(Note: an HDR photo is one which combines multiple exposures to compress a very contrasty subject into one photo.)
Robb said:
HDR, if done correctly (usually it's not) can result in fantastic ranges of tones in a photograph. This technique was used by many photogs familiar with - and willing to do - in-camera masking.
Now we have digital tools, and many view HDR as a quick blast back to the days of LSD, photography wise.
Using the tools correctly is the key.
Absolutely. (I did not intend to sound like I dislike HDR photos in general.)
EmptySpaces points to this article in favor of good HDR images.
EmptySpaces points to this article in favor of good HDR images.
18 comments:
HDR, if done correctly (usually it's not) can result in fantastic ranges of tones in a photograph. This technique was used by many photogs familiar with - and willing to do - in-camera masking.
Now we have digital tools, and many view HDR as a quick blast back to the days of LSD, photography wise.
Using the tools correctly is the key.
Absolutely. (I did not intend to sound like I dislike HDR photos in general.)
The ones I like from that list could probably have been accomplished with a correct exposure combined with fill flash, or possibly a graduated ND filter. The cartoonish ones don't appeal to me.
Luminous Landscape published an interesting article on HDR recently, and I rather like most of the examples posted there.
For my part, I've tried HDR a few times and decided it was too time-consuming.
As an architectural photographer, I use HDR exclusively. The range of expression offered with the process accommodates corporate/commercial work as well as a variety of extreme or fine art looks. Anymore, I brand well executed HDR as "accomplished" and am often dismissive of any modern photography that doesn't employ it. The work linked in your article is, without exception, very well executed and demonstrates an intention and a high level of mastery. I really enjoy work of that caliber.
There are a number of different techniques (for Photoshop) to simulate the true HDR result. These techniques sometimes yield a more natural result than HDR itself.
Keywords such as: HDR|Photoshop|single image might be of help.
For me, the point os HDR is just to solve the problem of too short a dynamic range of the sensors. So for me, if you can capture detail all across the range in a single exposure, there's no need for it.
Yes, Eolake - that's what's called latitude or rendering latitude when considering exposures done on film.
Digital sensors like CCDs are just now beginning to come close to what we humans see. The human eye and the processing software that's installed with it at birth is truly amazing.
Look at shadows, and you can see details in it. Look at highlights and you can see detail there.
HDR only attempts to come close to that. The visual dynamic range of the human eye will take a number of Samsungs and Intels and Toshibas and Kyoceras to even attempt to approach.
Robb in Houston
I really like the end result of the images in the linked page.
Then again, I always liked chocolate box paintings, so... ;-)
Like one of the guys said in the comments to that post, this is "HDR art". Some of them were nice, but it's not my thing. It's certainly not the Art I'm after with my Photography.
So you've got your own style as a photographer. That's cool too. :-)
As they say in French, "variety makes for beauty". Especially with art. Dynamism is a good thing.
Everybody has their own "thing".
(And yes, I know you didn't say the opposite. :-)
I like the intense colors of those HDRs. Perhaps because I have partial daltonism, making me more "receptive" to enhanced contrasts. Sure, they're not "natural-looking", but my eyes find them pleasant. It might very well be in a childish way. So what? :-)
Another French proverb: "Of tastes and colors, you cannot debate."
Our sense of taste is genetically determined too, so we don't all perceive food and dishes the same way.
Art is really a highly personal thing...
its an insolvable problem, a normal photo is what the eye sees when it looks at a certain point in a scene, an hdr is what it sees as it moves around a scene, neither is what the eye really sees
I've thought long and hard about all manners of intrusion upon the image, after it was originally recorded. My conclusion is not simple. There are some - not me - who believe photography tells the truth. There are others - like me - who believe the final image is the result of how a person or a team translate a mechanical record of a scene into their vision of a final presentation. This can be done very well and easily, or with great effort and badly, just as easily. It is the nature of photographic craft and art. The tools matter. That is the craft part. The art part is applying craft with magic fingers.
as my old friend salvador once said -
It is good taste, and good taste alone, that possesses the power to sterilize and is always the first handicap to any creative functioning
"a normal photo is what the eye sees" - Sukiho
Never. A normal photo is what the photographer chose to point his or her particular camera at - each and every one of them translating the scene at which it is pointed in its own way - frame their way, and then translate the scene of three dimensions into two. Then comes the analogue or digital translation of that image capture to the final output.
That is what a normal photo is. Not even close to what the eye sees, ever.
But it can be art, when done well. Which the original scene was not.
Michal - I think I wasnt clear, what I meant is that a standard photo has a single exposure for the whole scene, as the eye does when it looks at a certain point in a scene, whereas an hdr has different exposure thoughout, as does the eye when it moves over a scene
I didnt mean that the eye sees the same as a normal photo
Sukiho,
I'm sure your seemingly photo-realistic paintings are more artistic than the original images. Be they photos or posing models.
Then again, art begins in the way the artist LOOKS at something. Representation of said thing only comes in second.
So, even if photography IS a mechanical copy of human eye vision, still "it's in the gazer's eye" since the very start.
P-04 - yes, Im not interested in trying to depict reality, I can look out the window or go for a walk if I want that, which makes me wonder, do people ever look at all the videos and photos they take? I dont see how they would have time, I think its some kind of memory device, they remember things by the act of recording them, like if you write something you are more likely to remember it even if you never look again at what you have written
It also helps the memory when you look again at a photo. :-)
Especially after a very long time.
Photos are also great for SHARING what you saw/remember.
Post a Comment