aniMal
Well-known
Just had a look at some really interesting pictures at flickr - among them pictures from Beelitz-Heilstätten in former GDR...
I wonder - is it too perfect? Too long tone-scale? The images are really beautiful in their own way, and I feel being drawn into them. But at the same time the photographer in me totally rebels, there is something wrong about HDR too.
When really looking, I can also see that the compression seems to make some colour and tonal changes that might not be intended. But the main problem is the shere amount of detail both in deep shadows and highlights that would normally have been burnt out.
Now, I really believe that most directions that photography takes will mature over time - and become a genre along with all the others.
But still I feel like being cheated in a way - that this is too much digital technique...
Guess I will have to try it out myself - really get to know it and where/when to apply it. Or ditch it after testing it thoroughly... I also wonder if it would work with scanned film...
Any opinions?
I wonder - is it too perfect? Too long tone-scale? The images are really beautiful in their own way, and I feel being drawn into them. But at the same time the photographer in me totally rebels, there is something wrong about HDR too.
When really looking, I can also see that the compression seems to make some colour and tonal changes that might not be intended. But the main problem is the shere amount of detail both in deep shadows and highlights that would normally have been burnt out.
Now, I really believe that most directions that photography takes will mature over time - and become a genre along with all the others.
But still I feel like being cheated in a way - that this is too much digital technique...
Guess I will have to try it out myself - really get to know it and where/when to apply it. Or ditch it after testing it thoroughly... I also wonder if it would work with scanned film...
Any opinions?
maddoc
... likes film again.
to much ...
to much ...
... for my taste. I also think it is not to perfect but the photos emphasize what keeps me away from digital imaging at most: they have a life-less and plastic feeling to them. I have seen better photos (mostly taken with MF cameras) of abandoned houses, which transferred the atmosphere of being abandoned to a higher degree than the HDR photos.
to much ...
... for my taste. I also think it is not to perfect but the photos emphasize what keeps me away from digital imaging at most: they have a life-less and plastic feeling to them. I have seen better photos (mostly taken with MF cameras) of abandoned houses, which transferred the atmosphere of being abandoned to a higher degree than the HDR photos.
aniMal
Well-known
Yes - I am sure more "normal" images would convey the mood of abandoned places better... I myself use film for a project I have in that direction...
One thing that I hope to try out soon, is using HDR to arrive at the best file for printing a more "normal" image. It seems to me that many of the HDR pictures I have seen are very exaggerated - I guess this comes from people being amateur and not used to film before getting into photography.
It is perhaps right that the eye has a greater dynamic range, but the eye & brain nethertheless also percieves deeps shadows as very dark. Getting detail and darkness at the same time somehow.
So, I wonder if HDR is worthwile to use provided that the over-all tonality of an image is more appropriate? What I mean is that the shadows will be very dark - but with lots of details in them. And the same way in the highlights of course.
Somehow HDR should go along with the principles of the zone system perhaps?
On the other hand, the digital possibilities are pulling in the other direction - I have myself printed images scanned from 6x7 that I later realize are too flat, too edited...
One thing that I hope to try out soon, is using HDR to arrive at the best file for printing a more "normal" image. It seems to me that many of the HDR pictures I have seen are very exaggerated - I guess this comes from people being amateur and not used to film before getting into photography.
It is perhaps right that the eye has a greater dynamic range, but the eye & brain nethertheless also percieves deeps shadows as very dark. Getting detail and darkness at the same time somehow.
So, I wonder if HDR is worthwile to use provided that the over-all tonality of an image is more appropriate? What I mean is that the shadows will be very dark - but with lots of details in them. And the same way in the highlights of course.
Somehow HDR should go along with the principles of the zone system perhaps?
On the other hand, the digital possibilities are pulling in the other direction - I have myself printed images scanned from 6x7 that I later realize are too flat, too edited...
steamer
Well-known
I've always thought that hdr has the lurid kitsch attraction of an oil on velvet painting.
aniMal
Well-known
Seems like 99% of what is on flickr is kitsch at least... Still a few images where it is justified - direct sunlight into water for instance.
One of the amusing aspects of the whole affair, is that a lot of the images looks like they have been made in the dark-room with wildly exaggerated burning and dodging... Houses get a light glow above them and so on, the sky looks like it is burnt in from another image...
Now, how is that for digital age - producing stuff that seemingly comes from running amok at the enlarger?
One of the amusing aspects of the whole affair, is that a lot of the images looks like they have been made in the dark-room with wildly exaggerated burning and dodging... Houses get a light glow above them and so on, the sky looks like it is burnt in from another image...
Now, how is that for digital age - producing stuff that seemingly comes from running amok at the enlarger?
gavinlg
Veteran
99.8 percent of HDR is overdone in my opinion. I saw someone on here with a signature that explained it as being like a "children's nightmare" and I tend to agree.
V
varjag
Guest
HDR is the new solarization.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I assume these (link) are the photos you're talking about? I think I'm in the "too much" camp as well. Many of them look like CGI, which I don't care for. The level of detail is pretty astounding though. Even in these 900x600 images.
tomtodeath
Established
HDR has no soul
aniMal
Well-known
It is the group I started looking at yes...
I´m now sitting here testing out HDR myself - of course using my M8 for it
It seems there is an absolute need for NO motion at all... Also I can see some of the traps people fall into even while processing the first ever HDR myself.
Another thing is that it looks MUCH more natural when applying a simple S-curve in curves to it. Then the tonality is right with added details all over...
I guess it is possible to use it in a non-kitch way, even without it showing. But that being said, I also think it is reserved as a tool not to use too often.
But flickr can be great! Just sent a mail to one of the members of the Beelitz Heilstätten group to enquire about making a trip there - and got an instant reply! (I am working on a series of picture on abandoned buildings/political systems/economies...)
I´m now sitting here testing out HDR myself - of course using my M8 for it
It seems there is an absolute need for NO motion at all... Also I can see some of the traps people fall into even while processing the first ever HDR myself.
Another thing is that it looks MUCH more natural when applying a simple S-curve in curves to it. Then the tonality is right with added details all over...
I guess it is possible to use it in a non-kitch way, even without it showing. But that being said, I also think it is reserved as a tool not to use too often.
But flickr can be great! Just sent a mail to one of the members of the Beelitz Heilstätten group to enquire about making a trip there - and got an instant reply! (I am working on a series of picture on abandoned buildings/political systems/economies...)
jky
Well-known
... those photos look like paintings...
I think HDR looks better, or rather more appropriate, for landscape & scenics (my opinion only). In the link above, there's an incredible amount of detail, but to me it misses the point & doesn't garner the mood for that particular subject.
Welsh_Italian
Established
To me, some HDR photographs can make quite compelling pictures, but like a lot of techniques it is over-used and often used when it isn't needed at all. I guess as people grow and mature (i.e., the next technique comes along), folk will develop and become more self-critical and rely more on photographic technique rather than PP technique. I've done some HDR myself but don't feel satisfied with its results. But like I said, some pictures can be quite good indeed. It's a shame that it's overdone to the extent that pictures look like stills from a computer game.
aniMal
Well-known
I totally agree with what you wrote. I feel that it is a tool with a certain but limited use. As such I think I will find some apropriate jobs to test it out, and then place it neatly in the toolbox for use when needed. Same as with stiching for me, something I do very rarely, but then sometimes it has come in very handy indeed.
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
I agree that there are rough similarities in appearance to solarization, but it can also be a powerful technique. Jim Laurence in Lenswork #76 (the last issue, not the most recent) put together a fascinating Power Plant portfolio based on HDR technique. There's an otherworldly feel that is simultaneously eerie and compelling. Check it out!
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
That is Stephanie.
I must say that it is true for most of the HDR images I have seen.
But the few that are not overdone are really good!
Paul C. Perkins MD
Perk11350
HDR is like color saturation is like contrast is like brightness is like - well - like any other image defining parameter you'd like to cite. Beyond a certain point - and your brain will tell you where that point lies - HDR images are goofy and unnatural appearing. Up to that point - they come as close to rendering scenery like I remember it as anything I can recall. They certainly beat the Hell out of graduated ND filters.
jbf
||||||
The thing about HDR's is that we are not used to seeing photographs with such a wide gamut of dynamic range... so in many cases the photographs appear much too flat, etc.
For the most part I've found that the vast majority of those who shoot HDR's have no idea how to actually blend the bracketed exposures in a way that makes them seem natural yet still with a large dynamic range.
Most of it I chalk up to the fact that they want something that looks so unnatural and 'strange'.
I've found that you can get really beautiful HDR results if you simply blend them more carefully and subtly instead of having the massive halo effect around everything.
For the most part I've found that the vast majority of those who shoot HDR's have no idea how to actually blend the bracketed exposures in a way that makes them seem natural yet still with a large dynamic range.
Most of it I chalk up to the fact that they want something that looks so unnatural and 'strange'.
I've found that you can get really beautiful HDR results if you simply blend them more carefully and subtly instead of having the massive halo effect around everything.
MikeL
Go Fish
....with UV paints and a blacklight.
aniMal
Well-known
Hmm... Interesting to read the posts, and I see lots of us agree that it is a strong tool which might just work if used sparingly.
Somehow it makes me wonder how much film is a reference for me after 15-20 years of working on film...
I also guess that the tonality and colours of film/prints will remain a very strong reference because of many years of colour images and film. Things like HDR, which perhaps is one of the most dramatic aspects of film, will in their turn become their own style. Probably associated with other things and times than what was produced on film until digital came around.
Somehow I am very happy to thrive on both film and digital these days. I enjoy both the process and looks of both - and discussions like these really make me think harder before applying any effect or tool!
Somehow it makes me wonder how much film is a reference for me after 15-20 years of working on film...
I also guess that the tonality and colours of film/prints will remain a very strong reference because of many years of colour images and film. Things like HDR, which perhaps is one of the most dramatic aspects of film, will in their turn become their own style. Probably associated with other things and times than what was produced on film until digital came around.
Somehow I am very happy to thrive on both film and digital these days. I enjoy both the process and looks of both - and discussions like these really make me think harder before applying any effect or tool!
Morca007
Matt
I've never seen an HDR image that I enjoyed.