Old 03-28-2008, 06:01 PM   #26
apm2754
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quiksmith10
Your image, although close to reality, is far from it.
It's either one or the other.

Actually, it's really close. Like I said, it was a quick example. I could have taken a couple of more exposures. And I could have done some more work on the photo and it would look more natural. I don't even think I bothered to do an Auto Levels. Unfortunately, I have other things to do today than take pictures of my office. I just wanted to do a quick & dirty example. Aaron's shot of the the engine crossing the road is a better example.
__________________
Andy

To see my photos at RailPictures.Net click here

Last edited by apm2754; 03-28-2008 at 08:25 PM.
apm2754 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2008, 06:01 PM   #27
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quiksmith10
Exactly, closest but still not good quality to what is reality.
...
I think some things need to be faced in that no matter what you do, certain scenes can't be recreated digitally to make them look as they were seen with our own eyes.
Closer is preferable, in my opinion.

And Andy repeats the point I made, which is I think a strong argument.
Quote:
I think the problem here is that the reason the HDR looks "fake" is that you're not used to seeing it in a photo.
We have new technology for better (not best or totally) representing what the eye sees. It takes time for viewers to get used to it. Viewers have gotten used to the older, still common technology that simply shows less dynamic range.

Brandon, I feel that what you are expressing is a personal preference for how a photo should appear. All shots are distortions of reality - first and foremost in collapsing three dimensions into two! All non-HDR shots are distortions of reality in any situation where the actual dynamic range exceeds what the sensor can accept. You prefer, in those situations, to distribute the tonality - in the non-realistic manner that sensors have commonly done. Realistic in the sense of "commonly accepted" but not in the sense of accurate.

Andy's HDR may be a flawed application, but the technique itself contributes to reality - it makes scenes look more like our eyes actually see them - and should be rejected only for poor application - just as poorly exposed shots are rejected - and not as a flawed technique.

My 2 cents as usual.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2008, 09:27 PM   #28
Aaron Jors
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
I need your eyeballs then, because I don't see the world that way.

As for HDR, I'm on the fence, but more leaning toward the nay sayers as far as RP goes. HDR (supposedly) fixes a limitation caused by the camera...the same argument can be used for sharpening or saturation.

You could also use the argument that using two images and merging them is a foul. However, I'll use layers and masks when processing my images...isn't a layer another form of an image?

The problem though, for me anyway, is that an HDR workflow produces an image that reflects more Photoshop skill than photography skill. And it just doesn't look real. Why is it that I can spot an HDR image when they are supposed to represent what my eyeballs see naturally? My eyeballs spot them right away as standing out and looking fake.

I guess you can argue the stops of an eye vs. the stops of a camera sensor, but an HDR image just doesn't look right to my 20 stop eyes...
Ween, I believe photography and photoshop are essentially one in the same for example back in the day I think it would have been hard to be a good photographer without also being good in the darkroom. Photoshop is essentially a digital darkroom and many of the things you can do in photoshop are exactly what people were doing in the a darkroom years ago.

As other have suggested I think that HDR type images stand out more because they are not as common to see.

I would also like to point out that my images were created by combining 2 different exposures using layers and are not true HDRÖ..there is a difference.
Aaron Jors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2008, 09:27 PM   #29
Aaron Jors
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quiksmith10
Exactly, closest but still not good quality to what is reality. As of now, it is near impossible in some conditions to represent with current technology what we are seeing.

Your image, although close to reality, is far from it. It has a very flat and "doctored" look to it. The image severely lacks contrast. I believe in adding contrast, the window would start to blow-out and the shadows would begin to fade to black.

I think some things need to be faced in that no matter what you do, certain scenes can't be recreated digitally to make them look as they were seen with our own eyes.
Andy thanks for providing this example as it shows in the simplest form what a camera produces vs the human eye.

Brandon Iím not sure how you find this image far from reality. When you are sitting in your bedroom or living room and look out the window (during the day) is your room as black as the camera shows in Andyís first image? When you look out the window do you just see solid white like photo 3?

