your answer...
I don't think you need a group consensus to establish such an answer, I guess... |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:24:55 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
Wouldn't that DNMC in the current challenge? |
HDR stand for "high dynamic range" - you use some sort of methodology to explore and exploit the dynamic range of a photograph. A commonly accepted method is to take several differently exposed shots of the same scene, then use software to mix and match the exposures into a single finished product. Another method is to use software to explore the range already existing in a single exposure - "up" the darks, mute the "highs", etc. It is indeed a valid but perhaps less effective means of exploring and eploiting the dynamic range. So no, it is not "DNMC" and yes, you can do HDR of moving subjects.
Make sense? |
Yes, I know what HDR is, thank you.
I just assumed you guys would have submitted actual HDR images and not cheated yourselves with a PP'd LDRI... My Bad! |
|
|
|
11/22/2011 09:27:05 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
My response was tongue in cheek, but, truth be told, I don't agree with people caring so highly if things are or aren't so DNMC. I try to be pretty lenient. If you're asking the question "is this really DNMC?" perhaps you already have your answer...
I don't think you need a group consensus to establish such an answer, I guess... |
No, I didn't mean it as "I am on the hunt to find DNMC images", I simply wanted to know how it was done so future entries of mine don't get hammered by the DNMC hungry members. that's all. |
|
