Unfair rules in Photo Contests - NO HDR!?

HDR, as I understand it, is a form of composite imaging. It's not unreasonable to have a prohibition against composite images for a contest, if the desire is to judge single images.

You claim to be a professional pilot. Do you whine when you have to compare your flying skills to pilots who fly more expensive planes?

Please stop your whining about not being able to afford $500 in filters right now. Should it be unfair that some folks have much more expensive cameras or lenses than others? In the 1970s, at the age of 14 years, I won 2nd place in the very first photo contest that I ever entered. I had a cheap 35mm film SLR and only a 50mm kit lens. No filters. No tripod.

One can make outstanding photos without filters using just a modicum of desire (e.g. get up for "magic light" hours just before and after sunrise/sunset, where grad ND filters are less important than at other times).

Or buy some cheaper filters if that's needed for the kind of images that you want to submit; they don't have to be top of the line. Even if they have a color cast, you can correct that in post-processing, if the rules of the contest allow that.

This is a forum for pros and advanced amateurs. I've never known anyone in this forum to whine about such things as arbitrary contest rules.

Sorry to be blunt, my friend, but I think it's you who has the "ignorant attitude"

coreyh said:

So many Photo Contests I am interested in entering do not allow
HDR/Multiple exposure images!

What is up with that? If your going to allow professional
photographers to take photos with Grad ND filters, then your really
making the contest uneven. I can't afford $500 dollars in Filters
and holders right now and the only way I can accomplish the same
thing is with HDR or multiple eposures.

To me this is a very ignorant attitude to have.

Photo manipulation on the other hand, to the extent of adding
elements or removing elements from the picture... eg adding an eagle
to a sunset. I agree that should not be allowed.

Even things up for us amateurs and let us use the tools on PP that
are equal to using the tools in the field.

This is more for conversation than anything. What does everyone else
think?

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

Click to expand...

--
Galleries: http://www.dheller.net

I am one of the few who decry elitism.

coreyh said:

So many Photo Contests I am interested in entering do not allow
HDR/Multiple exposure images!

What is up with that? If your going to allow professional
photographers to take photos with Grad ND filters, then your really
making the contest uneven. I can't afford $500 dollars in Filters
and holders right now and the only way I can accomplish the same
thing is with HDR or multiple eposures.

To me this is a very ignorant attitude to have.

Photo manipulation on the other hand, to the extent of adding
elements or removing elements from the picture... eg adding an eagle
to a sunset. I agree that should not be allowed.

Even things up for us amateurs and let us use the tools on PP that
are equal to using the tools in the field.

This is more for conversation than anything. What does everyone else
think?

Click to expand...

As I stated in your other thread of a similar nature (but without you mentioning contests) I don't have a problem with photographers using any tools at their dsposal to achieve what they want, as long as they're honest about it.

HDR is no more fake than the camera itself. ALL photos are processed. Yes, all of them (film or digital). There's no such thing as a natural image from a camera. A camera is a machine, a tool, and so is HDR, or sharpening, or color correction, or brightness/contrast, or cropping, etc. At best (or worst, depending on how you look at it) it's just a matter of degree.

It's interesting that Ansel Adams was brought up in this thread, as he was one of the most avid post processors of all time. His photos are thoroughly manipulated and do not represent the actual scene or what the camera captured, yet he is thought of as a great photographer by many, many people.

I think the main problem people have with HDR is the way it's overdone. The images just look phony, kind of like computer generated effects and animation in movies. Of course some images/photos look overdone even if HDR processing wasn't used.

In time, people may be more accepting of HDR, and it will greatly help if the people using HDR don't overdo it, unless the point is to overdo it and they state it as such.

Meanwhile, contest rules are contest rules and that's that. Obey them, or don't enter.

By the way, this isn't the right forum for this topic, at least in the context you presented it. There are rules here too.

coreyh said:

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

Click to expand...

the letters in red was a quote. it had quote marks. it was what the op said in a reply above.

It may sound like I'm complaining people, but what I'm saying is that HDR accomplishes nothing more than filters imo. I guess I must be coming accross as being whiny, but I am more than familiar with "unfair".

Later

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

DavidMaven said:

HDR, as I understand it, is a form of composite imaging. It's not
unreasonable to have a prohibition against composite images for a
contest, if the desire is to judge single images.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I have now found out why people make contests banning HDR. People truly think it is a fake way to create a photograph.

