20 amazing pics that could be HDR but aren't

jerry12953 said:
How poor must the original have been, I wonder? Whatever happened to 1/125th @ f8, good light, and being there?:shrug:
Click to expand...

Not very poor? Nothing happened to that. Whatever happened to processing a roll of film in the digital age, oh yer Photoshop :p
 
lg-can_of_worms.jpg
 
68lbs said:
can_of_worms.jpg
Click to expand...

Agreed. I only really intended this to make a point that not every punchy image is HDR. Theres a real trend at the mo that you need HDR for everything, and also that everything bad with photography is because of HDR.
 
mole2k said:
No it isn't, you've just tonemapped/compressed the 32bits down to an 8bit image so it's viewable on the monitor or printer. It is impossible to have an image that shows a high dynamic range with an output of 8bits, what you are doing is compressing the tonal range into a smaller space so it's viewable.

After the 3 images are merged you have a 32bit HDR image but with todays technology that's pretty useless unless you have some very expensive fancy technology. You have to compress the tones to give you a low dynamic range image that represents the detail present in the HDR.
Click to expand...

So at the end of the day, while the final image - or your display - might not be capable of representing the full dynamics, it's pretty clear to see that an HDR image has actually captured a higher range of dynamics than a non-HDR image.
 
I've got nothing against HDR (or whatever its called) in principle. In fact, if I had the time and the ability I'd like to squeeze the last ounce out of some of my images using HDR. Maybe I will one day.

I think its the look that I don't like, and therefore its a matter of taste. If that look is obtained using some other techniques it doesn't make any difference.

To me it looks artificial and over-processed. I'd rather call this kind of thing digital art - or something similar. Even then, I still wouldn't like it.;)
 
It's the destination that's important - not how you got there. And of course if you don't like the place you don't need to go there :)
 
HDR is the new selective colouring, everyone is doing it to everything soon they'll get bored and move onto something new and HDR will once again just become a tool in the locker to be used and not some huge contentious point. Personally I couldn't care less if and image has been processed using HDR techniques on a computer or push processed in a dark room if it's good and I like it I'll say so if I think it's poo I'll also say so.

When I post an image I don't scream and yell what processing I used as I'd much rather people comented on the result than the method that is after all what will be hung on the wall.
 
AndyB said:
It's the destination that's important - not how you got there. And of course if you don't like the place you don't need to go there :)
Click to expand...

Nah. Its how you get there thats important, not the destination. Life's a journey. Theres knowing the path and walking the path.
 
Then maybe it depends why you go there. Is it to make a living from what you enjoy - in which case you must produce a result that lives up to expectation. Or do you do it because you enjoy the process of making the image for your own enjoyment - in which case you can just go for a rive and not worry where you end up.

If you can enjoy the journey AND produce the result then brilliant.

But the point I was making (and you know what I mean young Pete) was that it doesn't matter how you produce an image as long as it looks good.
 
We're both right taken in different ways :D Yes the end result is important, but as progressing photographers its the journey that develops our skills to get that end result. Which is why its good to properly understand what HDR is and what it does, and also good to understand just what you can still do without it.
 
I take your point and I aggree 100%
 
is the point that they're making not that they aren't HDR..because the dynamics range on the photos is rather broad and appealing...but that the pictures were taken from a single exposure.
Most of the HDR techniques that I've seen involve the layering of multiple exposures to layer-up the tonal range achieve by each individual photograph.....

but that aside...something on written on wikipedia does not make it a fact or a reliable reference. it simply means that someone has typed it into wikipedia
 
Sorry for the topic bump. Having a look at these, a lot of the photographs have been tonemapped which to me is an aesthetic I (and maybe others) associate with HDR. It's a bit like I Can't Believe it's not Butter only without the health benefit :p.
 
I don't really care if they are / arn't HDR, they look blown out and overcooked regardless, just looks like someones had a dodgy go with the curves and got carried away!

I like 2 out of the whole bunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top