Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 26, 2010, 8:28 AM   #121
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

QUOTE: Nor is it "wrong" to present an image in a way that persons on the scene would never see - It's not wrong, but it's Art, and not reality.

So every time lapse photo is Art? Any shot where the lens is open for more than 1/100 of a second for example, or every shot where a flash is used is Art". It is seldom that a photo represents reality. The eye is too good to try to beat. Its constantly changing, constantly moving and adapting. A photo is a single brief capture of light reflecting a certain way at that certain time. Using Walters pics for example, his shots are more lifelike and closer to reality with his using HDR software.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2010, 8:38 AM   #122
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
QUOTE: Nor is it "wrong" to present an image in a way that persons on the scene would never see - It's not wrong, but it's Art, and not reality.

So every time lapse photo is Art? Any shot where the lens is open for more than 1/100 of a second for example, or every shot where a flash is used is Art". It is seldom that a photo represents reality. The eye is too good to try to beat. Its constantly changing, constantly moving and adapting. A photo is a single brief capture of light reflecting a certain way at that certain time. Using Walters pics for example, his shots are more lifelike and closer to reality with his using HDR software.
There is a reason why on some of Walters shots, I've posted nothing but praise.

Photography is also called, "The Art of Photography," and this too leads to semantic confusion. We would not call a journalists work, "Art," and we would expect his/her images to reflect what we would see if we were really there. Yet this aspect of making the viewer feel that they are seeing what actually occured is at the same time part of the Art of Photography.

But then there are images which have an aim of being art for it's own sake. They do not attempt to depict reality, but a vision. They might very well be welcoming us to see this vision, which they, and not the scene have created.

Both choices are still photography - But many who use HDR techniques insist that they are showing us a better version of reality by insisting that this is a more accurate rendition of the scene.

Some of these shots literally scream HDR - Well, fine, it's art in the more classical sense of the word, and not the art of photography is the sense of the classical use of That word.

I praise or critique a shot based on the claims and context of the shot. Many of the HDR shots posted here, are showing me an accurate rendition of a place or person - a Rendition that would not be possible without the use of various techniques -

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Mar 26, 2010 at 8:41 AM.
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 5:17 AM   #123
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Yet a member actually stated:
''It's been such a joy to observe them Walter! But your series prove more than just pleasure; a good training for the eye to help the ones to have their eyes REALLY 'see' in their next outing. You may as well have entitled your post 'A triumph of HDR' ''

A triumph of HDR? Really? It's Walter's triumph, just as when I look at a Van Gogh, it's not a triumph of oil paint.

Doesn't anyone else even comprehend the falsity of this kind of logic, or are people so enamored of the process that they forget what the goal is? ..... Dave

That memember is me! It's annoying to see such baits just here and there. Now as for the comment attached to it:

In the first place, the so called comparison is no more than a poor attempt of abstracting an artist from the style he/she follows.
As an example, 1880’s are now known as the triumph of impressionism. There might be someone attempting to associate the title emphasizing this fact with ‘a triumph of pigment, oil and brush’ with a hidden agenda of trivitialising the artistic style these artists shared. I wouldn’t go into a cunning egg-chicken debate here!

Secondly it’s a shame to trivialize a member’s celebration of another fellow member’s works in a particular forum dedicated to hdr, exposing it here in such a fashion.

As I wrote before:''I don’t think there’s anything which requires less justification than sharing a mate’s exaltation in each of his photograph and text that follows, reminding me the famous exclamation ‘I’ve seized the light, I’ve arrested its flight’ by Daguerre...''
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 7:24 AM   #124
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
That memember is me! It's annoying to see such baits just here and there. Now as for the comment attached to it:

In the first place, the so called comparison is no more than a poor attempt of abstracting an artist from the style he/she follows.
As an example, 1880’s are now known as the triumph of impressionism. There might be someone attempting to associate the title emphasizing this fact with ‘a triumph of pigment, oil and brush’ with a hidden agenda of trivitialising the artistic style these artists shared. I wouldn’t go into a cunning egg-chicken debate here!

Secondly it’s a shame to trivialize a member’s celebration of another fellow member’s works in a particular forum dedicated to hdr, exposing it here in such a fashion.

As I wrote before:''I don’t think there’s anything which requires less justification than sharing a mate’s exaltation in each of his photograph and text that follows, reminding me the famous exclamation ‘I’ve seized the light, I’ve arrested its flight’ by Daguerre...''
You're way to prolix in order to say nothing. Photography is not HDR.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 1:54 PM   #125
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Without going into personalities, it is a difficult thing to juxtapose HDR with a school of Art. I cannot picture a Monet or a Renoir, perusing a scene and saying, "This is not suitable for an Impressionist painting, I'll do a realist work."

