forums
new posts
donate
UER Store
events
location db
db map
search
members
faq
terms of service
privacy policy
register
login




UER Forum > Archived UE Photo Critiques > "Great HDR!" (Viewed 610 times)
Weirdlig 


Gender: Female




Send Private Message | Send Email
"Great HDR!"
< on 1/29/2013 1:01 AM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
Here's a strange critique I'd like. I got away from HDRs early last year...totally not for me. The result was always just terrible crap.

So after all this time of figuring out my style, why do I get comments like "Great HDR!" every now and then? I don't want them to look like HDRs at all, but now I see it in some of them.

Each of these shots I could have done much better, but they don't look real. What crappened?

1.


2.


3.


http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography
yokes 


Location: Toronto
Gender: Male


I aim to misbehave

Send Private Message | Send Email | AIM Message | 
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 1 on 1/29/2013 1:09 AM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
I don't think any of these look HDR, natural or otherwise.

"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel
Derelict Compositions 


Location: Burlington, ON
Gender: Male




Send Private Message | Send Email | 
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 2 on 1/29/2013 1:32 AM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
I don't think any of these look like HDR either. They are nice shots though. A lot of people on Flickr always say "Nice HDR" if it's a nice picture. They think only an HDR can look good because all they use is a P&S camera from 1998. lol

Derelict Compositions, Nikon
http://www.flickr.com/dcc_028
consecrated 


Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male


Æthereal

Send Private Message | Send Email | 
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 3 on 1/29/2013 1:31 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
I agree with DC and yokes above. I see nothing resembling HDR in your photos posted in this thread. I can't exactly put my finger on what you describe as not looking 'real', but it's something in the way you are processing... Processing is really subjective and isn't correct or incorrect (but may be deemed appealing or unappealing) unlike the technical aspects of photography (exposure, focus, and one could argue composition) which can make or break a photo on just being wrong.

I don't particularly care for these photos, subjectively speaking...but I don't think they are "technically" bad and they certainly don't hurt my eyes like many overcooked photos on UER as of late. I think your clarity and/or sharpness is up a bit much on the first one. You may have boosted "recovery" on the hot spot in the upper left to avoid local overexposure...it's a tough photo given the available light and direction of the light source - sun. I would try to lower the clarity and or sharpness, try a 4x5 crop here, maybe leaving out the peaking sun since it's not contributing. I base this on my thinking that the adjustments you made on that photo to compensate for tough lighting are what makes it look processed. My .02

On the second one I don't particular care for how it was framed but I don't think the processing is too bad. I don't see anything out of place here. I might warm it a touch and reframe. Your clarity may be a touch high but it's exposed fine. I don't think this one in any way is in the same category as the first image.

On the third I think something may be amiss with clarity again and that window screen doesn't help. Maybe it's causing a little flare? not sure. There is some noise but I don't think that's really an issue here at all. A little warmer, maybe a bit more saturation, I dunno. That might make it look more real.

The thing about it is that "looking real" and desaturating and adding a gritty feel aren't necessarily going to coincide. They can often contradict one another. We often process to insight emotion rather than reveal integrity.

Don't rely too heavily on internet opinion, including this one. Do what "feels" right to you. Not what is trendy, popular or necessarily increases your web cred. You said you figured out your style, so go with it. You will find that your style will change over time or may even flip flop. You may even have a "style" specific to application.

Just keep shooting.
[last edit 1/29/2013 1:34 PM by consecrated - edited 1 times]

Weirdlig 


Gender: Female




Send Private Message | Send Email
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 4 on 1/29/2013 5:23 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
Thanks, that was basically exactly the type of thing I was looking for here. Very well put.

I've been starting to wonder if I'm relying too heavily on sharpness and clarity. It works in many of the less dynamic photos. But the more complex the lighting and space in the subject itself, the stranger it starts to look when you're trying to keep it too crisp.

Groovy. I'll keep it in mind next time I can shoot something.

http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography
Adv.Pack 


Location: Connecticut


Adventure Pack

Send Private Message | Send Email
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 5 on 1/29/2013 10:21 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
"great HDR" makes no sense to me because if it were a great HDR, you would not even be able to tell it was an HDR at all.