DavidMaven said:

You claim to be a professional pilot. Do you whine when you have to
compare your flying skills to pilots who fly more expensive planes?

Click to expand...

What kind of comment is that?

DavidMaven said:

Please stop your whining about not being able to afford $500 in
filters right now. Should it be unfair that some folks have much more
expensive cameras or lenses than others? In the 1970s, at the age of
14 years, I won 2nd place in the very first photo contest that I ever
entered. I had a cheap 35mm film SLR and only a 50mm kit lens. No
filters. No tripod.

Click to expand...

That's very good. I'm not expecting to win any photo contents. I just thought the rules made it an uneven playing field, that is all.

DavidMaven said:

One can make outstanding photos without filters using just a modicum
of desire (e.g. get up for "magic light" hours just before and after
sunrise/sunset, where grad ND filters are less important than at
other times).

Click to expand...

That is right, and again, I'm not arguing.

DavidMaven said:

Or buy some cheaper filters if that's needed for the kind of images
that you want to submit; they don't have to be top of the line. Even
if they have a color cast, you can correct that in post-processing,
if the rules of the contest allow that.

Click to expand...

Why would I spend the money of filters, whether they be cheap or not, to just get the same effect with HDR? It makes me no less of a photographer whether someone post/pre processes their images.

DavidMaven said:

This is a forum for pros and advanced amateurs. I've never known
anyone in this forum to whine about such things as arbitrary contest
rules.

Sorry to be blunt, my friend, but I think it's you who has the
"ignorant attitude"

Click to expand...

That is fine, everyone has a right to their opinion. Everyone keeps coming back to the point that I'm whining and should grow up. I have found my answer to why some photo contest Ban HDR/exposure blending. A LOT of people don't think it is "proper" photography.

I will concede what most people are telling me, which I already knew. It is their rules and hense I won't enter any photos.

Later

Remember " he who owns the gold"... Can make the ..."golden rules"

coreyh said:

It may sound like I'm complaining people, but what I'm saying is that
HDR accomplishes nothing more than filters imo. I guess I must be
coming accross as being whiny, but I am more than familiar with
"unfair".

Later

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

Click to expand...

--
Lou 46

This website is especially for you?

http://hdr-club.deviantart.com/

cheers

coreyh said:

I know it is their contest... jeeze. I'm just trying to get to the
bottom of that perception.

Click to expand...

No you aren't. You are arguing with a lot of people that have no clue as to what the perception of the contest organizers is based on.

You ARE getting a pretty good indication of why the people here think that way, but you aren't willing to concede the point that modern HDR is in it's infancy and not widely accepted.

I have seen precious few HDR images that look natural. I have never personally tried Photomatix, or any of the other HDR tools, but I have done manual exposure blending and used ND grads. And no matter what you say, none of the three are the same or produce the same effect.

ND Grads require a level horzon to be really effective, so right off the bat using them is more difficult, IMHO. Exposure blending allows for a more organic transition between highlight and shadow areas but still can be difficult to get right. Particularly with trees involved.

HDR is still a bit of a mystery to me but until I see more decent images done with it I have no great interest in demystifying it. AND since the software is doing most of the work, I feel it requires less skill. (Yes, you have to know how to properly expose and how to bracket your exposures, but that applies to manual blending as well.)

--
Chefziggy
http://www.pbase.com/chefziggy/lecream

As has already been stated by multiple posters, it is the perogative of the contest organizer to set the rules, in any fashion they choose. It should be noted, however that they may disqualify some photos by setting these rules. That's the point of rules.

Perhaps you should champion your HDR process to the contest organizers. Before you do so, however, you should think more closely about your analogy. HDR is NOT like using a graduated ND filter. Applying a grey gradiation layer in photoshop that is even and consistent across the entire image is like using a Grad. ND filter. HDR images use a multliple exposure technique that allows for different exposures of different areas of the photo, somewhat like masking while printing -- very different from an ND filter.

HDR is a viable digital imaging technique that can be used to make great photos, but it does require a HIGH DEGREE of digital manipulation or post processing that is not analogous to any in-camera process available.

As a side note on the whole film vs. digital debate. Analog tools leave 'tool marks' and often have unexpected results, the tool becomes the process. I think we lose some of that with digital.

Why hand-carve a duck from wood when a machine can do it faster and more precisely? Because I wanted a hand-carved duck.

