View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
j.lukow
Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 856 Location: Lindsay Ontario, Canada
Expire: 2021-11-25
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: Opinion of HDR . . . |
|
|
j.lukow wrote:
I was wondering what the general concensus was on HDR images.
A friend has been doing this with his images (from his dslr) - they look good, a close to "perfect image". His comment was that this process allows him to get the light right in all areas of the photo and since he can't paint he uses HDR.
The images almost do look like "paintings".
In my opinion an image can be too perfect - then it starts to lose its naturalness. I realize in normal dark room work - areas are often lightened to show detail, or balance things out.(I know, these digital programs are supposed to be just another form of darkroom) If you are are doing many many layers and adjusting each when are you going beyond the limits of normal technique. Where is the division between skill/technique and software/technology.
We as photographers capture an ephemeral moment on film - the essencial image of that moment. At what point does one lose the truth in that moment, or when does the technique/process become more important than the image?
I commend those who produce these images for their artistic ability with the medium and the quality of images that are produced.
A final question . . .
Are those who embrace the digital risking being transformed from photographers into CGI artists?
Some things for thought . . .
Jim _________________ EMPLOYMENT: That which funded photography and my new woodworking business.j.lukow
Jim's Kit:
Minolta Kit: Minolta X570 & Autowinder G, Minolta SRT200
LENSES:Minolta - 45mm & 50mm F1:2, PF 58mm F1:1.4, Tamron 28mm f1:2.5, Tamron SP 35-80mm f1:2.8/3.8 & CF TeleMacro zoom 80-210 f1:3.8, Vivitar f3.0~4.5 35-200mm macro focusing zoom, f 2.8 28mm CF Wide angle, 2x macro focus teleconverter,Sigma F4 25-250, f 2.8~4 35-70mm zoom master,Tokina SD f4-5.6 70-210 zoom, f4.5 80-200 "Ultra" Zoom,AutoImage 135mm F1:2.8, Spiratone 400mm f1:6.3, Magicon f3.5-4.8 35-70mm macro zoom,Quantary f8-500 Mirror/macro lens, Accura MD mount Macro bellows
M42 Kit:Praktica PLC2,Yashica TL Electro X
LENSES:Meyer Goerlitz Oreston 50mm f1:1.8 , Auto Yashinon DX 1:1.7 50mm,Steinheil Munchen Culminar 135mm f4.5, Adaptall-2 M42 adapter
Zeiss . . . Zeiss Contaflex 126 system, Zeiss Contaflex Super
Medium Format: Pentacon sixTL
Hasselblad 500c/m - CZ 2.8-80mm planar, CZ 4-150mm sonnarCF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Improper use of HDR techniques can lead to very wrong results (wrong for realism, that is). I have seen images of celebrated photographers made with typical mistakes of this technique, the most common being to let reflections be brighter than the original image source.
I personally use a little hdr to rescue what otherwise would be non recoverable shadowed parts. But when I do it I always follow my "golden rule of filters", which is: "When you think you have found a good setting that makes a moderate nice result, cut that setting into half and apply it"
So as you can see this type of techniques is for me like spices in the kitchen: a tiny pinch can make a dish memorable. An excessive quantity can completely ruin it.
Which translated into photographese means that the only good hdr intervention is the one that the viewer does not notice.
I personally am not afraid of shadows in the photos and of black in my prints. I often prefer an all black area that leaves room to the viewer's imagination, than a HDR raised area that shows a whole lot of stupid useless details.
What you can not see is as important as what you can actually see. So I'm not afraid of the unspoken (which in photographese means "not afraid of leaving untouched pure black areas). _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zewrak
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1212
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
zewrak wrote:
The most viewed image I have on flickr is hdr-ish. It was just a test I did and I kind of like it. It really depends on how it's used. I don't mind it myself, but most of them are just simple automated images that does nothing for me. With a bit of handcraft and moderate usage of HDR and tonemapping, it can be really nice. I am not by any means a purist.
Here is a link to the image mentioned: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zewrak/2499019506/sizes/o/ _________________ My homepage, all manual shots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
Zewrak, I think your picture is an example of moderate use of HDR/Tonemapping. Nice shot.
Personally I like HDR, but I seldom use it with MF lenses since the program I use needs the exposure info in the Exif header.
Normally I try to to keep my HDR on the low-key side, but sometimes it can be fun to crank it up a bit.
The shots below go from the subtle to the more extreme.
_________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I am big fun of HDR images, even if I didn't make yet any Nice samples Sven I love all of them , last one is so extreme and so good! _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Attila wrote: |
I am big fun of HDR images, even if I didn't make yet any Nice samples Sven I love all of them , last one is so extreme and so good! |
But it has bad artifacts on the waves
The first two are more moderate and well executed.
Although personally, I would keep the shadows in the church. I guess this tells a lot about the different characters of the persons: when I shoot in churches, I compose around the shadows. This means I look for them instead of filling them Well to everyone his own cup of tea I suppose! _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
This is an "unrealistic" image to me like made on other planet , in this case ok for me. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
I see HDR as a fun way of experimenting, and church interiors are classic examples of HDR use.
I don't disagree with the fact that shadows in a building can be more interesting.
I have one example of HDR with MF (Nikkor), and here we can talk about artifacts. Can't explain why it has become like this.
_________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
For me, the best HDR image is one that you can't tell right away.
After the initial couple of WOW LOOKIT THAT! of the usual overprocessed images, I soon get a headache. I lump them in with the other straight screwed up tool usages: over sharpening, over use of whatever doohickie is available in PS...
Sven, yours aren't bad; I've also seen a couple of pretty good B&W HDRs. _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10469 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
for me it is gadget for bored people
why not try to take a portrait in HDR
all those pics just remind me computer generated graphics
I can understand the sandwich technique to rescue a sky but not more
next step will be collage from pics collected on internet, mikrozoft has just released a new soft 'AutoCollage' for bored photographer _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
poilu wrote: |
for me it is gadget for bored people
why not try to take a portrait in HDR
all those pics just remind me computer generated graphics
I can understand the sandwich technique to rescue a sky but not more
next step will be collage from pics collected on internet, mikrozoft has just released a new soft 'AutoCollage' for bored photographer |
No, no just need to be use smart! Look Simon's B&W HDR photos or similar everybody say just wow! _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
poilu wrote: |
for me it is gadget for bored people
why not try to take a portrait in HDR
all those pics just remind me computer generated graphics
I can understand the sandwich technique to rescue a sky but not more
next step will be collage from pics collected on internet, mikrozoft has just released a new soft 'AutoCollage' for bored photographer |
I think this opens up an interesting discussion. When does what we do stop being photography an start being pure image processing.
I normally stick to the thesis that if I could do a trick in a lab with B/W film, it's also OK to do it in PS with digital images. For me this means not using all kinds of filters and transformations i PS. I guess HDR is an exception from my very loosely formulated rule.
On the other hand one might argue that HDR better mimics the dynamics of the human eye than film or digital sensors can do. It would still be quite difficult to make a good shot out of a bad just by applying HDR.
I have seen awful HDR images where the tone-mapping settings have been applied totally without feelings for realism, but applied with a bit of common sense the result can sometimes be pleasing. _________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
The main point for me is, it's wrong that you HAVE to always see everything in the shadows.
Music is made of notes and pauses, or, if you prefer said otherwise, of sounds and silences.
So is photography. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Throndor
Joined: 15 Sep 2008 Posts: 157 Location: Ankara / TURKEY
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Throndor wrote:
HDR is a potent medicine but it tastes bad itself.. just apply tiny amounts to save a wounded photo and yet not spoil its taste.. _________________ Omer
Pentax K100D super
Pentax DA 18-55 AL
Pentax SMC-FA 50 f/1.4
Aus Jena Pancolar 50/1.8 (Zebra)
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5
Varexon 35/2.8
Helios 44-2 58/2
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
j.lukow
Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 856 Location: Lindsay Ontario, Canada
Expire: 2021-11-25
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
j.lukow wrote:
poilu wrote: |
for me it is gadget for bored people
why not try to take a portrait in HDR . . . |
I've seen this tried by my friend with a portrait of my wife. I didn't think it worked, so I deleted my copy.
