Scott Eaton: The vast majority of complaints about HDR images often being 'over-cooked' have NOTHING to do with HDR. HDR images when properly executed are usually subtle, if not dull because of the expanded contrast range. Further manipulation is usually required to make them look normal, or aethestically pleasing.
It's the post tone-mapping algorithms often applied to HDR images that cause all the fuss, and the cartoonish images.
Alot of point and shoot cameras and smart phones have whjhat is called an HDR function but is nothing more than a rudementarty tonemapping function. Does not matter what they call it ebcause most snapshooter have no understanding of either process. They just know that if they enable that function they get nice bright colors.
acidic: I'm really disappointed that the author chose to make this a HDR guide for images made with a digital SLR. Too bad. I thought this guide would help me do HDR with my mirrorless cameras. Oh well, I'll just have to wait for the appropriate book :-(
Any camera can be used for HDR as long as it the following features:
A) shutter priority or manual exposure B) manual focus C) can be mounted to a tripod D) exposure compensation of at least + or - one stop or auto exposure bracketing.
most mirrorless and advanced point and shoot cameras should have these features.
Rachotilko: "Now, HDR resides in the basement of color photography from where it may never come out"Has the Politbyro come out with a decree prohibiting people from utilizing HDR skillfully ? Has any gifted photog been sentenced to forced labor for doing such a despicable act ?
Long before digital photography existed, my color photography teacher told us "If you can't make it good, make it big and make it red."
Bright colors attract attention and to most amateurs they think that making the image brighter is more eyecatching and therefore better.
But, contrary to popular beliefs, the average person is actually capable of appreciating subtle differences in our senses. Pastel colors, soft music with subtle harmonies, a perfectly cooked meal can all be greatly appreciated by average ordinary people with no special sensory skills in those areas. They appreciate these things without really knowing why. But when it comes to creating works of great subtlty, that's a different story. Just turning the amp up to 11 does not make great music.
A slightly tonemapped image can have as much pop as an overprocessed. The average snapshooter does not have the skill to create one but they can appreciate it when they see it, without even knowing how it was done.
doctor digi: A shame they can't use the correct term for the book's title - it's actually tone-mapping that is being created. A true HDR image cannot be displayed with any available technology.
Great review though.
As me and my colleagues see it, HDR does not refer to the dynamic range of the final output or display, but to the dynamic range of the scene being captured.
If the DR of the scene exceeeds the DR of the sensor and requires multiple exposures to capture the entire DR, then the scene could be described as being HDR.
The point behind HDR photography is to capture the entire DR of the scene , then process the image so it can be presented through a low dynamic range media.
Thus the term "HDR photography" refers to the method of capture much like panoramic, high speed, low light, artificial light or Zone System photography.
Tonemapping refers to the post processing methods used to render HDR images to the desired result, much as stitching renders the panarama or push/pull processing renders the Zone System negative.
Tonemapping can be also applied to a single low DR image
I think of HDR photography and tonemapping as two seperate procedures, with HDR dependent upon tonemapping.
Demmos: Excellent review... honestly I think it should have rated higher! :-)
But the cons are definitively no built in GPS or Wifi/Bluetooth. At this point, pro-level cameras should have such support included. Both of these options lead to more creative control, especially by external software.
And before it is said, the second battery in the grip would offset the added power drain...
I can see where WiFi/bluetooth might be usefull but wouldn't say it's a 'con' not having it. Being free from the cable certainly would make one more physically unemcumbered, but I would not consider it a negative because the camera does not have it.
As far as GPS, perhaps you could explain how that would lead to more creative control. I cannot for the life of me figure out how GPS is going to have any impact on creative control.
Just a Photographer: 1 Billion, Isn't that a bit over the top to pay for a gadgetry app maker?Not to say that I don't like Instagram, but come on 1billion.
OK. Thats true. Well acvtually no. He's making this investment ahead of the IPO, he's still in control of the most of facebooks assetts. That the thing about holding shares...as long as there's someone who has the majority, or a controling percentage of the shares, that person is in control of how money is spent, investments the company makes, etc.
AFter the IPO, then he'll be accountable to the investors.It seems reckless and irresponsible.
