DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> A quiet word about HDR
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 107, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/21/2011 12:07:25 PM · #26
Originally posted by dswann:
Originally posted by pederlol:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Haven't voted yet but will be soon, once I find my shades.


Make sure those are NDx10 at least :)


:)


Actually didn't need them...this time! :-)

Message edited by author 2011-11-21 12:07:33.
 11/21/2011 12:31:54 PM · #27
Originally posted by bohemka:
It's a voting site so people will naturally judge, but folks are here for many reasons; one of which is to simply post stuff online and hopefully have a little fun.

Like most I only enjoy viewing HDR when it isn't even noticable, but when I'm on the decks and have the photomatix knobs in my hands, I enjoy going a bit mental. It's fun. Not everything we do has to be a the quest for the perfect representation of photography.


Exactly +1 with loads of excessiveness
 11/21/2011 12:43:37 PM · #28
Maybe I am missing the point here, but this was an HDR challenge...and there are as many styles of HDR, as there are any other technique. Just the fact that you are bitching about the photos being TOO HDR makes me never want to enter a technique challenge again. On one side people get hammered on the score because DNMC Nazi's are lined up to "2" any shot they don't feel meets their special ideation of the technique, and now we got "artistas" trying to shoot down photographs because they used TOO MUCH technique.
11/21/2011 12:46:23 PM · #29
i processed mine for the subtle look. but it looked too boring and i remember the last hdr challenge i did the same and got poor results so i decided to redo it and go a bit over the top. i still got a comment saying it's too subtle...oh well.

doing just ok so far but it's about where i thought it would be.
 11/21/2011 12:50:04 PM · #30
Visual cacophony, to be sure.. most HDR makes my eyes hurt.
Although there is some discordant music that I like, yours is a great analogy, Paul.
11/21/2011 01:12:02 PM · #31
Interesting posts....though, perhaps I'll add a particular perspective...

I see HDR as one or a combination of two things, a photo that composes the light

1) that a person sees
2) that is actually there

11/21/2011 02:44:45 PM · #32
Originally posted by crowis:
Maybe I am missing the point here, but this was an HDR challenge...and there are as many styles of HDR, as there are any other technique. Just the fact that you are bitching about the photos being TOO HDR makes me never want to enter a technique challenge again. On one side people get hammered on the score because DNMC Nazi's are lined up to "2" any shot they don't feel meets their special ideation of the technique, and now we got "artistas" trying to shoot down photographs because they used TOO MUCH technique.


FWIW I think the point most of us *artistas* (and who here called themselves that?) are trying to make is that the technique, no matter what it is, should enhance the photo and not overwhelm it. When you see only the technique - no matter what that technique is - and it's been done to the extent that the photo itself is just a sorry shade of its former self, then yes, it's too much technique.

And I gave out nothing less than a 5 and went as high as 9.
 11/21/2011 03:33:01 PM · #33
Originally posted by MargaretN:
True (probably guilty as charged too but I was worried if it is not obvious it will be DNMC'd). My impression during voting was that some DPCers may equate very saturated look with HDR. Maybe we need an educational HDR Side Challenge?


Here is a VERY intrestring problem, I'm trying to turn my eye away from Grunge HDR to the softer that I love so much... but if you do lets say a perfect soft scene of pretty stuff and don't make the coulds look funky... How do you tell it's HDR as opposed to a VERY NICE PHOTO??? So I did let mine run a tish to the over side, not scoreing bad, (although I can't stare at it long LOL) But the photo it's self leans to the ya don't wanna study it a long time side, hdr or not..

Over all I think there are some TOTALY AWESOME shots in this, and IMHO the quality of the challenge is higher over all than a lot of other challenges...(jest mi 2 cents}
 11/21/2011 03:51:33 PM · #34
Originally posted by littlemav:
... but if you do lets say a perfect soft scene of pretty stuff and don't make the coulds look funky... How do you tell it's HDR as opposed to a VERY NICE PHOTO??? ...


Good question! The essence of the HDR thing, it is. Our eyes can see about 10 camera stops of light (maybe more) between the blacks of the darkest shadows and the whites of the brightest highlights. On the histogram, those levels correlate with 0 and 255 respectively. Our camera sensors can only "see" about 5 camera stops of light between shadows and highlights. When the dynamic range of a scene exceeds 5 stops, single image exposure detail will be lost in the shadows or the highlights, or both. The concept is all about capturing multiple images which encompass properly exposed pixels from shadows to highlights... and then blending them using the optimal tones. In a major way, HDR is a workaround to mitigate the limitations of our cameras.