Sven wrote: |
. . .
I think this opens up an interesting discussion. When does what we do stop being photography an start being pure image processing. |
This is part of what I was getting at in my post - and I guess it goes counter to what I think of as a photographer.
Sven wrote: |
. . .I normally stick to the thesis that if I could do a trick in a lab with B/W film, it's also OK to do it in PS with digital images. For me this means not using all kinds of filters and transformations i PS. I guess HDR is an exception from my very loosely formulated rule. . . |
If you note in the essay by Erwin Putts and even the Reuters guidelines, PS can be an effective digital darkroom, but too often it isn't left at that. One example I know is seeing in a photography magazine how to use PS to "improve" images of fireworks (often by cutting a pasting in an extra airburst, or achieving a level of contrast far in excess of what a darkroom could produce.
Sven wrote: |
. . .
On the other hand one might argue that HDR better mimics the dynamics of the human eye than film or digital sensors can do. |
Does it if you can think back on the moment caught and truly ask yourself did I really see all that detail?
Sven wrote: |
. . .It would still be quite difficult to make a good shot out of a bad just by applying HDR. . . |
This is very true but we know that many people shoot massive number of shots to either hopefully capture that magic image or at least have a decent one that through over processing can become that image.
You have to also remember that for many people more=better, including dramatic effects.
The genie of technology has been let out of its bottle - todays computer technology can be compared to the camera with roll film. The latter put photography - the realm of the professional - in the hands of the amateur, and the former seems to try to put the ability of the professional in the hands of the amateur.
Jim _________________ EMPLOYMENT: That which funded photography and my new woodworking business.j.lukow
Jim's Kit:
Minolta Kit: Minolta X570 & Autowinder G, Minolta SRT200
LENSES:Minolta - 45mm & 50mm F1:2, PF 58mm F1:1.4, Tamron 28mm f1:2.5, Tamron SP 35-80mm f1:2.8/3.8 & CF TeleMacro zoom 80-210 f1:3.8, Vivitar f3.0~4.5 35-200mm macro focusing zoom, f 2.8 28mm CF Wide angle, 2x macro focus teleconverter,Sigma F4 25-250, f 2.8~4 35-70mm zoom master,Tokina SD f4-5.6 70-210 zoom, f4.5 80-200 "Ultra" Zoom,AutoImage 135mm F1:2.8, Spiratone 400mm f1:6.3, Magicon f3.5-4.8 35-70mm macro zoom,Quantary f8-500 Mirror/macro lens, Accura MD mount Macro bellows
M42 Kit:Praktica PLC2,Yashica TL Electro X
LENSES:Meyer Goerlitz Oreston 50mm f1:1.8 , Auto Yashinon DX 1:1.7 50mm,Steinheil Munchen Culminar 135mm f4.5, Adaptall-2 M42 adapter
Zeiss . . . Zeiss Contaflex 126 system, Zeiss Contaflex Super
Medium Format: Pentacon sixTL
Hasselblad 500c/m - CZ 2.8-80mm planar, CZ 4-150mm sonnarCF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57840 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
http://forum.mflenses.com/zuiko-28mm-in-surreal-london-t1942.html
Simon use HDR like technic, look the sky I think don't need better evidence why good to use. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rob Leslie
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 1103 Location: UK Swindon
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rob Leslie wrote:
HDR is nothing new. What is new are the simple Plug ins available to do it.
A simple guide should be:- If the image looks like HDR it is a failure.
