Hdr

[inkista]

Originally Posted by tjwExperience

Okay, let's go back even further.....

What is HDR?

High Dynamic Range. It's a way to "photostitch" to extend the exposure range, just as regular photostitching extends your field-of-view, and focus-stacking extends depth-of-field. Yet more reasons to like digital.

The human eye can see something like 10 stops of difference in light, while film and a digital sensor can only see about 5. Or put another way, you know how to you the sky looks blue, but to the camera, it looks white? That's because the sensor has a lower dynamic range.

HDR is a post-processing technique that lets you combine several shots taken at different exposures to capture the entire dynamic range. The file format requires a greater bit depth (64-bits, iirc) than a typical JPEG, and current monitors cannot display the information directly--however, another technique, called "tonal mapping," can compress the range down into something that can be displayed.

HDR was initially developed for CGI imagery, but still photographers use it to, say, keep the scene shot through a window from being blown out or a scene through the window surrounded by a silhouette, but instead to have the room "balanced" with the scene out the window. Most first-timers who use HDR wildly abuse the saturation and contrast controls during tonal mapping to get an "artistic" effect. It's not to my taste, but some folks like the exploding sky thing. A search on "HDR" or "Photomatix" on Flickr will show tons of examples.

[D40]

Originally Posted by Nicole

Goes back to that whole question about photoshop being cheating or not, doesn't it? Of course, I fully agree with you kirbinster

i think that photoshop is cheating i mean
these days Photoshop can make a bad photographer good
in the old days when my dad was a photographer they
dint have programs like those that proved there real
skills not there computer skills but thats my opinon
feel free to disagree id like to hear other opionons

[Saralonde]

D40, we had a poll a few weeks ago called "Photoshop: Cheating or Not?" It still is open for additional comments if you want to add some.

[baseballboy828]

Image trickery has not been invented with digital, only simplified. People messed with images all the time before. Because of our current lack of darkroom, we must edit images. I'm not a cloning advocate (unless a client asks for retouching on a portrait). But exposure techniques such as HDR are totally legitimate. So are dodging and burning, and all kinds of other exposure adjustments that derive from film. Someone who is a heavy user of full-manual film cameras might say that shooting with an autofocus, autometering digital body is cheating. It's all in perspective. Changing the content of an image is wrong (cloning, etc.) unless it's for skin in portraits. Photoshop is just another creative technique. The HDRs that run totally wild with contrast and light-smoothing are art, not photographs. A well done HDR looks like an impossibly exposed photograph to the trained eye. I agree that my HDR is a little on the fake side. It was somewhat rushed, and therefore not as good as I'd like. But really. One who drastically changes their image in photoshop and then claims it's real is a cheater. But someone who makes a natural image with a few exposure/color tweaks is not. Just my opinion.

[carl yeomans]

here's one i posted a while back, and i like it more on my wall. it was one raw file adjusted in PS raw converter to make three exposures and then taken to photomatrix pro for tone mapping.


i personally dont think PS is a form of cheating. with the evolution of photography to digital, it opened up the whole concept to more creativity. yes. i do agree that back in the film days it required a lot more skill and a big learning curve to become good with a camera ,and take stunning pictures, but just look at the stunning pictures people are producing these days with the digital format. it couldnt be done in the old days. well i might just end up regreting those last words. as ive only been into photography 10 month.

regards carl

[mysticeyesx]

wow nice hdr shot carl.

[tjwExperience]

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like fun!!!!

[xxpinballxx]

carl you framed this one huh? How large did you blow it up?
did you do anything with this one you did? I think this one is great once we tweaked it a bit. If you remember we talked about the horizon and it looking off a bit but really couldn't make it any better.

[bahgheera]

Originally Posted by D40

i think that photoshop is cheating i mean
these days Photoshop can make a bad photographer good
in the old days when my dad was a photographer they
dint have programs like those that proved there real
skills not there computer skills but thats my opinon
feel free to disagree id like to hear other opionons

Computers and software are simply a natural evolution from the old to the new. To say ps is cheating is like saying driving a car to work is cheating as opposed to taking the old horse and buggy. Man makes a machine to simplify a task, man utilizes said machine. One day people will look back on photoshop the same way we look back on the Daggeurotype, and they will say 'thats the *real* way to do it, back in the day when *real* photographers had skill'.

[D40]

Originally Posted by baseballboy828

Image trickery has not been invented with digital, only simplified. People messed with images all the time before. Because of our current lack of darkroom, we must edit images. I'm not a cloning advocate (unless a client asks for retouching on a portrait). But exposure techniques such as HDR are totally legitimate. So are dodging and burning, and all kinds of other exposure adjustments that derive from film. Someone who is a heavy user of full-manual film cameras might say that shooting with an autofocus, autometering digital body is cheating. It's all in perspective. Changing the content of an image is wrong (cloning, etc.) unless it's for skin in portraits. Photoshop is just another creative technique. The HDRs that run totally wild with contrast and light-smoothing are art, not photographs. A well done HDR looks like an impossibly exposed photograph to the trained eye. I agree that my HDR is a little on the fake side. It was somewhat rushed, and therefore not as good as I'd like. But really. One who drastically changes their image in photoshop and then claims it's real is a cheater. But someone who makes a natural image with a few exposure/color tweaks is not. Just my opinion.

Well think about this as you said in the dark room they had some changes , i agree with that but Photoshop is a program where you can pratcially Create new images from scratch, you can change the color of objects, make things appear to be moving, add flare, soo many things are possible i dont think the old photographers had that ability....