I know of no "HDRist" school of photography, anymore than I know of a Chiaroscuro school of photography, although there are many photographers who make use of this 2500 year old technique to use light to change the nature of their images. Where appropriate, we all use whatever is necessary to enhance our photographs. Even those who are deliberately using HDR to make their art, are not part of any school or type. We are photographers, and photography is related to painting, only in the sense that all the visual arts obey objective laws of light and perspective.

And yet, many scenes simply cannot be improved by using HDR. Even it's proponents admit this simple and obvious fact. It's one tool amongst many, not an art form. If there are those who wish to make the HDR facet of their photographs, "obvious," this is neither wrong nor right, anymore then someone who indulges in extremes of shadow and light to enhance their images. Whether I like these extremes of light, or extremes of HDR is neither here nor there.

My personal taste is not the issue, nor is the personal taste of anyone else on this or any other discussion board.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 4:23 PM   #126
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

When using multiple jpeg files, I believe HDR will always improve them, if that is the aim of the operator. This does not include moving vegetation or other objects that cause double images. Many times Ive seen a good shot ruined by HDR, and in all cases that was the fault of the operator and not the software. Since I havent seen all the shots taken for HDR Im probably wrong on this, but from what Ive seen I stand by that statement.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 4:37 PM   #127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
When using multiple jpeg files, I believe HDR will always improve them, if that is the aim of the operator. This does not include moving vegetation or other objects that cause double images. Many times Ive seen a good shot ruined by HDR, and in all cases that was the fault of the operator and not the software. Since I havent seen all the shots taken for HDR Im probably wrong on this, but from what Ive seen I stand by that statement.
I've experimented as much as I could with images in which the dynamic range of the scene was captured by the image. Dedicated HDR software always degraded the image. Now, I have NO doubt, that such software would NOT degrade the image with a skilled operator - But that's not saying anything. Using settings that could do that, would not enhance the image either. Just wasting time.

Now, as you remember I posted a RAW file in which the software degraded the image - again, no doubt if you worked on it, that wouldn't have happened - But would it be better? I'm ready to try any reasonable experiment to confirm this, or deny this. Heck, I'll even go out with a tripod and bracket some shots for a "real" test...

Or you bracket a scene in which you wouldn't normally use HDR.

Then again, I've found that with many scenes, Only HDR techniques could capture the scene, hands down HDR was able to do what other processing techniques could not. Fine. Appropriate use of the technique is appropriate use of the technique. Indeed, I may wind up buying Photomatrix Pro, simply for "saving" those images where I blow the highlights or shadows - But for my type of photography, I usually blow the image in Many other ways, in which No software is going to help me out...

This is a question that has been discussed on numerous occasions. Why not consider a decent test and put it to rest?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 7:23 PM   #128
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

The impressionists intended to create a representation of their impression of a moment as boldly as possible. Some critics, then, even complained that the impressionists’ works made their eyes hurt! It’s only remembering some recent reproach one might even be surprised by how little our world has changed, in fact…
Well, I do not claim that hdr is a school of art but there’s a thing called hdr photography, one should not deny either ; )
No wonder many scenes simply cannot be improved by using HDR, if one takes it no more than an 'editing tool' less in importance compared to, say, smart sharpening tool.
A Zen saying I admire is; the ones who're speaking do not know, and the ones who know aren't speaking! I’d rather keep on speaking with my images from now on...
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2010, 7:45 PM   #129
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

I will refrain from commenting on the tone of your post.

If there is no school of HDR photography, then what does it mean to talk about "HDR photography?" Many HDR produced images are indistinguishable from any other form of photography - Can that be said about forms of painting? Indeed some proponents of HDR are extremely proud that their use of HDR doesn't show - Are they heretics?

And if someone is a photographer whose images would not or cannot benefit from HDR, which is more important; which is the more powerful technique? Unsharp mask, or HDR? Which is the appropriate tool? In other words, to talk about HDR as more important, more powerful, better, is in this kind of choice a meaningless profundity that says nothing.

Just as if someone looks for HDR situation only, would they benefit as much from unsharp mask?

This seems to be something that some have a hard time to grasp. I have no problem at all with using HDR if the image can benefit, and that seems to be the crux of the discussion. Images do not always benefit - but other techniques that have no relationship to HDR, will make or break an image.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2010, 1:57 AM   #130
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Here is a subject which at first I wouldnt consider for HDR. I thought a window is a window even though its broken up into many colors. But the HDR gave it so much detail that would have been filled in or blown out. And none of the 4 files I used could match the HDR final. Now dont make any comparisons of doing it any other way. We are talking HDR with Photomatix not working from Raw or some other method.
Attached Images
 
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:08 AM.