UER Store sweet UER decals: Activity 1577 online Server Time: 2024-04-27 18:31:07 Visit Infiltration Access All Areas AvBrand

1 2 3 4   UER Forum > Archived UE Photo Critiques > My first HDR attempt... (Viewed 1328 times) Shai Hulud  Location: Evansville IN Gender: Male Shai, Team Phantom  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 20 on 6/29/2006 4:30 PM >   I have to say I like the HDR shot more, just because of the difference in the windows. It's a great picture either way though, and the site looks really interesting. Me: Why is there snow on her car? ... Wait a minute, that isn't snow at all! MutantMandias: Nothin' gets past you, man. Nothin'. -TN Waltz n 'Splore Volume 2 micro  Gender: Male Slowly I turned  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 21 on 6/29/2006 5:12 PM >   An HDR image, even when done "right" never looks anything close to how my eye would perceive something in real life. You know what does? A properly exposed photograph shot using film. Try looking at a colour positive on a lightbox and you won't get much closer to real life representation. Unless you're shooting a scene that involves *vast* differences in light and dark areas, you're going to get all the shadows and highlights you need for a realistic looking photograph and print. Of course, a lot of this can depend on the film or type of scanner you're using, but still, as it stands now HDR is nothing but a dodgy band-aid solution to make up for the limitations of digital camera sensors. tron_2.0  Location: Ohio Gender: Male  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 22 on 6/29/2006 5:34 PM >   Posted by micro An HDR image, even when done "right" never looks anything close to how my eye would perceive something in real life. You know what does? A properly exposed photograph shot using film. Try looking at a colour positive on a lightbox and you won't get much closer to real life representation. Unless you're shooting a scene that involves *vast* differences in light and dark areas, you're going to get all the shadows and highlights you need for a realistic looking photograph and print. Of course, a lot of this can depend on the film or type of scanner you're using, but still, as it stands now HDR is nothing but a dodgy band-aid solution to make up for the limitations of digital camera sensors. aye! [quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i] I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing. [/quote] desmet  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 23 on 6/29/2006 7:12 PM >   Posted by Leviathan I'm going to have to agree that the HDR doesn't work in this case. I'm reticent to say it works in any case, however, so weight my opinion accordingly. The way I see it, HDR is an artistic technique in the same vein as selective photoshop blur - it can create cool images, cool digital manipulations - but the end product should no longer be considered a photograph. Personally, if I shot digital, I would treat it like slide film and do half-stop bracketing, selecting the best exposure as the final image. Again though, biased opinion Yea, the problem with that is that there are a lot of images you'll just never be able to create. The dynamic range of digital is SO limited that it really prevents you from taking a lot of entirely reasonable images with your camera. Personally, I don't think it stops being a photograph if you combine multiple exposures. Does shooting two exposures on one piece of film make the result "not a photograph"? Of course not, so I don't really see any difference between that and combining in photoshop. I will admit, though, that there comes a point. An image like this... http://www.desolat.../sunrise_ward.html ...has more dynamic range than any film, any monitor, or any paper could ever reproduce. Shit, even your eyes can't see all the dynamic range in that shot. In that case I think I would agree that it's more of a digital manipulation than anything else. However...on something like this... http://www.desolat...06/03/post_48.html ...the blend is imperceptible and the dynamic range is well within the limits of what can be displayed and captured using reasonable means. desmet  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 24 on 6/29/2006 7:17 PM >   Posted by west_end_chud I know that I am fairly new to photography, but I would think you could have achieved close to the same effects with a circular polarizer. I like the increased detail on the ceiling truss beams and the lack of glare on the rail tracks in the HDR version, but miss the shadows in the cement hoppers at the bottom from the original. Both are good shots in any case. Thanks Louie, Not really. You might be able to cut down on the glare on the beams a tiny bit but that's it. The windows would still be blown, there would still be very dense shadows on the rafters, etc. desmet  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 25 on 6/29/2006 7:25 PM >   Posted by Vance I do agree with the sentiment that people need to know what they are trying to create and have control over that process. Just shooting snapshots, then trying to make it look cool in photoshop after the fact is not Photography with a capital P. Disagree. Well, agree maybe about taking snapshots and doing it, but show me a print of a great image that didn't have a test strip, a whitelight print, a contrast print, and a final print. I went through probably thousands of dollars worth of paper back when I had access to a darkroom, and plenty of photographs which were blah at the start were turned into something good via processing. There is no difference between what goes on in the darkroom and what goes on it photoshop. EDIT: And I should add that I wasn't even a big darkroom guy. I did my double exposures in the camera, and only printed on Ilford Multigrade IV Pearl paper using one developer. I toned, but that's about it. If you get into different chemicals, other processes for the paper, different types of paper, etc. you can go even further with it. Posted by Vance Lastly, in support of Leviathan, a great photograph that is essentially right out of the camera gets my respect a whole lot faster than a digitally manipulated image. And his photography gets that respect as I know he does very little, if anything at all, to