I agree on one thing: investors in facebook are really investing in thin air.
XmanX: I'd like the ability to browse all apps on my phone and all websites on my computer without ever being hounded by the facebook or twitter logos.
I'm officially sick of the constant harassment by app/website designers to make me "Like" something or "Share" something. I'd like to once-and-for-all answer that with NO.
Apple should consider including these options in their Settings menu that a user can configure to never be bothered again to look at the logos of "f" and "t" in any app. I want to live a facebook-free and twitter-free online existence.
I reserve the right to revisit the issue if facebook and twitter started paying me.
There are many web services for which people pay. At first people were reluctant to pay, but as time goes by more people will get used to paying for special content. There will always be the free aspect; the internet could not exist without it. But there is also a place for paid content. If there were a popular subscription service like facebook that didn’t come with the issues that facebook has, I would subscribe to that service. I do in fact subscribe to a similar service but they are not as large as facebook.
The premium content I pay for on the web is exactly that: "premium!" It's worth the fee, otherwise I wouldn't pay it. It's not just content, it's services too.
You say that people won't pay but what about Linkedin? For all the free porn online, people will pay for the content they want.
I think in the grander scheme of things, the amount I pay for online content is small. My monthly expenses for printed material is actually higher, but I can afford it.
In that vein I am disturbed to see that DP Reviews has inserted a "Pin It" icon on it's pages.
If there's any site that against the interest of professional photographers, its Pinterest. DPR points out that the samples they post for our examination are not supposed to be reproduced, yet they invite everyone to pin DP Reviews to Pinterest. Once on Pinterest those images will be widely reproduced and used by others without payment or even acknowledgment of the source.
Combatmedic870: ....People....they didnt really pay 1 billion for the ONLY the app....Its for the app and USERS of the app. The first day the app was released on android it downloaded by a million users....
I've created my fair share, but that's a pointless comeback.
Politicians trumpet the value of wealthy entrepreneurs for their ability to create jobs. In proportion to the earnings and the value of the company, facebook has created very few jobs.
A larger percentage of the jobs in America are created by people and small companies you've never heard of. Many photographers like myself create jobs by hiring assistants, studio and office managers, accountants, Photoshop artists printers...just because were not billionaires does not mean we don't create jobs!
I'm just saying for the amount of investemtn facebook just made, it's not going to create many jobs. If thet billion was instead invested in a totlay new venture, housands of jobs could have been created.
mosman: After a quick flick through the comments, it appears there's an awful lot of people failing to see the writing on the wall.
Ignore the hype and vitriol for a moment and think of the impact this style of image taking and distribution is doing, and is going to do:- to professionals in the industry across all genres,- the company that makes your favorite PP program,- the manufacturers that rely on the margin from P&S and entry level DSLRs to fund the higher end models.
The cameras included in smart phones now are only a short time removed from 'traditionally' formed products that wowed people here on DPR. Throw in ongoing financial pressures and increasingly easy methods of distribution and you have a perfect storm for camera manufacturers.
Relevant to DPR and it's reader base? You bet it is.
You hit the nail on the head.
At somewhere around $35 per user, that one very expensive mailing list!
In comparison ;Elon Musk founder of Zip2corp.(sold to Compaq Computer Co.) co founder of PayPal(sold to E Bay) heads up Tesla Motors and SolarCity Corp. has invested $100 million dollars to create "Space X" the first private company to launch a payload into space and return it safely to Earth. Space X has secured 4 billion in contracts to launch satellites and bring cargo to the space station. Eventually he want to launch astronauts for NASA!
WOW!...He's started a company to build space ships and go to space for one tenth of the investment that Facebook has made in a cell phone app!
For a billion dollars Zuck could have launched a new camera company building real cameras, not just an app and it's user base(a large percentage of are already facebook users!). I just don't see the value of it. That billion could have been put to better use.
How many jobs will that investment create?
for increments: Not only will people pay for content they do all the time. We pay for basic cable TV content then extra fee for special content. The full range of premium cable Tv is prety expensive, but people pay it. The fee we pay for internet or 4G does not pay for the content only the service.
When we buy a smart phone app what we are really paying for is a one time fee for access.