JMHO

"Why don't we like HDR as much as you?" That, I think is your real question. And really, who cares? If you like it, great! Try out DeviantArt, where they like it, too. We at this forum don't have to care about it for you to like it, do we?

Actually, coreyh, if I were to look for a corollary as to your difficulties with this thread, it wouldn't be based on how expensive a plane you fly or some of the others, it would be based upon your unwillingness to hear what the posters are saying.

As a professional pilot, what would happen if you were on approach, and the tower said "Go around again, there's an obstruction on your runway." Would you say "I can't see it, so I want to go ahead?" I hope not. That way lies disaster. Yet your stubborn arguing that you don't see our point is tantamount to repeatedly telling the tower "Well, I still can't see it, and refuse to believe what you tell me."

There being no consequence to this discussion worth mentioning compared to pilot disobedience of a tower directive, I hope that you can at least hear this: a lot of us are tuning out your signal. Your questions are asked and answered. Your dislike of the answers was never our problem. Repeating the question ad nauseum isn't a winning strategy.

Neither is reframing your question. It was quite apparent from the start that you were questioning the contest rules that wouldn't allow HDR. After many replies saying "it's their contest, so it's their rules" you reframed the question in midthread, making it "why this bias against HDR?"

I don't know if there is a bias against HDR so much as there is a lack of the same degree of appreciation and interest in it that you have. So what? As someone besides me has pointed out, this is a forum with a different agenda than yours. You can't make us care about something if we don't. Unfortunately, it seems you've asked the same question on another forum and must have gotten unsatisfactory answers there as well. So now you're here, going on about "unlevel playing fields" and other nonsense.

Unfortunately for your position, most who have responded believe that the USE of HDR MAKES THE PLAYING FIELD UNLEVEL, WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT MAKING AN IMAGE IN CAMERA. You obviously dislike that answer. Again, so what?

All your hypotheticals about HDR cameras on the way, etc. are like a bucket with holes - they don't carry water for your argument. Besides, that HDR camera will likely cost far more than any filter you say you can't afford, making it a moot point.

Why don't you just do HDR for your own enjoyment, stop haranguing people who don't care and find some who do?
--
jrbehm
http://www.jeffbehm.com

I enjoyed it at least.

Call this an agree to disagree. I know I'm not going to convice anyone here, but I thought it would be fun to have a discussion on it. I guess these types of topics really have no answer besides the obvious one that has been stated many times.

If a contest doesn't allow HDR, then don't enter unless you have valid material.

Thanks again
Corey

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

coreyh said:

coreyh said:

coreyh said:

It's okay for the camera to do it, but it isn't okay for me to do it?
Huh?

Click to expand...

No, whats being contested is your ability to do it with the camera
not the camera and computers.

Click to expand...

Have you ever shot HDR? For myself, I know I put as much care and
attention towards the final result as one would for creating an image
with filters. It's just 2 ways of acheiving the same results. One
is frowned upon because it isn't traditional.

Click to expand...

I cringe. It is simply NOT TRUE. And every time you say it you reveal your ignorance of the subject.

Dave

Where is Doug Walker when we need him?

I've almost forgotten how to use HDR.

--

Chato said:

coreyh said:

Chato said:

Chato said:

It's okay for the camera to do it, but it isn't okay for me to do it?
Huh?

Click to expand...

No, whats being contested is your ability to do it with the camera
not the camera and computers.

Click to expand...

Have you ever shot HDR? For myself, I know I put as much care and
attention towards the final result as one would for creating an image
with filters. It's just 2 ways of acheiving the same results. One
is frowned upon because it isn't traditional.

Click to expand...

I cringe. It is simply NOT TRUE. And every time you say it you reveal
your ignorance of the subject.

Click to expand...

This is directly from Singh-Ray's website. Am I ignorant? Or are they comparing HDR done properly to Grad ND filters.

http://singhray.blogspot.com/2006/12/close-look-at-high-dynamic-range-hdr.html

Ya, that is what I thought...

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

ekn said:

Where is Doug Walker when we need him?

I've almost forgotten how to use HDR.

Click to expand...

Hehehe, maybe that is why some people on this forum don't think HDR is valid. They don't know how to do it properly.

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

coreyh said:

coreyh said:

I cringe. It is simply NOT TRUE. And every time you say it you reveal
your ignorance of the subject.

Click to expand...

