-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Unfair rules in Photo Contests - NO HDR!?
- Thread starter coreyh
- Start date
Agree with me? I was pointing out they were comparing HDR to Grad ND filters.
Hense the topic title.
"A close look at High Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging vs. using Graduated ND Filters"
That looks like a comparison to me. Whether or not, they think HDR is better or worse is irrelevant. The fact remains they were comparing 2 similiar techniques to get more dynamic range.
Btw, I have almost read through that whole website.
--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
See, this is the attitude I question. Am I right in saying you think HDR images have nothing to do with photography?
--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
GaryDeM
Veteran Member
hdris have a lot to to do with photography. but not in the current use. the current use is to make all pics super color and super contrast and if the result has anything to do with the original scene it is an accident.
the origional intent opf hdr was to enable the photog to capture the super large DR of some scenes that have a giant dr. by giant dr this means beyond the ability of the sensor to capture it. if the scene's dr can be captured by normal technique(1 shot) then that scene was not a hdr worthy scene in the first place. however, the current voque is to shoot all scenes as hdr whether they are worthy or not, just so the user can play super contrast/saturation and make cartoons.
any scene should be checked with a telephoto lens and a spotmeter to find out the dr first. then decide IF the scene is hdr worthy. by hdr worthy, i mean 10 stops of dr or more. but people are not doing this, are you? the users simply shoot and make hdris of the shots good scene or not.
i was making hdris for a while but my problem was finding any high dr scenes to shoot. i found out that they are really very few. i have since shifted into panoramas and QTVR. for me hdri was not photography, since i had so little to shoot, it became playing with a computer. and that is not what got into phtography for in 1970 with my first slr. i did slides for 32yrs and in all that time pp was not even a dream and photoshop was what is that? i am a super believer in getting it right in the camera, so that pp(except for sharpening) is unnecessary. i currently shoot about 95% or better correct on exposure and wb, and i make it a point to do no cropping in the pc. if i have to crop that means that i did not use my lens position or technique right in the field. if i have to correct exposure or wb or crop in the pc, that means i messed up something in the field. i am not satisfied with that perforemance level from myself.
i would not be suprised at all if the thinking of the contest that you are talking about are thinking similar to the above paragraph.
the origional intent opf hdr was to enable the photog to capture the super large DR of some scenes that have a giant dr. by giant dr this means beyond the ability of the sensor to capture it. if the scene's dr can be captured by normal technique(1 shot) then that scene was not a hdr worthy scene in the first place. however, the current voque is to shoot all scenes as hdr whether they are worthy or not, just so the user can play super contrast/saturation and make cartoons.
any scene should be checked with a telephoto lens and a spotmeter to find out the dr first. then decide IF the scene is hdr worthy. by hdr worthy, i mean 10 stops of dr or more. but people are not doing this, are you? the users simply shoot and make hdris of the shots good scene or not.
i was making hdris for a while but my problem was finding any high dr scenes to shoot. i found out that they are really very few. i have since shifted into panoramas and QTVR. for me hdri was not photography, since i had so little to shoot, it became playing with a computer. and that is not what got into phtography for in 1970 with my first slr. i did slides for 32yrs and in all that time pp was not even a dream and photoshop was what is that? i am a super believer in getting it right in the camera, so that pp(except for sharpening) is unnecessary. i currently shoot about 95% or better correct on exposure and wb, and i make it a point to do no cropping in the pc. if i have to crop that means that i did not use my lens position or technique right in the field. if i have to correct exposure or wb or crop in the pc, that means i messed up something in the field. i am not satisfied with that perforemance level from myself.
i would not be suprised at all if the thinking of the contest that you are talking about are thinking similar to the above paragraph.
LOL, there are a handful of people on this forum I'd not want to meet in a digital darkroom alley.
--
I think you are over-generalizing big time with regards to HDR. Granted, a lot of HDR's are overdone, but that is easily discernable. My HDR's are not accident. They are far from accident. I have a clear view on what my hdr will look like before I take the photo.
I do not shoot HDR on all scenes. Only on scenes where I would use a Grad ND filter if I had one. (I'm just going to end up breaking down and buying some good singh ray filters
Yes, I do meter properly.