... people are annoying.

https://www.instagram.com/chris.kiely/
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/adv_/
consecrated 


Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male


Æthereal

Send Private Message | Send Email | 
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 6 on 1/30/2013 3:50 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
Posted by Weirdling
Thanks, that was basically exactly the type of thing I was looking for here. Very well put.

I've been starting to wonder if I'm relying too heavily on sharpness and clarity. It works in many of the less dynamic photos. But the more complex the lighting and space in the subject itself, the stranger it starts to look when you're trying to keep it too crisp.

Groovy. I'll keep it in mind next time I can shoot something.


Try not to rely too heavily on any processing technique. Occasionally we all find ourselves in a shooting situation where we say "ok, I can take care of this in post" which is totally normal and if you shoot enough, expected. But just don't plan on performing blanket processing techniques to all of your photos before you even get to the shooting location! They won't look good and you are doing yourself an artistic and technical disservice. That being said, there are certain things you may find yourself always doing.

You may like your images on the warmer side, or you always boost your sat 10 or 20, etc. The glory of film was that film had character and personality, so to speak. That's something that digital raw lacks. Provia differed from Velvia differed from Ektar differed from Kodachrome... you get it. So, we often times boost or subtract certain aspects of our photos consistently in order to obtain a certain "feel". That's cool, and I think that's part of what you are referring to when you mentioned your style.

I don't think sharpness and clarity are necessarily something you can always set a certain way. I mean, I sharpen on export the same on every photo but it's a very small amount and it really is only for the purpose of viewing the jpeg export on a screen. I personally think it looks better. That's just me. Clarity is incredibly dependent on your subject matter, lighting and contrast - just as you pointed out. Nearly blown out details can begin to look crazy-funky when clarity is pushed beyond it's usefulness. I don't think I have ever gone above 40 on it and sometimes I question whether or not that's too much, but it all depends. A gritty, desaturated image may call for more and it may be what makes it pop.

As you get more and more experienced you can start to predict what you can and can't do to a photo and have it meet your personal satisfaction. Sometimes you just have to walk away for a bit and then reattack. They way I processed crap 5 years ago makes me want to gag now. It's a process, no pun intended.

Anyway, glad I could help. Sorry for rambling.

Lasso 


Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Gender: Male




Send Private Message | Send Email | Murder Motels
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 7 on 1/30/2013 5:33 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
These don't look remotely HDR. I think there are a lot of amateur photogs in the "HDR hole" where they think anything that looks good is a "good HDR". Not totally understanding that just using a tripod and understanding how to properly expose a photo can get them the shot they go for when they run everything through an HDR program.

Tenebrae 


Location: The Wild West


Life's short; eat dessert first.

Send Private Message | Send Email
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 8 on 1/31/2013 2:07 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
consecrated clearly has you covered here!

I just wanted to add one small thing. I do see why you might get the HDR comment about the first photo: it has a kind of "eye hurting" sharpness and grittiness that HDR seems to bring out in photos.

Mainly: I think it's as important to shoot from your "gut" (as you do) as you continue to improve your techniques. Your spontaneity and sense of fun is what makes your photographs unique, IMO.


Weirdlig 


Gender: Female




Send Private Message | Send Email
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 9 on 1/31/2013 5:46 PM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
Thanks, everyone! I think I have some good ideas now.

http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography
Kuroneko 


Location: Tokyo
Gender: Male




Send Private Message | Send Email
Re: "Great HDR!"
<Reply # 10 on 3/8/2013 6:47 AM >
Posted on Forum: UER Forum
 
> Re: "Great HDR!"

Though alluded to, it has to be said too, there is no such thing as 'great HDR'. Its like saying that's a great bleeding ulcer, or that's a tasty McDonald's hamburger. Neko.

UER Forum > Archived UE Photo Critiques > "Great HDR!" (Viewed 610 times)



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 737116412 pages have been generated.