In regards to the last image of Andyís the HDR image you are correct it does look flat simply because the scene is a flat scene. The scene is flat simply due to its makeup including the lack of shadows and lack of depth base on the subjects spacing. (ie the desk/dresser to wall is probably about only 1-2 ft of actual depth.)

You are also correct that the image lacks contrast and that, in adding contrast the window would get whiter and the shadows would get darker. However the scene itself simply doesnít have much contrast. By definition, Contrast is the degree of difference between the lightest and darkest parts of a picture. Using this scene as an example the darkest part I see are the frames to the right of the window and the lightest part I see would be either the wall itself of the scene outside the window. When increasing contrast in any image your whites are going to get brighter and your darks are going to get darkerÖthatís what adds contrast.

Also Iím just curious but what looks doctored to you in the last photo, I just donít see it?

I also disagree that certain scenes canít be recreated digitally to the way our eyes see them. Sure you probably canít get everything exactly 100% as it was but I believe you can sure get pretty close. Just because a camera alone canít do it in one single exposure doesnít mean itís not possible or should be considered manipulation. You just have to use the tools available to do so which in this case is multiple exposures and photoshop.

I would also like to make mention that I do see a lot of HDR type shots that look very unnatural. I donít care for these types of shots nor do I believe my shots are like that. My goal is to recreate a scene as close as possible to what I saw using the technology available to me.
Aaron Jors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2008, 10:00 PM   #30
apm2754
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Jors
In regards to the last image of Andyís the HDR image you are correct it does look flat simply because the scene is a flat scene. The scene is flat simply due to its makeup including the lack of shadows and lack of depth base on the subjects spacing. (ie the desk/dresser to wall is probably about only 1-2 ft of actual depth.)
This is true. This scene is flat, indeed, in real life.

What we see is a funny thing. Everything we see is interpreted by our brains, much subconsciously. That subconscious learns over time. It's why, for example, an art expert can spot a fake because it "doesn't seem right". Or, as a modeler, I can spot when something is "off" on a model before determining what exactly is "off". As a photographer, you've built the subconscious library over a long time. Perhaps when you were just starting out, you saw a beautiful sunset and took a photo of it. It didn't come out as you saw it. Over time, you learned about photography. How exposure works. How a scene like that would produce a sunset & silhouettes. But now you know that and expect it. When you see a photograph that violates those "rules" it looks fake to you, even though it is a faithful reproduction of what the eye sees.
__________________
Andy

To see my photos at RailPictures.Net click here

Last edited by apm2754; 03-28-2008 at 10:27 PM.
apm2754 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2008, 02:31 AM   #31
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

The problem is, how to accurately represent the visual appearance of high dynamic range scenes on low dynamic range display devices. HDR techniques have simply compressed the tonal scale of the actual scene down to a range that will show on a monitor or a print. This inevitably produces a certain flatness, but by tweaking the contrast and saturation, the shot can be given more life, although sometimes at the expense of a somewhat painterly look.

The dynamic range of illumination within a single environment can be on the order of 30,000:1. Most print media has a luminance range of only about 100:1. Interestingly, visual neurons can only process a 100:1 dynamic range as well. We see the full dynamic range of a scene because each neuron adapts to the illumination within a limited region of a scene, while our impression of the entire scene is constructed from a whole range of these locally adapted neurons. We also move our eyes around a scene which allows us to mentally combine dark and bright areas into a single mental image.

To produce a realistic looking HDR image will require new editing programs that use non linear algorithms to mirror human psychophysical reactions to actual scenes. We aren't there yet, but we are getting there! Future HDR programs will no doubt bring the technique into the toolbox of standard and accepted photo processing.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2008, 02:34 AM   #32
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,865
Default

I have no idea what Michael is talking about (big words + west virginia public school education = dumb!), but I like those two shots, however you did em!

Loyd L.
__________________
Those who seek glory, must also seek infamy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.