the images he posts on this site. This is such a crock of shit. It's my favorite thing to read on here because it's so obviously elitist and also so obviously wrong. No photographer slaps their neg in a carrier and prints it right away. At the ABSOLUTE least they do a test strip to determine exposure on the enlarger, and in reality they do a hell of a lot more...at least if they actually give a shit about producing good work....probably spending a lot more time per image than most people do in photoshop. There's no such thing as an image that's good right out of the camera and if there is, it's digital. It's also funny because some of the greatest photographers in history (our friend Ansel for one) were known for heavy-duty darkroom manipulation. Show me a single image from this website that is on the level of Ansel's work and I'll admit I'm wrong. [last edit 6/29/2006 7:30 PM by desmet - edited 1 times] desmet  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 26 on 6/29/2006 7:26 PM >   Posted by mortimer HDR works best when nobody can tell you used it. It's supposed to allow wider dynamic range; if you want cheap-ass looking bizarre flat highlight spots all over the image, there's probably filters in ps that are much less memory-intensive. HDR imaging is meant to be a tool, not a special effect. This photo didn't need 16 stops of dynamic range, what it needed, if anything, was a simple layer mask for the windows*, which would have been much quicker, easier and better looking in the end. *Leviathan, as someone who learned photography in a darkroom before photoshop 1.0 was released, the effect of a layer mask, unlike hdr, is something that can and has been duplicated with chemicals and paper. Now here's someone I agree with! HDR tools are garbage! Layer masks are the only way to get natural looking images! bekapants  Location: the queen city, new hampshire Gender: Female  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 27 on 6/29/2006 7:55 PM >   Posted by desmet Now here's someone I agree with! HDR tools are garbage! Layer masks are the only way to get natural looking images! yay layer masking! bekapants  Location: the queen city, new hampshire Gender: Female  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 28 on 6/29/2006 8:01 PM >   High Dynamic Range. This is a lighting procedure designed to emulate the way that light levels in the real world vary over an enormous range. This is mostly achieved by the use of floating point textures and render targets (as well as using the appropriate lighting algorithm); integer formats do not offer the anywhere near the same range of values. Although visually better, the use of floating point formats can result in a large performance impact on some graphics adapters. RENDERING TARGETS!! i noticed in your photo that you really lose the highlights in the tracks to gain the effect on the windows (which are lovely post-edit). if you are capable of only touching up a certain area without making the image look wierd, do it up. bekapants  Location: the queen city, new hampshire Gender: Female  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 29 on 6/29/2006 8:05 PM >   Posted by Vance Lastly, in support of Leviathan, a great photograph that is essentially right out of the camera gets my respect a whole lot faster than a digitally manipulated image. And his photography gets that respect as I know he does very little, if anything at all, to the images he posts on this site. how do you know if you can't tell...and no one says anything about it? Vance  Location: DC Gender: Male  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 30 on 6/29/2006 9:36 PM >   No photographer slaps their neg in a carrier and prints it right away. At the ABSOLUTE least they do a test strip to determine exposure on the enlarger, and in reality they do a hell of a lot more...at least if they actually give a shit about producing good work....probably spending a lot more time per image than most people do in photoshop. DESMET: You have completely missed the point. I never said that it didn't take work to make a good print. In fact where did I even mention printing? My point was that I disagree with the elitist film attitude. I was pointing out that even shooting film involves some form of manipulation. Furthermore, I shoot digital and I bet for a lot longer than you have. So this was no attack on digital at all. Leviathan and I have argued about film and digital in the past--with me on digital's side. There's no such thing as an image that's good right out of the camera and if there is, it's digital. DESMET: You are wrong about there being no such thing as a good image straight out of the camera. I have seen work on slide film that would blow all of us away. I have worked with slides from the best photographers in the world. You can't tell me there is no such thing as a great image right out of the camera. But again you have missed my point because you chose to attack my words instead of read them. The point was that I respect an amazing image that has been untouched alot more than an amazing image that has been heavily manipulated. I love digital images, print images, film images, slide images, poloroid images, etc. Show me a single image from this website that is on the level of Ansel's work and I'll admit I'm wrong. DESMET: What post are you responding too? Did I ever compare his images to Ansel Adams? No. But I do know that Leviathan does very little to his images besides scan and save. As opposed to Andel Adams who burned and dodged his prints like crazy until they looked nothing like the scene he saw with his own eyes. So once again, you have missed my point. Leviathan gets more respect from me because he posts beautiful photographs that I know are not heavily manipulated. Is he better than Ansel Adams? Of course not. Nobody said he was. "If you go down to the woods today you're sure of a big surprise. If you go down to the woods today you'd better go in disguise." micro  Gender: Male Slowly I turned  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 31 on 6/29/2006 9:39 PM >   Posted by Vance Lastly, in support of Leviathan, a great photograph that is essentially right out of the camera gets my respect a whole lot faster than a digitally manipulated image. And his photography