I use a number of fee based online services; photo and Photoshop tutorials, access to acedemic papers, investment newsletters. Many offer free basic services plus premium for a fee, like LinkdIn.
Everyone wants everything for free. (Its' really another form of greed. ) But advertising is near saturation. There is a limit to how much businesses can spend and the public can absorb. Ad supported content may soon hit a ceiling(bubble?)The economy is not growing fast enough to expand ad revenues enough.
Internet 3 will be here soon and there will be more fee based content.
Toddles: I haven't missed being on Facebook since I deleted it years ago. FB is such a site for mindless people with nothing to do. Wouldn't it be great if everyone or even a large chunk of FBers cancel FB?
They call it social networking but there isn't much socializing going on. Mostly promotional announcements, posting of religious andpolitical opnions, links to You tube videos and such. It certainly does not live up to the characterization of social networking.
So lets call it what it really is: a bullitan board. Nothing but a big bullitan board. Far better than the old text bullitan that the internt started out with. But still nothing more than just a bullitan board.
mdruziak: Funny that they didn't buy the Kodak Gallery! haha
That's their explaination of the ToS but it clearly states that they claim the right to relicense. My colleagues and I have gone over the FB ToS with an intellectual property attorney and yeah, they DO have the right to relicense because it's in the user agrement. It's just like that confusing agrement that you get with your credit cards that no one understands and everyone just goes along with it because they want the credit card...y'know that agreement that signs away your right to sue them if they screw you? No one takes them seriously.
Well the fb ToS is as nefarious as those credit card agreements. They offer the usage of the site for free under the conditions that you agree to the terms of service. The rights they claim they need are far and above what is necessary in order to display your content on fb. Why?
Just because they do not currently sell the images(as far as we know does not mean they won't at some future date. According to my legalman, they can if they want to.
As nature film maker David Attenbourough always used to say, "Wherever there is something to eat, there will be something there to eat it."
Zuckerberg is like an uneducated rapper who suddenly has millions of dollars to spend so he's blowing it on sparkly shiney things..to the Zuk, Instagram is his Bling. It's his money, he can blow it anyway he likes.
@ increments...I wouldn't mind paying if I was regarded as a customer and not the product, for ad free content, if I was not required to provide completely irrelevent personal information in order to have access, if my online activites were not tracked, if no personal profile about me was being complied and shared with affilaites, if I was not expected to agree to grant the hosts unlimited usage right to my photos, if my privacy was protected...
FB does not provide ANY content, the users do.
Yes I would pay for content and in fact I actually AM paying for content elsewhere.
In one way or another we are all paying for the content we receive. In order to be heard above the cocophany of advertisments all around us, companies have to spend more money that ever for ads. Those costs get passed onto the consumer.
Offline I pay for content, I've been doing it for years..in the form of magazines and newspapers. Yes they have ads but the ads aren;t targeted specifically at me.
David Clark: Remember, if you do something online thats free, its you thats being sold....
Yep! We are not the customers, we are the product.Like cows to the slaughter, no one ever asks the cows how they would like to be cut up and eaten.
I've tried to log onto the website for major newspapers not associated with facebook, only to be asked to log in with facebook and asked for permssions to access to my profile.
Granted our concerns for our individual privacy is outside of the scop of DP reviews, but I have concerns about what these sorts of things mean to the future of intellectual property rights for photographers.
Dvlee: Wll this mean that ALL images transmitted via Instagram will now be subject to facebook's users terms of service/rights grab as the images that are posted on facebook are?
Facebook is becoming so ubiquitous that it may become impossible to share our images anywhere without being subject to facebooks terms of service! I don't use instagram, so I;m not totaly up to speed on how it works, but this whole deal sounds a bit hinky to me.
Well my question is this, will facebook terms of service apply to Instagram images that are sent by other means, including e mail?
I have not seen any reports regarding this particular issue, but if Instagram maintains a database of all the images that have been transmitted via instagram then facebook now owns it. So if it turns that FB-ToS do apply, then all the images that have already been sent via instagram and resides on it's servers might now be subject to FB-ToS
That would be a disaster!
The last thing we need is for facebook to set itself up as a stock photo business. It's already got the right to relicense billions of images that have been posted on facebook. If they should choose to exercise that right......