Any HDR
Any good ‘Controlled’ aspect of HDR can be done by shooting RAW and using layer masks. _________________ Pentax K10D & K100D. Many Tamron Adaptall SP lenses, Fujinon f4.5 400mm. A loved Lens Baby 2, Lubitel triplet +++ and many film cameras. Mainly a Digital user inc G5, GR2
http://robstreet.blogspot.com/
http://robleslie.blogspot.com/
http://roblesliephotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64956578@N00/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Xpres
Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Posts: 964 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-10-28
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Xpres wrote:
A photograph has been said to be an illusion of reality, a window, and our understanding of the image hinges on that - I think HDR undermines that illusion. It is no longer a window - not a photograph. Of course if you use it and it still looks like a window then why not? If you use it and you end up with a great image, like a painting, then great - why not? But it can take the image a long way from being a photograph. Are you listening to the tale or the teller? _________________ Film... and sometimes SD14, 5D2 and some other suff! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fotomachi
Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 638 Location: Estados Unidos de las Esferas Ultraterrenales
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fotomachi wrote:
In my opinion, HDR is a great tool. I use it regularly when the dynamic range of a photograph I want to make is considerably wider then my digital camera can handle. For instance, if you shoot 360° panoramas during daylight, you can understand that HDR can be a very useful tool to make your panorama look more "correct" to the human eye (the DR of the human eye is several magnitudes higher then that of our camera equipment). Also, when you are standing in a dark room and want to shoot a very light subject, HDR is very useful: glass stained windows in a church, shooting the landscape through an open door, ... Not using HDR will often lead to areas which are either highly or poorly exposed and will often lead to unappealing photographs.
This being said, most HDR creations I see have been raped several times, usually by increasing the contrast far above the generally acceptable limit, or oversaturating the colors so much it hurts in the mind. Nevertheless, HDR remains trustworthy technique in my opinion, and I have made several HDR which my colleagues cannot distinguish from "normal" photographs. _________________ :::[ f o t o m a c h i . M X ]:::
:::[ F o T o M a C h i . C o M ]:::
:::[ M y . l e n s . c o l l e c t i o n ]:::
:::[ M a c h i g l a z k i . О п т и к . B l o g ]::: |
|
Back to top |
|
|
n6mod
Joined: 20 Oct 2008 Posts: 134 Location: Boulder Creek, CA, USA
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
n6mod wrote:
HDR is a tool like any other. I do a fair bit of HDR in panoramic photography to open up shadows and deal with the huge dynamic ranges you get in super wide angle views.
It certainly can be overdone, and come out really horrible. At the same time, I've seen it be overdone and yet "work" beautifully. For examples of really obvious, heavy handed, and downright gorgeous HDR, check out http://stuckincustoms.com/
-Zandr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio wrote: |
The main point for me is, it's wrong that you HAVE to always see everything in the shadows.
Music is made of notes and pauses, or, if you prefer said otherwise, of sounds and silences.
So is photography. |
That's a great analogy! _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
I know a photographer who uses HDR on virtually all of his work, or so it appears and while the imagery is undoubtedly of high quality and very striking, it wears after a while and I long to see something a bit more natural.
It's worse for me because I know the areas he shoots and know that even with the kind of lighting that is possible in those areas, they can never really look like how they do in the final image.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not that much of a purist regarding image manipulation as I'm an ex-Kodachrome and latterly Velvia user and I do feel that HDR does have it's place when done sympathetically. I just think that it's a technique that is being done to death and is kind of turning into a cliche IMO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
piticu
Joined: 04 Aug 2008 Posts: 591 Location: Romania
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
piticu wrote:
It is kindda funny when you think that the majority's description of hdri is "unnatural look", cause the hdr has roots in exact problem of compensating larger dynamic range of human eye than that of a digital camera. In other words was an effort to make a picture to look more natural
Don't you think? _________________ www.atelierelealbe.eu |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
piticu wrote: |
It is kindda funny when you think that the majority's description of hdri is "unnatural look", cause the hdr has roots in exact problem of compensating larger dynamic range of human eye than that of a digital camera. In other words was an effort to make a picture to look more natural
Don't you think? |
Yes it is, but the main contention here is not that HDR is bad per se, only that it can look unnatural when overdone. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
piticu
Joined: 04 Aug 2008 Posts: 591 Location: Romania
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
piticu wrote:
bob955i wrote: |
but the main contention here is not that HDR is bad per se |
I never thought that hdr is bad per se, is the same as thinking that a hammer is devil's tool
I agree that this technique is badly overused _________________ www.atelierelealbe.eu |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|