gets that respect as I know he does very little, if anything at all, to the images he posts on this site. If he's scanning film then there's no way he's avoiding digital manipulation on some level. A well exposed negative doesn't always translate well when it comes time to scan it. Sometimes you have to spend a lot of time in order to get things looking the way they're supposed to. Like Ansel Adams said, the negative is the score and the print is the performance. If you want decent results from either film or digital, then manipulation is essential. [last edit 6/29/2006 9:42 PM by micro - edited 1 times] Urban Pirate  Location: Salt Lake City Gender: Male  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 32 on 6/29/2006 11:48 PM >   All of this because one guy decided to try HDR and post his attempt on this board... www.urbantrespass.com maypost  Location: North, South, East, West, all around... then down to the underground Gender: Male Exploring if for n00bz0rz  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 33 on 6/29/2006 11:51 PM >   All of this because one guy decided to try HDR and post his attempt on this board... One guy? The legend of Louie spans far past just one guy!! WWFLD? Exploring is like tattoos... They stopped being cool in 2005 Urban Pirate  Location: Salt Lake City Gender: Male  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 34 on 6/30/2006 12:44 AM >   Posted by maypost One guy? The legend of Louie spans far past just one guy!! WWFLD? I stand corrected. But the point remains, simply trying HDR and posting the result is enough to start a war here. www.urbantrespass.com Vance  Location: DC Gender: Male  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 35 on 6/30/2006 1:24 AM >   Posted by Urban Pirate I stand corrected. But the point remains, simply trying HDR and posting the result is enough to start a war here. I agree with your sentiments and would like to return this to a discussion on HDR. My apologies to the board for my part in diverting attention away from fatLouie's photos. fatLouie, did you try HDR on any other scenes at this place? Personally I like both versions of the photo you posted. But I want to see more. [last edit 6/30/2006 1:25 AM by Vance - edited 1 times] "If you go down to the woods today you're sure of a big surprise. If you go down to the woods today you'd better go in disguise." yokes  Location: Toronto Gender: Male I aim to misbehave  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 36 on 6/30/2006 2:35 AM >   My vote would be for image one. Not because of HDR, which I have only a mild dislike of, but because I love dark shadows. "Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." - Richard Nickel Urban Pirate  Location: Salt Lake City Gender: Male  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 37 on 6/30/2006 5:53 AM >   Perhaps we should open this thread up for everyone with an interest in HDR to post some of their attempts at the style. I know this type of thread has been done in the past, but anyone interested in HDR might benefit from seeing what people on this site have been able to do with the technique. Just a thought, it is Louie's thread and I don't want to hijack it. Pirate. www.urbantrespass.com desmet  When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 38 on 6/30/2006 1:49 PM >   Posted by Vance Furthermore, I shoot digital and I bet for a lot longer than you have. LOL...you're probably right...I was too busy shooting film back in the day to worry about digital. Posted by Vance DESMET: You are wrong about there being no such thing as a good image straight out of the camera. I have seen work on slide film that would blow all of us away. OK I concede the point as far as slide film. Posted by Vance The point was that I respect an amazing image that has been untouched alot more than an amazing image that has been heavily manipulated. I love digital images, print images, film images, slide images, poloroid images, etc. You keep going around in circles but this is what it comes back to. I think this is silly. Your average printed image is going to involve quite a bit of post processing. If you're a nut for slide film then fine, but I thought we were talking about shooting regular film. Posted by Vance DESMET: What post are you responding too? Did I ever compare his images to Ansel Adams? No. But I do know that Leviathan does very little to his images besides scan and save. As opposed to Andel Adams who burned and dodged his prints like crazy until they looked nothing like the scene he saw with his own eyes. So once again, you have missed my point. Leviathan gets more respect from me because he posts beautiful photographs that I know are not heavily manipulated. Is he better than Ansel Adams? Of course not. Nobody said he was. You keep whining about me missing your point, but then go ahead and state EXACTLY what I was responding to. I love Leviathan's work, I think he's a fantastic photographer...one of the better ones on this site...but he's no Ansel Adams and neither are any of us. The point is, Ansel was a better photographer than all of us, and he manipulated the shit out of his images. So, I think it's extremely silly to give props to unmanipulated images, when the amount of manipulation that does or doesn't go into an image really doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference. The bottom line is the end product: the image in it's final form, and I just think it's silly to draw distinctions based on what post processing you do. Become a world-famous photographer on par with the best that have ever lived and THEN you can talk about the value of an unmanipulated image. Vance  Location: DC Gender: Male  |  |  |  Re: My first HDR attempt... <Reply # 39 on 6/30/2006 2:47 PM >   Desmet. If you want to have a debate on printing and manipulation and Ansel Adams, then let's start another thread. Now can we get back to HDR already. "If you go down to the woods today you're sure of a big surprise. If you go down to the woods today you'd better go in disguise." UER Forum > Archived UE Photo Critiques > My first HDR attempt... (Viewed 1328 times)  1 2 3 4   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 156 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739462298 pages have been generated.