I find with my wide angle lens, shooting during sunrise/sunset, there are rarely times I don't feel the need to use HDR/Filter (again if I had them)
I am sure that is exactly what the contest organizers are thinking. I'm not saying they are wrong with having rules and I definitely will obey them. I just think HDR has gotten a bad rep and in the end I am not manipulating the subject/content of the picture.
Bad HDR's are easily recognizable. Some may say the same for Great HDR's. I guess I think that if HDR is no match, then why not allow it. That's like saying, you won't allow bad images in a contest.
I am listening to everyone's comments on this topic. Personally, I find it very very interesting to hear everyone's opinions on this.
Later
--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
Victor Engel
Veteran Member
It seems that the article you cited is largely a list of reasons a grad filter is better than HDR. If you want a list of reasons, that article seems like a place to start.
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/
Yes, I know. I guess my point has been lost. Anyways, yes Grad ND filter is better than HDR. I agree with that. My point was, if you don't have a Grad ND filter to use, you can acheive a "similiar" result with HDR. The article was about comparing HDR to Grad ND filters.
--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
Victor Engel
Veteran Member
Have you tried asking the organizers of those contests? Answers from anyone else is likely just to be speculation.
Well, it's not the same thing. It's a different thing that can have similar properties.
It seems to me it's an informed attitude -- or maybe you didn't really mean ignorant, i.e., lacking in knowledge.
Why is that? There's probably just as much similarity between compositing multiple images for HDR with what you've just described as there is between compositing multiple exposures with a single ND image.
The fact is, they are not equal.
My own opinion is that there are myriad contests out there, and you can probably find quite a few that will take the sort of images you are interested in. There are also other contests that have very specific rules. Sometimes there are good reasons for the rules. Sometimes the rules include somewhat arbitrary ones. On the Canon EOS 40D - 10D forum there is currently a contest for CSLR_CHALLENGE where the only post processing allowed is resizing. I say, choose the contests you're interested in and ignore the others. Or, challenge yourself to expand your horizons.
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/
Read through everything you posted and I agree with what you said.
Best to roll with the punches.
--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
No! You are applying filters infront of your lenses to help correct the lighting to make the light be recorded in a way that keeps the range of light within the recording limits of its medium be it film or digital. This is done BEFORE the light is recorded.
Photoshop filters are after the fact of recording and can be done over a long period of time to tweak and tweak. IMHO the more skilled artist does his/her work/creation at one time in one creative process, not two.
IMHO an artist who has a vision of a piece of work to create and then creates it is more astute than one who makes the piece of work and then decides how it will look.
If this happens on a wide scale, in-camera HDR, the art and skill of photography will hit new lows. There are already many viewers of prints at art shows that think every photograph is made to look "so good" by use of photoshop manipulation. I am shooting more and more film. When I tell this to people I often hear "wow I could never do any good with film" because digital has made people think photography is easier by taking more pictures, cropping, brightening but in the end are their snapshots better?
I can almost always tell if someone hands me a 4x6 print from a digital camera. Colors are off, effects of digital zoom, oversharpened, under exposed, etc. So in the end with digital, the average person is having to do the image processing (but few actually do) that film labs would do to make the print the right brightness and color balance. Plus most people have 4x6 digital prints made at drug stores that most times intentionally increase the brightness, contrast, and sharpness of all images a customer brings in (even if they don't choose auto correct) since most people have under exposed and low contrast pictures.
Just because there's a computer doesn't make one want to change the look and methodology of photography that has been around for over 150 years. Artists that do work traditional ways by hand almost always get more for their work and are more desireable than those who do their time in photoshop instead.
I have a niece who graduated from one of the best art institutes in the U.S. She does artists renderings (by hand) that anyone would assume was done on a computer. She can also do photoshop but who is more valuable: someone who can only do limited things by hand and most everything by photoshop or someone who can work equally by computer or by hand?
Bart Hickman
Veteran Member
Why would you care where the filtering is done? So with glass filters, you modify the light so it fits the medium. With HDR you modify the medium so it fits the range of recorded light. The latter sounds better to me. Both methods will require the skilled photographer to spend as little or much time as they choose both in the field and in the digital darkroom. The HDR method records far more information, so naturally it provides more options downstream. But you could easily maintain "purity" of the art by limiting yourself downstream.
