Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
Bob insulted you ?
Lol oh wow lolLighten up bro ! You know what they say about arguing on the internet, right ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
HDR landscapes... your thoughts?
- Thread starter By standing on the Shoulders of Giants
- Start date
Lol oh wow lolLighten up bro ! You know what they say about arguing on the internet, right ?
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
I think it takes more skill and creativity to recognize and compose an asthetically pleasing scene to begin with, even completly aside from how it's processed.
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
Lol I'm sorry.... But a few months ago, I sat down and decided I would never be sucked into any kind of negative back and forths on this forum, or any other which I visit. I even added a note about that to my signature.
But after contemplating this, I'm actually finding this quite hillarious
lol Not negative at all !Now when the OP comes back swinging, that's when I will go silent.
Gerry Winterbourne
Veteran Member
No, you can't. HDR means using more than one exposure at different settings. That's impossible with a single shot.That is why I was asking about a non-bracketed HDR shot. Most modern cameras, especially when you look at full frame sony and nikon, have gobs of dynamic range. Say you take a Nikon D70 and do a 3 shot bracket HDR shot with +1/-1. You then take a D850 and take a single shot. I would imagine even with 1 shot the D850 would have more dynamic range than the 3 shot bracket from the D70. Which is to say you can do HDR from a single RAW file.Yes, this works. With RAW there is a lot of latitude to push/pull exposure (dependent upon camera of course).Probably not, but it's easy to make a faux HDR shot in LR. Just make 2 virtual copies of the original shot, put them in the Library module, make one +2 exposed, one -2 exposed, and leave one neutral.
Highlight all three and export them to your favorite HDR software, make sure that they are still +2, -2 and neutral and merge them. then do your processing. It works pretty well.
Not at all. HDR has a perfectly satisfactory definition.
If sensors ever get wide enough DR that multiple exposures aren't needed then HDR will become unnecessary but that won't change what it is.
David Pavlich
Veteran Member
Thanks! Certainly not to everyone's taste, but I like it. Looks pretty good in print.Love the second shot hereBoth of these a 7 shots done in LR and Photomatix Pro 5. It can be tasteful or gawdy. It's up to the processing person to decide what he or she wants to convey:
The artifacts seen in the St. Louis Cathedral must have something to do with the compression to be posted here. I've made 16X24 prints of this shot and have none of what is seen in the above images.
David
--
"The world doesn't need you...." Gene Simmons
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich
--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.
David
--
"The world doesn't need you...." Gene Simmons
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich
No doubt... As I've said in other posts, HDR is generally not my favorite technique, but it's not because it's somehow inherently "uncreative." I don't really see how any particular technique is somehow inherently not creative... Unless it's a case where the person making that judgment is just calling anything that they don't happen to like as something lacking creativity...
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
Am I allowed to be proud of the compliments my bad photography gets ?
lol Just having a little fun here
Plz nobody mind me PhotoFactor
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,272
- Reaction score
- 3,842
Where is that official definition? Citation please.
Even Trey Ratcliff, one of the popularizers of HDR, states that you can do HDR from a single RAW.
Don Lacy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,181
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,624
Don Lacy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,181
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,624
When I critique an image the first thing I look for are technical issues is it sharp, does it have a color cast, are there major compositional issues. I will then end the critique with suggestion on the artistic side with a modifier like I prefer or you might want to try this just to let them see the image through my eyes as a the viewer. I really do think blanket statements when it comes to preference or styles are useless to helping people grow.
Don Lacy
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,181
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,624
I also do not agree with that HDR simply means high dynamic range no where have I ever heard it limited to a technique requiring multiple exposures even though most people associate it with multiple exposures tone mapped in post.
AwesomeIan
Veteran Member
1. Why does HDR mean more than one exposure at different settings? Given the example I provided it seems reasonable to say under certain conditions you can get more DR with one shot than from a bracket. To be fair I was trying to find an extreme example but people were doing 3 shot HDR back when the D70 was considered new technology.
2. At the most simple term HDR means High Dynamic Range. Some of the full frame and medium format camera bodies are certainly capable of creating a High Dynamic Range picture from a single shot. IMO it doesn't make sense to say pushing the DR past the native capability of the camera is what makes an image "HDR". It just isn't true anymore.
Wellington100
Veteran Member
I agree with you. Here in NZ the main users of HDR are estate agents who love making images of houses for sale look way more punchy by using HDR and it really works. In general its worth looking at the original HDR tool, the graduated ND filter for film. Back in the day film had such poor DR that it could not cope with bright sunny conditions so graduated ND filters were used to lower the DR between the sky and the land. These lenses are used to this day by landscape photographers but are not essential in the way they once were because modern sensors have far more latitude than film used to have and by using RAW the sensor, especially FF sensors have even more latitude, so its possible to expose an image that is well enough exposed to capture shadow detail while at the same time not blowing the highlights (within reason of course). A polarising filter can mop up any glare or reflections that might otherwise blow and in PP the shadows and highlights can be adjusted within a couple of seconds. So basically I agree with you, HDR is an effect that is done for creative reasons, there is no technical need to shoot this way if you have a sensor that is up to the job. In the past sensors were not as good as they are now and Canon lags behind the others in this department as well but sensors with 14+ stops of DR probably rarely need the technique of shooting multiple images and combining them into one image let alone exaggerating the effect by raising the shadows and lowering the highlights.
Yeah, I’m curious as well. Many cameras have a higher DR than printed images and than most displays.
Wiki says “This is often achieved by capturing and then combining several different, narrower range exposures of the same subject matter”
Note the word often as opposed to always.
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
Thank you Don. And these are exactly the kind of critiques I look for ! Lord knows I have added some issues with color casts (was reallly bad with my old monitor) and halos in the past, so thankfully, a few people here pointed those out.
Chris Wolfgram
Veteran Member
Although i usually explain it to people as being multiple exposures to obtain a greater dynamic range, I have read many times from people that know a lot more than I do, that HDR does not have to be multiple images.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but HDR simply stands for High Dynamic Range.... no matter how you obtained it, right ?
Examples would be helpful. What you call "faint" might actually be fairly processed. What we call minimal HDR might look quite natural.
Can you past in some examples?
Bobthearch
Veteran Member
I suppose so. But I wouldn't call it High Dynamic Range if you're just talking about the inherent range of your camera even if it is relatively high compared to some other camera.
By every definition I’ve seen.
By your qualification, an HDR image made from exposures taken with a camera that had a DR of x/3 stops would not be an HDR image if made with a camera that had a DR of x stops.
But it is truly about the result, not the method. In the Wiki article, even burning and dodging is mentioned.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Featured
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum