Archive for urbanglasgow.co.uk For information past, present & future on the city of Glasgow, Scotland, UK
 


       urbanglasgow.co.uk Forum Index -> Other Photography
cybers

To Hdr Or Not ?

I notice with wonderment at the frowning on what is HDR images and what is Straight from the camera Imaging.
I am kind of curious by the snobbery involved on both sides of the fence.

The Pro Hdr Camp
Hate the idea of a great photo not improved on.
look with distaste on unprocessed imaging

The Against argue
Its not real
It's a captured moment in time (Sorry Stu)
It's smoke and mirrors
Too arty.


Whilst I have been involved in both sides of the fence I have to admit i have a stronger leaning towards the HDR side of things but hate the Idea of something classed off hand as HDR which is not.
Contrast Brushes Burning, Dodging, Desaturation all lead to a similar effect but are then classed as HDR (Confusing).  

HDR Is still a moment in time well 3 at least to be exact but its no more different from the scene the guy 2 feet to the left captured with one shot. just needs a little more processing.

I am just curious to what fans the flame of this fire as from where i stand if you send an ugly bride to Covershots they are going to process her till she is beautiful for her big day...

(Sorry for the example but it is the only one i could think of that fully conveys what i mean)

Any thoughts ?

Oh and I am classed in the Pseudo Camp just for the record as i dont do Proper HDR no 3 or more exposures here ....

Just a different outlook to Photoshop than the snobs
John

Well it`s no secret what side of the fence i`m on with this.  Where do you draw the line wether its Hdr ,Photoshopping or other forms of image enhancement ? Some do it better than others, I have seen some really good examples of Hdr and some that are so badly done the picture is unrecognisable from the original image.
You gave the example of the ugly bride, but no amount of processing is gonna change her she will still be ugly the next day therefore creating a false image.
I accept that some pics do need processed in order to highlight or enhance parts of them, but to do every pic is more like an obsession.
There is also the artistic side of things and I have seen many beautiful images created by Photoshop or similar tools by yourself and others but thats what they are...a created image, Wee Minx posted a fine example of a created / altered image last night and I must admit I do look forward to seeing what folk come up with in that thread of the photography part of these forums.
I saw a comment in the City Chambers thread from Jock58 saying his pics never turned out 1/2 as good as yours and while I recognise that they probably wouldn`t be as good as yours before you processed them it made me wonder if folk get a bit disheartened trying to attain that post processed standard.
I know you and others on here take your photography seriously and its a pleasure to watch you all in action on days out

That`s my tuppence worth and as I  say...it`s only my opinion and it would be a strange and boring world if we all thought the same.

BTW...Me a snob !! Away wae ye
cybers

52 views and you are the only one to reply Scary...

Post-processing Photoshopping is the new dark room.
We would be pretty niave to believe that it never went on in the days of film. Indeed i was shown many very similar techniques back in the bad old days when we thought nothing of poisoning fish with chemicals....

Just trying to get a grip on the double edged sword is all this post is about and looking for serious input as to why something cannot be classed as original just because it has been post processed.

And the snobbery quote relates to photography only
LowLight

I like HDR now and again. It does add something a wee bit different to my photos when it's called for.

Although I would never pass any HDR photo off as an exact replica of what I saw on the day when it's done subtly it could pass for something the eye actualy did see.

Overdoing it rips the pish though. We're always progressing and I suppose a lot of purists just can't accept that.
wee minx

HDR to me is High Dynamic Range....ye can see into the shadows and you can see the light bits that aren't really white but your camera made them look white...this is what I think it is...Btw...I don't do it, and I just did this pic in photoshop to let you see what I think HDR should be.



Now HDR has gone way passed what it was intended for, in my opinion. People taking ten shots and merging them to make super /hyper real images.....they are not a true reflection of real...what your eye sees that the camera misses.

HDR to me means...show the shadows, show the highlights, anything else you do to an image is then a different thing.

It was only meant to get a result that cameras cannot do well with high contrast images, at the time of taking the pic....ah think
Jock58

Scary wrote:

I saw a comment in the City Chambers thread from Jock58 saying his pics never turned out 1/2 as good as yours and while I recognise that they probably wouldn`t be as good as yours before you processed them it made me wonder if folk get a bit disheartened trying to attain that post processed standard.
:


Hi all
I did not comment on this thread before because I'm no expert on photography. I'm just a point & shoot kindda guy. Cybers photos look good to me because of the content as much as anything. The one of the marble staircase is stunning and I'm willing to bet an original would look pretty good to my eye too. If i was jealous of anything (which i am) it the ability to take some of the lovely night shots our members put up. I have tried but never had much success with this.
Any you clever types up for an UG tips class?    

Jock58
cybers

The whole concept of HDR was to improve the image as minx said.
Lets not forget that digital is probably in a less than 1/10th correlation to what film captures and is still therefore inferior. HDR was a compensator for this loss of detail but i totally agree it can be blown way out till it looks like a plastic model.

Jock
Night shooting is all about practice, Trying to find what works in general as there is no hard fast rule due to differing circumstances.
As a general rule i try to make a start where the camera thinks the metering should be and use that as my base to bracket from.
Beano

Jock58 wrote:
Scary wrote:

I saw a comment in the City Chambers thread from Jock58 saying his pics never turned out 1/2 as good as yours and while I recognise that they probably wouldn`t be as good as yours before you processed them it made me wonder if folk get a bit disheartened trying to attain that post processed standard.
:


Hi all
I did not comment on this thread before because I'm no expert on photography. I'm just a point & shoot kindda guy. Cybers photos look good to me because of the content as much as anything. The one of the marble staircase is stunning and I'm willing to bet an original would look pretty good to my eye too. If i was jealous of anything (which i am) it the ability to take some of the lovely night shots our members put up. I have tried but never had much success with this.
Any you clever types up for an UG tips class?    

Jock58
I agree with you Jock, I'm P/s man found this guy useful http://www.photographyreview.com/digitalcameratipscrx.aspx
Jock58

Hi Cybers

What your saying is it will take practise & hard work ,,darn i was hoping for an instant easy answer.    

Beano
Thanks for the link i will have a read and see what i can do i have a fairly good camera so if i don't improve its only me to blame    

Jock58
John

Jock, half the battle with nightshots is a tripod, I had a look at your flickr to see what camera you have and it has a night scenery function so you are sorted.
Doog Doog

Must admit, I don't mind the HDR stuff,though I prefer my pics to be more or less as they were taken.
Any alterations are usually to cropping and a slight adjustment in exposure or colour saturation and that's all I do.
fastnet

Ive a rough idea on how to do it but i'm crap at it.........

I'm on the side of the outcome.

If it looks good i will like it............but i have seen some crap ones out there.
Lone Groover

namestain

at the risk of piling another analogy on the heap, for my money it's the difference between adding a wee touch of salt to bring out the flavour and covering the whole fish supper in tomato ketchup !

adjusting the levels to bring out content which was there already is an enhancement whereas turning the sky a violent pink  and pressing the "watercolor" button isn't.

On the subject of technique, with some time on my hands I have recently taken a novel approach and for the first time opened the manual which came with my 4 year old camera  
iiisecondcreep

The main problem I ahve with HDR is that it seems like the vast majority of people who are doing are really overdoing it and the outcome is a photo that doesn't even look like a photo anymore. In my opinion this is a terrible look.
Alex Glass

To each their own.

Everyone has their own taste and it would be boring if we all liked and thought the same.

I am not put off because someone is better, either at taking photos or altering them than me. I know my limitations and like Jock am always looking for a quick answer.

Point and shoot and hope for the best. that is may approach.

Personally I don't like it when someone tries to be too arty with their photos but wouldn't comment just because I don't like it. They are obviously experimenting and trying to improve so why should I say something that may put them off.

To each their own
wee minx

I half agree with you there Alex, re personal taste and just doing your own thing.
Saying you like a photo is the easy bit, the "don't like" is much harder to say and to take.

But, being honest with people, I find is the kindest most decent thing to be, certainly if I am asked about a photograph I will be honest about what I think of it, artistically and technically.

I used to think I was a good dancer...my granny said I was great   ..when I was 10, I thought I was a ballerina FFS .  Till a kind friend who was 14 said..."Eh Minx...You've had no lessons, you look clumsey and you don't know a Pad de deux from a fish supper!!"...That was her opinion, thank god she told me and I could stop pirrouetting round the playground

Anyway....aye....HDR?
cybers

wee minx wrote:
I half agree with you there Alex, re personal taste and just doing your own thing.
Saying you like a photo is the easy bit, the "don't like" is much harder to say and to take.

But, being honest with people, I find is the kindest most decent thing to be, certainly if I am asked about a photograph I will be honest about what I think of it, artistically and technically.

I used to think I was a good dancer...my granny said I was great   ..when I was 10, I thought I was a ballerina FFS .  Till a kind friend who was 14 said..."Eh Minx...You've had no lessons, you look clumsey and you don't know a Pad de deux from a fish supper!!"...That was her opinion, thank god she told me and I could stop pirrouetting round the playground

Anyway....aye....HDR?


Pad de deux from a fish supper .... that was funny but i know not why... I am still fecking giggling at that...
For some reason i have a mad vision of you with 2 haddy ballerina slippers

       urbanglasgow.co.uk Forum Index -> Other Photography
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
The early bird catches the worm (proverb) | The second mouse gets the cheese (fact)