This is directly from Singh-Ray's website. Am I ignorant? Or are
they comparing HDR done properly to Grad ND filters.

http://singhray.blogspot.com/2006/12/close-look-at-high-dynamic-range-hdr.html

Ya, that is what I though...

Click to expand...

I thought that was an awful example. I wouldn't need either a flter, or HD to duplicate that shot. I gave up using ANY filters quite a while ago, although I would use a polariser under certain circumstances.





Dave

Chato said:

Chato said:

Chato said:

I cringe. It is simply NOT TRUE. And every time you say it you reveal
your ignorance of the subject.

Click to expand...

This is directly from Singh-Ray's website. Am I ignorant? Or are
they comparing HDR done properly to Grad ND filters.

http://singhray.blogspot.com/2006/12/close-look-at-high-dynamic-range-hdr.html

Ya, that is what I though...

Click to expand...

I thought that was an awful example. I wouldn't need either a flter,
or HD to duplicate that shot. I gave up using ANY filters quite a
while ago, although I would use a polariser under certain
circumstances.

Click to expand...

What? You have got to be kidding me! You bawk at an article from a company who produces the best Grad ND filters available!?!?

Please explain to me how you could take that picture without a Grad ND filter/HDR and not blow the highlights or lose all of the shadow detail? I'm sure millions of photographers would love to know.

Your calling me ignorant? WOW, this forum has a bunch of interesting characters.

Chato said:

Dave

Click to expand...

Very nice pictures btw

--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC

coreyh said:

coreyh said:

I thought that was an awful example. I wouldn't need either a flter,
or HD to duplicate that shot. I gave up using ANY filters quite a
while ago, although I would use a polariser under certain
circumstances.

Click to expand...

What? You have got to be kidding me! You bawk at an article from a
company who produces the best Grad ND filters available!?!?

Click to expand...

Yes, truly an onjective source of information...

coreyh said:

Please explain to me how you could take that picture without a Grad
ND filter/HDR and not blow the highlights or lose all of the shadow
detail? I'm sure millions of photographers would love to know.

Your calling me ignorant? WOW, this forum has a bunch of interesting
characters.

Click to expand...

Well, see, you have to take advantage of the tools you have. I don't use filters, because I don't like to give away light. My "models" are just Sooooo uncooperative.

And true, my images don't have the range of HDR, but they'll do...



Dave

Corey,

Is there some point you want to make by quoting the HDR portion of the Singh-Ray website? Did you read it all the way? I don't think so.

Here's a quote from the URL you posted, that comes after the demonstration of how HDR effected the mountain lake scene.

All please note: This is a direct copy from the Singh-Ray website, I am not interested in getting into trouble with their ad copy writers. Since their website does NOT support Corey's HDR argument as implied, it's in our own as well as Singh-Ray's interest that this erroneous presentation of their position be corrected.

"Comparing the two results (Photomatix HDR vs. the ND grad filter) side-by-side, you can see subtle but distinct differences. The Photomatix image has a distinct “HDR look” that is characterized by cartoonish colours and flatter contrast making the image look less dimensional than the grad filter shot. The ND grad filter shot has truer colours, snappy three-dimensional contrast and a ‘feel’ that seems truer to the eye (Photo 2 above)."

"On closer examination, there are also other important differences between the two techniques. Because Photomatix calls for three or more bracketed exposures, anything that moves in the scene (wind-blown grass, flowing water, floating clouds) will often have ghosting artifacts that simply don’t occur in the single frame grad filter capture (these can be seen by clicking on photo 3 above)."

YIKES!!! I don't think they agree with you at all, Corey....

--
jrbehm
http://www.jeffbehm.com

it is not that it is valid or not. the rule makers of that contest were obviously trying to restrict the entrys to what can be made in the camera by the photographer. and eliminate the computer geeks from enetering photos.

since it is their contest the can do it. they can put a rule in that all picture MUST BE UPSIDE DOWN. if that is what they want they can do it. it their contest.

i suggest strongly that you start your own contest so you can use whatever rules you like.

yes, i can use hdr technique fine. i simply do not like it any more. it is too much cartoon like color and supersaturation. and anything that is made with photomatrix is just more of that. to me if hdr is your thing, you do not even need to take the pics yourself just use published pics on websites and super color and super contrast to your hearts content. just use redynamix for $16. of course in that case what is being done does not have anything to do with photography, it is all computer generated. or do you suppose that is what the rule makers of that contest had in mind?