So, to answer your question... from experience we know that a particular scene (indoors or outdoors) will be difficult to properly expose (with a single exposure) without loss of detail in the highlights or shadows. If said scene displays eye-pleasing exposures throughout, it is likely a product of HDR processing of multiple images.
 11/21/2011 04:06:13 PM · #35
Originally posted by hahn23:
from experience we know that a particular scene (indoors or outdoors) will be difficult to properly expose (with a single exposure) without loss of detail in the highlights or shadows. If said scene displays eye-pleasing exposures throughout, it is likely a product of HDR processing of multiple images.


Yes, but the viewer of the captured image does not know what the scene looks like, they can only view the resulting image. I took a few images of an interior with tricky lighting, used the HDR magic and made it look like it was well lit. The result was pleasing, but to someone who did not see the before image it does not make it clear that any special technique was used. Most of the time that is the goal of any photographic technique, to be transparent in service to the image.

If the challenge was "blue" the most blue image would do well. Since the challenge is "HDR" the best scoring images will be obvious about the use of the technique.
 11/21/2011 04:09:53 PM · #36
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
The OP prefers the blurry, grainy, moody stuff. Many others dislike it and find it unpleasant to look at. Overcranked HDR is not very different in that regard. We all have our preferences and dislikes. Me? I find flower shots boring. I still can't bring myself to drop a low vote on a well done one, however.


I can't speak for the OP, but I can appreciate a slick image so for me it's not about personal tastes, but of purpose. All too often HDR has no purpose except to save an image from the recycle bin or make what is already painfully obvious, more so. Do you really need every last piece of dirt to shine as bright as a thousand suns just to communicate a surface is dirty? It's like the HDR photographer thinks the viewer is a vegetable.

Now I understand that often the point is to just make a photo stand out, but that day has long since passed. HDR is everywhere. When you have to rely on gimicks like that (i.e. HDR applied as an effect not as a correction) you have to move on to the latest new thing. Or you quit with the rat race altogether and go back to making more substantive photographs. After all those are the only ones that truly stand out over time.

Now here's an example of a detailed image that serves some purpose. Muur88's work can look cartoonish at times, but in cases like this it compliments the absurdity of the subject being photograped. The little details actually matter.



Message edited by author 2011-11-21 16:20:20.
 11/21/2011 05:25:32 PM · #37
Originally posted by crowis:
Maybe I am missing the point here, but this was an HDR challenge...and there are as many styles of HDR, as there are any other technique. Just the fact that you are bitching about the photos being TOO HDR makes me never want to enter a technique challenge again. On one side people get hammered on the score because DNMC Nazi's are lined up to "2" any shot they don't feel meets their special ideation of the technique, and now we got "artistas" trying to shoot down photographs because they used TOO MUCH technique.


I find this thread so interesting, even beyond HDR.

I see your point that the current use of HDR and the title of the challenge justifies seing so many images of that kind. But I think the two points made here are bit different.

On one hand some of the posters see postprocessing as a way to bridge between the limits of photography and the capability of the human eye in front of a real scene. The human eye can resolve a lot of detail, but it does so dynamically, scanning the scene and adapting to shadows and highlights. Facing an image where all the detail is already there and the eye needs no adapting can be disorientating and unreal. It's not like being there for real, because no real scene will ever look like that.
Even when the scene might be found in nature, it would be for extremely favourable light and photographic skills to boot to capture what's on offer.
The fact that some kind of atmospheric skies before required travelling to the Amazon and wait for a storm to pass, but now can be easily conjured up by taking a lunch-break snapshot in some Oklaoma City car park and cranking up some software, makes some photographers feel like the whole thing is pointless. Those who see photography as a way of witnessing fascinating but real things and bring the viewer far away, that is.

Then, some people might be more open to creative processing, but still love some content.
HDR can make for pretty or unusual images and personally I have nothing against people liking that, or processing all their images in sepia independently of the content, for that matter, if they wish so.
But I value a lot a link between the content of the photograph and the post-processing.
Nice reflective architecture with interesting light benefits from HDR, and if cranked to 11 (not to 15 though) can balance the fact that the viewer is not physically there to wander and admire.
HDR can also being disconcerting and weird, which can be used to create contrasting feeling. I remember a few photos of beautiful, rolling vietnamese landscape coupled with menacing skies and the smoke of napalm in the distance. That was achieved by exploiting film latitude, masking and other darkroom approaches. HDR can convey similar feelings supporting a concept.
But when I see a pleasant countryside stretch or japanese garden in a sunny day, while the sky screams "Apocalipse now" and "I like the smell of napalm early in the morning", I struggle finding a point. I might use my immagination, but I am less inclined doing so after having seen other 25 similar scenes with nothing suggesting an underlying concept.

