Is high ISO the new HDR

[Gabriel M.A.]

High ISO is to HDR what water pitcher is to monsoon season. A link can be found, but you cannot compare one with the other. Unless, of course, you throw storms in teacups into the mix.

 

[Thardy]

I don't understand your comparison.

Well used, HDR combinated with the post-processing of raw files is a way to moderate contrasted pictures and enjoy a better dynamic range, exactly as zone system with film - in that case, we're speaking about process.
For exemple in the image below I used HDR in the PP :

View attachment 85743



High ISO is just about technical specificities of the sensor - I think in future years we will see new sensors with very usable raw files @ 6400 ISO - I mean on most of the cameras in the market.
Here, we're speaking about technology - then the use of high iso depends of the needs and the choices of the photographer.

Typical foto forum gadfly ....

1. HDR is so ugly!
2. Hey look at my ISO 50000 shots!

 

[tlitody]

Methinks a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that tone mapping is HDR. The creation of HDR images is not about colour. It's about compressing the dynamic range. Not the same thing. Problem is that at the same time as HDR compresssion is done, blending is also done and it is the blending/tone mapping which is producing what people don't like and not the HDR compression.

 

[gekopaca]

Methinks a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that tone mapping is HDR. The creation of HDR images is not about colour. It's about compressing the dynamic range. Not the same thing. Problem is that at the same time as HDR compresssion is done, blending is also done and it is the blending/tone mapping which is producing what people don't like and not the HDR compression.

+ 1
I'm not sure Thardy read carrefully and understood what I wrote

 

[shadowfox]

Same goes for HDR photography. What on earth do people think photographers were trying to achieve with compensating developers and burning/dodging - compression of dynamic range?

I'm pretty sure what people are referring to as "horrible" in this thread is *extreme* HDR, where the scene becomes unrealistic-looking, like a depiction of a nightmare.

The *moderate* kind of HDR which, if executed well, won't be realized by the viewer other than making the scene look better. This is what I think is comparable to dodging and burning on the enlarger.

 

[Thardy]

+ 1
I'm not sure Thardy read carrefully and understood what I wrote

I totally agree with what you wrote. Just pointing out the knee jerk reaction against HDR on photo forums by some people. These same people proudly post terrible looking extemely high ISO images.

 

[gekopaca]

I totally agree with what you wrote. Just pointing out the knee jerk reaction against HDR on photo forums by some people. These same people proudly post terrible looking extemely high ISO images.

Sorry! So it's me who've not understood
My poor english is visible when I write, but actually it's also visible when I read

 

[uhoh7]

High ISO is just the same as HDR and Digtal and EVIL and SLRs and .95 aperture

Something for the "purists" to oversimplify and sneer at so they don't have to figure it out because they already know what is art and what is not.

One of those things that is "not done" at the countryclub.

 

[Keith]

Moving up to a digital that can shoot at 6400 ISO is far better value than shelling out for that F 1.0 lens ... and you can spread that new low light capability across all your appropriate optics.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm pretty sure what people are referring to as "horrible" in this thread is *extreme* HDR, where the scene becomes unrealistic-looking, like a depiction of a nightmare.

The *moderate* kind of HDR which, if executed well, won't be realized by the viewer other than making the scene look better. This is what I think is comparable to dodging and burning on the enlarger.

Prior to HDR's release into the wild, it was predicted by a few reviewers that it would be misused/abused to create so really horrible images.

But Thomas Kinkade kitsch visionary extraordinaire was ahead of the curve. But say what you will, I'm sure he cries all the way to the bank.

 

[shadowfox]

But Thomas Kinkade kitsch visionary extraordinaire was ahead of the curve. But say what you will, I'm sure he cries all the way to the bank.

*kitsch visionary* that's funny...

At least in his paintings there are still a sense of distance between objects in the scene...

unlike an f/22 (or pea-sized sensor, take your pick) HDR image that literally cuts your retina to ribbons with extreme sharp detail *everywhere*, plus the gaudy colors on top of that.

 

[kevin m]

As a relatively new technique, HDR is bound to be over-used. The novelty will wear off. High ISO, on the other hand, is maybe the most useful tool in the digital capture bag-of-tricks: Done correctly, it draws no attention to itself.

 

[Keith]

I was shooting in broad daylight with a slow old zoom at 3200 ISO on my D700 the other day. The images are cleaner than you would get from ISO 100 colour film and with shutter speeds up around 1/4000 or faster, camera shake is no real issue.

I say again ... thankyou Nikon.

 

[rxmd]

As a relatively new technique, HDR is bound to be over-used. The novelty will wear off. High ISO, on the other hand, is maybe the most useful tool in the digital capture bag-of-tricks: Done correctly, it draws no attention to itself.

Done correctly, HDR doesn't draw attention to itself either, no more than dodging and burning did when done by a competent printer.

I guess HDR is a bit like razor-thin depth-of-field. Done correctly and sparingly, it can add to a picture, but by now it's gotten mostly ruined, because people post too many pictures all the time where it jumps at you because it was used as a visual gag, to distract from the fact that the picture doesn't really show anything.

 

[Keith]

Done correctly, HDR doesn't draw attention to itself either, no more than dodging and burning did when done by a competent printer.

I guess HDR is a bit like razor-thin depth-of-field. Done correctly and sparingly, it can add to a picture, but by now it's gotten mostly ruined, because people post too many pictures all the time where it jumps at you because it was used as a visual gag, to distract from the fact that the picture doesn't really show anything.

And how many Noctiluxes have been sold to people chasing that razor thin depth of field and not much else?

Far too many I suspect!

 

[uhoh7]

Done correctly, HDR doesn't draw attention to itself either, no more than dodging and burning did when done by a competent printer.

I guess HDR is a bit like razor-thin depth-of-field. Done correctly and sparingly, it can add to a picture, but by now it's gotten mostly ruined, because people post too many pictures all the time where it jumps at you because it was used as a visual gag, to distract from the fact that the picture doesn't really show anything.

Trouble is, there's a ton of medicore images, as there always has been, but even so, there are more nice shots easliy seen than ever before.

Desensitivity ensues. The eye is jaded.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

True dat.



(adding characters because brevity is not of the essence per vBulletin)