Hdr? - Page 5

Joe the Photog · 03-06-2010, 04:06 AM

One of the things I really hate lately is people using the term "psuedo-HDR." There's a lot of folks on Flickr who, it almost seems, want to kill you for not doing a "real" HDR. To some, HDR itself is not "real" photography. And that nonsense drives me mad, too. Just use the tools you want to use how you want to use them.

trainboysd40 · 03-06-2010, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalrailfan

Regarding HDR, you know what's ticking me off? These psuedo-HDR shots getting into the database. I'm sorry but taking one photo and adjusting the levels then blending them together is not HDR! Unless you truly shoot over and underexposed multiple shots, it's not HDR it's just level manipulation.

My rant, done!

Nothing wrong with that...

JRMDC · 03-06-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalrailfan

Regarding HDR, you know what's ticking me off? These psuedo-HDR shots getting into the database. I'm sorry but taking one photo and adjusting the levels then blending them together is not HDR! Unless you truly shoot over and underexposed multiple shots, it's not HDR it's just level manipulation.

My rant, done!

Bad rant! The idea is not to do only "authentic" technique, as defined by some ornery clique, but rather to take good images and process them well. Who cares what the label is, pseudo-HDR or level manipulation? And what do you care if those shots get in, if they look good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

One of the things I really hate lately is people using the term "psuedo-HDR." There's a lot of folks on Flickr who, it almost seems, want to kill you for not doing a "real" HDR. To some, HDR itself is not "real" photography. And that nonsense drives me mad, too. Just use the tools you want to use how you want to use them.

I think we agree, except for the first sentence. "Pseuod-HDR" is a completely reasonable term to describe a particular technique.

Ron Flanary · 03-13-2010, 02:54 AM

It wouldn't matter if an image were taken with a pin hole camera made from an old cardboard box---if it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks.

What is "HDR" anyway.....Hemorrhoids Dropping Regularly?

Why would anyone give a tinker's damn over what technique one used to "create" an image? Crayons, scissors and glue, magic markers or colored paper are all acceptable tools in my book. I seriously doubt very many shots end up on the RP site that haven't been manipulated somewhat. If you change the contrast, it's "manipulated."

Chase55671 · 03-13-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

It wouldn't matter if an image were taken with a pin hole camera made from an old cardboard box---if it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks.

What is "HDR" anyway.....Hemorrhoids Dropping Regularly?

Why would anyone give a tinker's damn over what technique one used to "create" an image? Crayons, scissors and glue, magic markers or colored paper are all acceptable tools in my book. I seriously doubt very many shots end up on the RP site that haven't been manipulated somewhat. If you change the contrast, it's "manipulated."

Well said as usual, Ron.

I've never looked at it from that perspective, but you're correct in that the slightest contrast or color adjustments are considered "manipulating" a particular image. I suppose, at least on the behalf of RP, that it depends on that level of manipulation that over steps the line of being acceptable.

We could go all day long expressing our opinions on HDR (I have, in this same thread). I personally find HDR to be acceptable to RP, with a fine line. If it looks real, then I'd accept it.

Simple as that.

Chase

stevenmwelch · 03-14-2010, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671

If it looks real, then I'd accept it.

But that's the problem... A lot of the HDR stuff on RP DOESN'T look real. *cough someones night shots with strobes cough*

My thought on HDR:

If you can't get it right the first time, why keep trying?

travsirocz · 03-14-2010, 05:39 PM

Some of the non hdr images also don't look real, so does it matter if it's hdr or not?

travsirocz · 03-14-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch

My thought on HDR:

If you can't get it right the first time, why keep trying?

Because a digital camera is only useful for a small dynamic light range.

Joe the Photog · 03-15-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch

My thought on HDR:

If you can't get it right the first time, why keep trying?

That's the arguement others have used against doing ANY post processing at all. Or shooting digital in the first place.

milwman · 03-15-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz

Because a digital camera is only useful for a small dynamic light range.

I don't understand that, If it wasn't there you wouldn't get it in faked HDR It helps if you use all 5 stops to start with.

Dennis A. Livesey · 03-15-2010, 02:30 PM

Since no camera made can make an image as good as our eyeballs and brain,
then we shouldn't bother with photography at all.

milwman · 03-15-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Since no camera made can make an image as good as our eyeballs and brain,
then we shouldn't bother with photography at all.

Yeah but it is fun trying.

travsirocz · 03-15-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman

I don't understand that, If it wasn't there you wouldn't get it in faked HDR It helps if you use all 5 stops to start with.

You can't take your one exposure and do minor adjustments and get the results that you can with any type of hdr or other heavy processing. Even doing one exposure type hdr you most likely are either losing highlights or bringing out some noise.

trainboysd40 · 03-15-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch

But that's the problem... A lot of the HDR stuff on RP DOESN'T look real. *cough someones night shots with strobes cough*

My thought on HDR:

If you can't get it right the first time, why keep trying?

My thought on darkroom burning and dodging:

If you can't get it right the first time, why keep trying?

milwman · 03-16-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz

You can't take your one exposure and do minor adjustments and get the results that you can with any type of hdr or other heavy processing. Even doing one exposure type hdr you most likely are either losing highlights or bringing out some noise.

You need to shoot some slide film if you think todays cameras don't have latitude.

Serrator · 03-22-2010, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalrailfan

Regarding HDR, you know what's ticking me off? These psuedo-HDR shots getting into the database. I'm sorry but taking one photo and adjusting the levels then blending them together is not HDR! Unless you truly shoot over and underexposed multiple shots, it's not HDR it's just level manipulation.

My rant, done!

It's called exposure blending.

I would like to know how you seem to know that there are even pseudo-HDR's in the DB? ...and why would you condemn exposure blending over multi-exposure creations?

Good to see the HDR discussion is alive and well!

Serrator · 03-22-2010, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

One of the things I really hate lately is people using the term "psuedo-HDR." There's a lot of folks on Flickr who, it almost seems, want to kill you for not doing a "real" HDR. To some, HDR itself is not "real" photography. And that nonsense drives me mad, too. Just use the tools you want to use how you want to use them.

Joe,

The term "pseudo-HDR" is Photomatix's term they use when creating an image from a single RAW file using their software.

There are silly folks everywhere who for one reason or another want to push their ways on everyone else...I choose to ignore them since it is my end results that I must be satisfied with, not theirs!

Serrator · 03-22-2010, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

It wouldn't matter if an image were taken with a pin hole camera made from an old cardboard box---if it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks.

Good is a subjective term. Nothing is "good" to everyone all the time and nothing "sucks" to everyone all the time...at least in photography!

Quote:

Why would anyone give a tinker's damn over what technique one used to "create" an image? Crayons, scissors and glue, magic markers or colored paper are all acceptable tools in my book. I seriously doubt very many shots end up on the RP site that haven't been manipulated somewhat. If you change the contrast, it's "manipulated."

Although I may agree with you in essence, the screenies do care about what has been done or not done to pictures here at RP...hence the screening process.