|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
921 online
Server Time:
2024-03-29 15:06:41
|
|
|
Ground State
Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Male Total Likes: 1005 likes
| | | Because We Absolutely Fucking Hate HDR < on 5/2/2015 12:54 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | ** Found a nice, long FAQ in the Photography section on 'Bracket and Blend' that I think I'll read first before asking the same redundant question. I left the original post here anyway, in case anyone wanted to comment. But I've got plenty to read. I've been sincerely trying to cut down my HDR use in the past year - both a result of wanting to learn my in-camera functionality better, and from watching other users dump entirely directories of images into Photomatix, just to have it spit out perfunctory results that ironically kill creativity. But at the same time, I'm also into abandonment photography to see the details of the abandonments themselves, and not so much to take great photographs. Not to mention, I also have a shit camera that was a total of $500, with very limited performance. Here are three bracketed photos from a recent scene, each (in my initial opinion) not good. Low-Bracket by Ground State Photos, on Flickr Mid-Bracket by Ground State Photos, on Flickr High-Bracket by Ground State Photos, on Flickr The combined HDR follows, with some additional tweaking of highlights, a touch of contrast, and complete killing of the aqua channel and a portion of the blue (I tend to dislike blue in interior photos). HDR_tonemapped by Ground State Photos, on Flickr I think this is the best result, especially for my camera. And every single HDR photo that I do is individually chosen as such because of crap source images. I would never batch edit. But what can I do differently? If I want to maintain outside details through windows, etc. without having them all blown out in white, but still have a decently lit interior, and achieve all this without firing the flash, what can I try instead?
[last edit 5/2/2015 1:46 PM by Ground State - edited 1 times]
| If you're seeing this here on UER, please let me 'Follow' your work on Flickr: https://www.flickr...otos/91808861@N04/ |
| flySparro
Location: Alberta, Canada Gender: Male Total Likes: 253 likes
And therein, as the bard would tell us, lies the rub.
| | | | Re: Because We Absolutely Fucking Hate HDR < Reply # 11 on 6/23/2015 5:01 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by tiffers Both Nikon and Canon have certain viewing options (highlights in Nikon) that allow you to see blown out highlights.
|
Nailed it. I use this function for a lot of exposures. Night, wildlife, interior, film set behind-the-scenes... It's really helpful. If your camera can capture raw images, do that and play with it in Lightroom or Photoshop Raw instead. Same results, way less work on site, and no terrible HDR look to the photos. With 12-14 stops of dynamic range on modern cameras, HDR is functionally a poor use of time, IMO. See this HDR vs RAW comparison I did two years ago:
| BFA '16, PADI DM. Visit the UER Store Envelopes licked in the name of UER: 119 — Read the 2019 UER Store Update |
| General Zod
Location: Provvy-Prov, Rhode Island Gender: Male Total Likes: 337 likes
www.mycophagia.c om
| | | | | Re: Because We Absolutely Fucking Hate HDR < Reply # 13 on 6/24/2015 4:38 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | I never liked HDR. (Siper, yours looks pretty cool, though) And I was always on the side of those who make fun of it's typical look. glowing spaces and lines extreme details unnatural light or contrasts over-saturation same crap every time
The criticism is well-deserved at this point. Years ago, I made a Facebook group against HDR and it's still up with several dozen members, but I don't really bother to maintain the page. I also made up a post claiming that HDR is to photography what Auto-Tune is to the music industry. Yeah... people got pretty upset about that one. My two cents, though: In regards to post-processing there is a difference between people who apply one big uniform HDR filter to their images, versus those who tastefully edit the HDR in select ways, only applying it to select parts of the picture plane.. Just like one would do with other types of filters. And back on that glowing look crap, again... Why bother adding glow to an HDR, unless you want people to say "NICE HDR!"? It's not like people can't spot that cheesiness from a mile away. I can literally spot an HDR in an un-opened thumbnail the size of my own actual thumbnail.
[last edit 6/24/2015 4:42 AM by General Zod - edited 2 times]
| Rise before Zod Kneel before Zod www.mycophagia.com |
| siper
Location: SF, CA Gender: Male Total Likes: 547 likes
"His hand upon her breast, he knew today meant death."
| | | | Re: Because We Absolutely Fucking Hate HDR < Reply # 14 on 6/24/2015 3:44 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by General Zod I never liked HDR. (Siper, yours looks pretty cool, though) And I was always on the side of those who make fun of it's typical look. glowing spaces and lines extreme details unnatural light or contrasts over-saturation same crap every time
The criticism is well-deserved at this point. Years ago, I made a Facebook group against HDR and it's still up with several dozen members, but I don't really bother to maintain the page. I also made up a post claiming that HDR is to photography what Auto-Tune is to the music industry. Yeah... people got pretty upset about that one. My two cents, though: In regards to post-processing there is a difference between people who apply one big uniform HDR filter to their images, versus those who tastefully edit the HDR in select ways, only applying it to select parts of the picture plane.. Just like one would do with other types of filters. And back on that glowing look crap, again... Why bother adding glow to an HDR, unless you want people to say "NICE HDR!"? It's not like people can't spot that cheesiness from a mile away. I can literally spot an HDR in an un-opened thumbnail the size of my own actual thumbnail.
| I think it boils down to the fact that new photographers just don't know. They don't know how to perform selective edits, they don't have an eye for what looks good yet, and they don't know that HDR is generally hated by many seasoned photographers. I know all of this from personal (lack of) experience. For the first year, I thought Photomatix'd HDR looked cool because of the vivid colors, I didn't know what halos were or why they were bad, and it was so easy to do with Photomatix. I can't even look at my earlier work without cringing. Again, I don't think the blame should fall with HDR, it belongs to the user who is misusing it. The funny thing is, non-photographers fucking love Photomatix'd HDR. So the question is: whose respect do you want? Photographers who will burn you at the stake for having over-processed HDR or the non-photographers who will potentially be buying your prints? It's a question I haven't answered but think it's interesting to ponder.
[last edit 6/25/2015 1:54 PM by siper - edited 1 times]
| Want to improve your photography? Flickr |
| |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 109 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 737124037 pages have been generated.
|
|