HDR - did i do good?
- Thread starter GeX
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
I mean I don't like the shot as I feel its not been composed well at all what with the wonky horizon and lower right out of focus ledge but I feel the HDR is nice (or at least, isn't cooked which seems to be a choice with new comers)
Doesn't really look like an HDR image to me, sorta looks like a flat, but well exposed photograph. How many stops did you bracket ? There's not much of an effect there at all really, unless I've got it wrong and the purpose of the shot is to have your shadows, mids and highlights all correctly exposed.. without actually being very esthetically pleasing, then I guess it's done the job..
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
For me this isn't far off what HDR should be. Filling in shadows removes depth and dimension from the image if it is processed to a silly extent.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
exactamundo.
Although people have adapted a HDR style and they are true to it so it comes across as arty and thats also good.
This cooked high saturated crap does my head in though.
Although people have adapted a HDR style and they are true to it so it comes across as arty and thats also good.
This cooked high saturated crap does my head in though.
Photomatix or any other HDR & toning software is just another tool which is part of the digital age, there's no specific way to use the software as the output is just personal preference.
The same results a digital HDR image provides, in the days of film, could be easily achieved in the darkroom if the image was correctly exposed when the photograph was taken, a little work could also be done whilst exposing the image to paper (burning/masking) should that be necessary for you to reach your desired finish.
We are in a time and age now where anyone who has a camera calls themselves a photographer. I do use a digital camera myself these days and I feel the digital age in photography has made people lazy and too reliant on post processing. Like I said in my first post, the image posted just looks like a correctly exposed photograph, which with a little practice or a little know how, should be and can be achieved at the point when the photograph is taken, which would rule out the need for any 'HDR' process being applied to it afterwards, in that sence - it's just a tool for lazy photographers.
I personally like HDR photography when it adds something extra to an already good photograph, whether that means suttle tweaks or total over saturation of colors, it's just a case of preference at the end of the day. I think applying morals to imagery is pointless, it's too 'this', it's too 'that' - I generally think digital photography is very dishonest in itself.
[/rant]
The same results a digital HDR image provides, in the days of film, could be easily achieved in the darkroom if the image was correctly exposed when the photograph was taken, a little work could also be done whilst exposing the image to paper (burning/masking) should that be necessary for you to reach your desired finish.
We are in a time and age now where anyone who has a camera calls themselves a photographer. I do use a digital camera myself these days and I feel the digital age in photography has made people lazy and too reliant on post processing. Like I said in my first post, the image posted just looks like a correctly exposed photograph, which with a little practice or a little know how, should be and can be achieved at the point when the photograph is taken, which would rule out the need for any 'HDR' process being applied to it afterwards, in that sence - it's just a tool for lazy photographers.
I personally like HDR photography when it adds something extra to an already good photograph, whether that means suttle tweaks or total over saturation of colors, it's just a case of preference at the end of the day. I think applying morals to imagery is pointless, it's too 'this', it's too 'that' - I generally think digital photography is very dishonest in itself.
[/rant]
Last edited:
end of the day i'm not too fussed about things being 'correct' to other people. as fstop said, the image is wonky and has an out of focus bit to it. that doesnt bother me, and i've cropped it to see what it'd look like and i don't think it looks any good.
something i don't understand though, with an image like that - the sky needs less exposure than the other parts, so without using bracketing, or an ND grad filter there isn't really any other way to do it, is there? I dont have any ND grad filters, so chose to use shoot it in RAW then under/over expose in PP and then combine. I don't think that makes me lazy.
which sounds odd, cos i posted this thread with the title "HDR - did i do good?".. so thats kinda contradticing myself..meh.
something i don't understand though, with an image like that - the sky needs less exposure than the other parts, so without using bracketing, or an ND grad filter there isn't really any other way to do it, is there? I dont have any ND grad filters, so chose to use shoot it in RAW then under/over expose in PP and then combine. I don't think that makes me lazy.
which sounds odd, cos i posted this thread with the title "HDR - did i do good?".. so thats kinda contradticing myself..meh.
To be perfectly honest.. all i saw when i looked at the shot was the blue bits that have obviously been over-done. So, to answer the original question; no, not really. They jump out at me and it just looks silly.
I'm not a fan of the shot. The composition doesnt lead me to look anywhere (what is the subject?
), the horizon is/was wonky and the HDR doesnt do much apart from make the image feel pretty dulled - due to a big lack of contrast. It's oh-so grey.
Not a fan, i'm afraid.
I'm not a fan of the shot. The composition doesnt lead me to look anywhere (what is the subject?
), the horizon is/was wonky and the HDR doesnt do much apart from make the image feel pretty dulled - due to a big lack of contrast. It's oh-so grey.Not a fan, i'm afraid.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
Now looking at the original I would have just taken two shots one for the sky and the one you had and layed the sky from the 2nd image over that one and feather blended them manually. The buildings look far better in the original.
I "overdid" my lake shot. I think it works well with some things, but the "true" purpose of HDR is to correctly expose across the image. Like you say, not a lot of people realise this and assume it's to get weird images
not an option unfortunealty, not really time to do that. though normally when i take offence to the sky, i under expose the image till it looks right and then blend it onto one exposed better for the rest of the image. just thought i'd play with photomatrix this time.
something i just noticed though, firefox renders differently to windows image viewer thingy.
