What HDR *should* look like

fingerz

fingerz

Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
No
http://lonnatucker.com

^^ Just when you think you're starting to get the hang of photography, you see a professional's site and it becomes clear why they get paid for it and you don't.

I don't normally like landscape stuff but it's all so sickeningly good.

Medium_222200561331PM_LakeTulloch.jpg


Medium_227200665743PM_TroonNorthPinnacle_View.jpg


Medium_813200671711PM_Bronco2.jpg


813200664733PM_WhisperRock_12.jpg


Completely different league.
 
hmm I dunno, doesnt grab me straight away. But each to their own.

ah ok - now three more images have loaded :p - yeah they are nice. Still think there are people on here capable of capturing equally good shots, just havent got such excellent locations.
 
Just had a flick through the website - golly, that's good.
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
Still think there are people on here capable of capturing equally good shots, just havent got such excellent locations.
Click to expand...

Forget the locations and look at this image of hers:

Medium_2182005121350AM_Calaveras.jpg


Anything stand out for you?

Answer - she's shooting into the light. Go outside on a sunny day to somewhere with a tree and try to copy that shot (doesn't have to be exact, just anything shooting into the light - with the sun in the frame - on a sunny day). Then go home and look at the image on your PC. Try to make it look at rich and detailed as the one above, then you might see what I'm getting at.
 
They cropped the top of the damn tree off! and I recon Pete could shoot into that light with a bit of his HDR magic no problem.
 
awesome!
 
Untitled-1_2_3-21.jpg


I have indeed shot into sunlight and you can bring out all sorts of detail with HDR. I'll take a look at this site later. Its odd but I haven't really done landscape HDR yet. I need to get out and do some.
 
They look a little 'false' to me. I feel that a computer generated character will walk into view, like in a computer game - Tiger Woods Golf for example.
 
There are some really awesome shots on that site (y) , but quite a lot of them look a little surreal, almost like paintings or computer graphics - not 'quite right' :shrug: , and this is what I don't like about quite a few HDR shots, esp when its overdone / used a lot. Each to their own though. :)
She's obviously a very talented photographer, but has just overdone it a tad for my liking (IMO) :)
 
I am really no fan of HDR images. Such a fake processed look. Those images dont really do anything for me either.

King.
 
I dunno though. Personally none of the images here or on her site have that stereotypical HDR look. They look like normal photos. I could show you how HDR isn't supposed to look and its far FAR more extreme than anything here.
 
Some of the Landscapes are fantastic as are the Classic Cars. The Golfscapes and Places look way too much like animations of computer graphics for my linking.

I'm a huge HDR fan (still not cracked it myself) and Pete's' urban shots are much more to my taste. That style I prefer over the majority of Lonna Tucker's images.
 
I like the pictures on the site, they don't immediately jump out and say HDR, they are quite subtle if the are. HDR good or bad it what yoiu want the picture to do or say, some people consider anything new or different as a negative digression from 'real' photography. If you like it then its good. :shrug:
 
They're good shots, of course they are. For once, no argument from me.

But - its diffficult to take a bad shot with scenerey like that. Fair point about sun in frame, but there are many MANY togs on here that produce work either almost as good or as good.

The rest of us will get there! ;)
 
Jonnyreb said:
They're good shots, of course they are. For once, no argument from me.

But - its diffficult to take a bad shot with scenerey like that. Fair point about sun in frame, but there are many MANY togs on here that produce work either almost as good or as good.

The rest of us will get there! ;)
Click to expand...

We keep trying... (y) and that what its about.
 
i think it's an artists interpetation of HDR, just another way of using it I guess. These are good, clear and colourful but they look almost like they've been created in Adobe Illustator to me :shrug:
 
HDR is one of those topics that folk often feel very strongly about, one way or the other. I used to dislike all of it, but recently I've seen a few examples that I quite like. Maybe its the subject I like rather than the treatment....:shrug: Maybe I'm just starting to aquire a bit of objectivity as I learn more. Anyway, IMHO HDR is just another way of processing and, just like sharpening, has it's place and needs skill to handle it. pete is the undisputed King of HDR (though there are a few chasing that crown now! ;) )

Anyway, I like the first image and also that last tree.........the others leave me indifferent.
 
yes, they are fabulous shots, more than aided by great scenes to begin with, but I agree with what others have said. As HDR images, they are neither extreme like Petes, or totally photographic. They do look false and as if a little computer man is about to get in the truck and drive away. I agree they have taken some skill but for me, I would rather see Petes stuff. :shrug:
 
have to agree with jonnyreb, not that thats a bad thing, but with scenery like that i think we could all do a pretty job.
really like them though, esp the golf but hey i just played at the weekend in a gale force wind so matbe its wishful thinking.
pbh
 
The thing is, could we all do a good job with scenery like that? Isn't the mark of a great photo something that looks fantastic and so easy to do but when you try you don't even come close? That said I do feel that given locations like that I would hope that I could do similar and I'm sure others here could too but who's to know how much work has been done on these images. Are they even HDR?
 
I think the buggy on the beach is deffo HDR as you have freaky ghost people in the sea and stuff...though that would suggest long gaps between the shots...hmm, I dunno
 
1 and 2, yes. 3 - something odd has happened and its definately layered (look at surfers) and 4, probably not.
 
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here.

I don't know if Lonna Tucker's photographs are HDR or not. Clearly she's manipulating the photos somehow because no camera on Earth can capture that kind of of dynamic range, but I don't know what her technique is and personally, I think it must be something other than HDR because photomatix (and the other HDR programmes) don't even come close to results like that, IMO of course.

I only mentioned HDR because for me Lonna's images are exactly what a high dynamic range photograph should be. Forget the cliched "HDR" phrase and take it right back to the raw concept (trying to capture a massive range of lighting in a photograph) and her shots have that perfected, in my view.

How does she do it? I've no idea.

And I don't care.

Well, that's a lie. I do care but only because I'm jealous and I want to do it myself.
 
Lovely shots I must admit, however theyre done.
 
What HDR should look like? --- I would've thought that you shouldn't be able to tell! :)
 
Did anybody say that it was a digitally originated image? A lot can still be achieved with large format colour negative/trannies and photoshop.... just because we've become totally accustomed to xMpixel cameras some Pros still use (and only use) 5 x 4 or 10 x 8 plate cameras. A good big'un will always out perform a good littl'un..... Only my opinion though :shrug:

To be honest they do look "faked" in some way or other. Some of the hues and shadows really are NOT commensurate with what occurs in Nature....
 
HDR is what ever you make it...there's no big secret. its how to apply it to the art and make it work that will put your images above all others. Some can do it very well and have a unique style - as we all know him for his dark moody style our resident Pete has some fantastic HDR results. So, what "should" HDR look like? dunno but what "should" a photo look like?
short answer: what ever you make it.
long answer: results from the advent of the camera to present day image capture devices...
I am only just learning how to use this fantastic tool and hope in the future to use it more and more after seeing the sorts of results possible from others and recently my own - if not that amazing I was pleasently surprised...Its not so much what you do but how you do it. Remember the basics - work with the light - and the world's your clam shell!


no point whining about it, just get out and play!
 
dynamic range on a single chip capture I don't think is enough. the detail though could be explained by medium format...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top