My point is simply that extreme tecniques can convey a lot, and even unpleasantness to eye or what ordinarily could be a mistake can be used to that effect. I have plenty of pointless photographs were the subject is out of focus, but I don't think there is much doubt on why focus is what it is here:



But using the effect for it's own sake becomes soon boring and it's also sometimes a lost chance.

Apparently McCullin nowadays only does fine art landscapes, in an attempt to get over what he had to go through and photograph in Vietnam and many other places.
It sounds like many people posting here will be in a similar set of mind after voting on all the entries :)

Sorry for the long post, I found this thread really interesting and good food for thought.

Message edited by author 2011-11-21 17:49:38.
 11/21/2011 05:33:11 PM · #38
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by mcaldo:
Originally posted by hahn23:
But, some may prefer the Sonatori sconcertati (Discordant Musicians). That's okay, too.


You made me smile, also because "Sonatori Sconcertati" in current Italian translates more straightly as "Clueless Musicians" :D

....

oops!


Just to be clear, mine was not a correction, "sconcertato" can also translate as you say, it's just a bit old-fashion.
But I found it amusing that the current meaning seems to describe well the feeling of many posting here :)
 11/21/2011 05:37:39 PM · #39
Most of the HDR photos I like are the ones I don't know are HDR. I'm afraid to vote this challenge but skewsme tells me that it won't kill me.
 11/21/2011 05:40:09 PM · #40
.

Message edited by author 2011-11-23 01:05:47.
 11/21/2011 06:04:54 PM · #41
Originally posted by posthumous:
Most of the HDR photos I like are the ones I don't know are HDR.

Agreed. If you can tell it's HDR, then it's too much. If you can't, then it's DNMC. It's a lose-lose challenge.
 11/21/2011 06:08:04 PM · #42
Originally posted by bvy:
If you can tell it's HDR, then it's too much. If you can't, then it's DNMC. It's a lose-lose challenge.


LOL
 11/21/2011 07:30:47 PM · #43
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Most of the HDR photos I like are the ones I don't know are HDR.

Agreed. If you can tell it's HDR, then it's too much. If you can't, then it's DNMC. It's a lose-lose challenge.


Hence my prior comment about these kind of technique challenges.
11/21/2011 08:26:35 PM · #44
I actually think the quality in this challenge was quite high in comparison to the last HDR challenge. People are learning and improving. (myself included. My first hdr had terrible haloing around the tree, but I didn't realize it, and didn't know that it was quite a common problem. I had kind people who commented, and that helped.

It's not my favorite challenge on which to vote, but I was pleasantly surprised. I also liked that I had many different styles from which to choose. Not all over saturated, over processed shots (like mine. :)
 11/21/2011 11:31:53 PM · #45
I do find it entertaining the number of folks here who "prefer" more natural HDR yet overdid their own entries for the challenge to make sure it was "HDR enough". But hey, that's DPC! :-)
 11/21/2011 11:46:34 PM · #46
The only way to do this challenge right is in IMAX 3-D!

;-D
 11/21/2011 11:52:57 PM · #47
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do find it entertaining the number of folks here who "prefer" more natural HDR yet overdid their own entries for the challenge to make sure it was "HDR enough". But hey, that's DPC! :-)
That's what scores are about! :)
 11/22/2011 12:05:31 AM · #48
And howzis for irony...I got a DQ on an image in which I did some very light HDR, hence probably the reason it was reported and I got asked for validation. Turns out that it WASN'T the HDR or any other pp I did at all. However, I did get DQ'd because somewhere along the line since getting camera back from Nikon, I managed to set the year back to 2010...*sigh*...

Anyway the offending image is called The old portal, and can be seen highlighted in telltale DQ pink, at the very end of the doors/knobs/latches etc. To my eye that is just enough HDR, almost too much for my style which is usually very natural....I applied HDR to the entire image, then burned out the bg and dodged the door a little to give it a nice eerie glowy effect.
 11/22/2011 01:05:11 AM · #49
HDR... HCB,... you have to be a genius to vote anymore. Whatever happened to "Purple IV"?

11/22/2011 01:46:58 AM · #50
.

Message edited by author 2011-11-22 02:09:59.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:49:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:49:25 AM EDT.