Again, both methods will succeed in the hands of the astute artist. Such an artist shouldn't care about the process or whether chemicals or electronics was used to record the photons. The vision is the same. The final result will be the same.
Lousy artists could produce trash equally with either method as well.
Bart
--
http://zumbari.zenfolio.com
I'm sorry if you cannot understand the fundamental difference between using proper lens filters and methods at the point of capture and doing computer tricks and fixes at a later time. Whenever I hear a photographer in his booth at an artshow mention "..and then I did it in photoshop" I immediately walk out. People expect a certain process and result from a photographer.
There is a category for what you want to do: creative digital.
Dave Largent
Veteran Member
and the other shows what you know about computer tricks
You people are thinking using Grad ND filters is equiv. to some superhuman feat and makes you some sort of amazing photographer because you pre-processed the picture. Even professional photographers who use filters, also use exposure blending and HDR.
Search for Patrick Da Fuscia, Marc Adamus, Darwin Wiggett etc. and you will find they use all the tools available to them, including HDR and exposure blending EVEN though they have use of Grad ND filters.
I suppose someone who uses an autofocus camera also makes him a hack for a photographer. Ohh, that's right, people always tend to forget that when a new technology comes around for photographer all of the old timers get up in arms about it.
Just because I use HDR, does not mean I any worse of a photographer than someone who uses Filters. How many people here post process with sharpening/saturation/nosie/levels/curves etc. HDR is as simple to use as those effects. If you think I spend hours on my HDR's to get them looking good... false.
2-3 minutes/HDR and it equals to what I could get with filters most of the time. Now if and when I purchase Grad ND filters. I will use those as well to similiar effects.
--
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
Dan Nikon
Veteran Member
I applaud it.
I don't even care for the cheezy look of ND grad filters. I own one and very rarely use it.
You either got the shot in one slice, or you came up empty handed.
And most HDR looks like total poop by the way, really flat out super faked out.
I don't even care for the cheezy look of ND grad filters. I own one and very rarely use it.
You either got the shot in one slice, or you came up empty handed.
And most HDR looks like total poop by the way, really flat out super faked out.
What is so cheezy about the look from an ND grad filter? I honestly don't understand this comment? How can a photograph look cheezy?
of any kind to take award winning images.
If you don't believe me, just look around. If you still don't believe me, you'll Never be a photographer.
Dave
If you don't believe me, just look around. If you still don't believe me, you'll Never be a photographer.
Dave
Absolutely. You say "old-timers", but I disagree with you. This is an issue of what somebody is familiar with and have developed a successful working method and procedure. I'd venture that the vast majority of "new technology" sales come about from photographers looking for that one key thing which will magically transform their photography from pedistrian to outstanding.
Same thing with HDR. Yes, it is an extremely valuable tool to have, but is not the solution for improving one's photography. Frankly, if a person is unable to achieve their photographic goals WITHOUT computer trickery, they are simply leaning on the computer trickery to cover up the fact that they either didn't have adequate equipment during the photoshoot or the ability to achieve it. Anything beyond this point is a computer composite.
Yes, I said it - Anything beyond this point IS A COMPUTER COMPOSITE. HDR is absolutely a computer composite in every sense of the term. Unfortunately, this also brings up other ethical questions: If you are building a computer composite, why not substitute other things in the photograph? Don't like that brown grass? Just clone in grass from another photograph from another scene. Don't like the gray sky? Layer in a sky from another scene--possibly even from another country or part of the world.
For commercial applications, I have no issue with HDR. The end "product" is usually heavily modded by the graphic artists anyway. But, personally, I have a problem with people passing off HDR as anything other than a composite.
--
On one hand you say HDR is a valuable tool to have and on the other you say it is a form of computer trickery. I'd definitely say that is a contradiction.
Composite images are different and what your saying gets into a whole other debate. With HDR/Blending you are NOT manipulating the subject OR the content! The picture and the elements are the same, just like using filters. The only thing that changes is the dynamic range.
I agree, if you have an HDR image, it should be specified so. There are a lot of people like yourself that feel very strongly that HDR is not a proper way to photograph. Being truthful in how the photograph was taken and what was done to it is the ONLY way to go imo.
----
Canon 10D
Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MKII
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum