Reading mode: Light Dark

K5 in-camera HDR processing (4-imgs.)

Go to last post
As you say, they don't look overdone, they look pretty natural to me.
Nice job,

Rod

--
All I want is a digital back for my trusty K1000 . . .
 
cedrec said:
Likewise, a room indoors will not benefit from HDR
Click to expand...
Of course HDR benefits a room indoors, we can clearly see that demonstrated here. Furthermore, mr. Morality, you are clearly talking about tonemapped HDR and not exposure-merged HDR or you do not even know the difference to begin with.
cedrec said:
The best HDR should NOT not be noticed.
Click to expand...
Says who? You? I've seen awesome shots that scream HDR and great images no one notices were done with HDR. I've seen tonemaps, exposure-merges or local contrast enhancements that made my eyes water and I've seen examples of all three that make me go wow!

Not up to you to judge what I should like, now is it? Or for that matter: not up to you to decide what anyone else can like/dislike either.

The rest of your clear flamebait I'll ignore for the sake of the OP.

--
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/newmikey/
 
cedrec said:
My God. Do any of you know what HDR is for???? I'll give you a hint: you failed HDR in your last photo because the highlights in the windows are still blown out. It's not some sort of insta-art cool effect applicable to all photos. Only certain scenes are even compatible with HDR techniques, and others will see absolutely no improvement at all.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't read my first post. Although, I'm not surprised someone like you didn't. This thread was intended to show the capabilities of in camera HDR for this type of photography. Not for a lecture on HDR. It clearly shows from the photos that it did work. The blown window highlights were intentional. My client did not want the rear deck and all the furniture on it to show in the photo. The smaller windows were showing the neighbors house siding. I actually shot slightly underexposed. I can show the furniture if you like, but I would of "Effed" it up for my client. You should pick up a copy of some of the finer home design magazines. Windows are not always perfectly exposed. Some are blown so bad and "effed" they were good enough to be published. It all depends on whats on the other side.
cedrec said:
An example of a scene where you would want to use HDR: a landscape with a dark foreground and bright sky.
Click to expand...
Or a room with bright ambient light emiting through the windows.
cedrec said:
An example of a scene where using HDR is 105% pointless: a portrait of your dog. Jesus Christ, people; stop doing this!!! Likewise, a room indoors will not benefit from HDR, aside from being able to fix blown-out highlights from a bright window, which you don't seem to know about because you effed it up in your last photo. Also stop doing HDRs of landscapes on a cloudy day where all you are doing is adding those ugly glowing edges to everything. The best HDR should NOT not be noticed.
Click to expand...
I hope you have a rope to get yourself out of the hole you're falling in. Photography is not solely about technically perfect photos. I'm sorry you feel this way. You should try and be more creative. You'll be surprised how many people like it.

--



http://www.peternilson.zenfolio.com
WSSA MEMBER #245PK
 
Peter,

These are very nice!!! What settings did you use on HDR... low, medium or high?

Thanks,
Halai
 
As said previously, good job capturing the D-range and now good work telling off the D-bag.
petey40 said:
cedrec said:
My God. Do any of you know what HDR is for???? I'll give you a hint: you failed HDR in your last photo because the highlights in the windows are still blown out. It's not some sort of insta-art cool effect applicable to all photos. Only certain scenes are even compatible with HDR techniques, and others will see absolutely no improvement at all.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't read my first post. Although, I'm not surprised someone like you didn't. This thread was intended to show the capabilities of in camera HDR for this type of photography. Not for a lecture on HDR. It clearly shows from the photos that it did work. The blown window highlights were intentional. My client did not want the rear deck and all the furniture on it to show in the photo. The smaller windows were showing the neighbors house siding. I actually shot slightly underexposed. I can show the furniture if you like, but I would of "Effed" it up for my client. You should pick up a copy of some of the finer home design magazines. Windows are not always perfectly exposed. Some are blown so bad and "effed" they were good enough to be published. It all depends on whats on the other side.
petey40 said:
An example of a scene where you would want to use HDR: a landscape with a dark foreground and bright sky.
Click to expand...
Or a room with bright ambient light emiting through the windows.
petey40 said:
An example of a scene where using HDR is 105% pointless: a portrait of your dog. Jesus Christ, people; stop doing this!!! Likewise, a room indoors will not benefit from HDR, aside from being able to fix blown-out highlights from a bright window, which you don't seem to know about because you effed it up in your last photo. Also stop doing HDRs of landscapes on a cloudy day where all you are doing is adding those ugly glowing edges to everything. The best HDR should NOT not be noticed.
Click to expand...
I hope you have a rope to get yourself out of the hole you're falling in. Photography is not solely about technically perfect photos. I'm sorry you feel this way. You should try and be more creative. You'll be surprised how many people like it.

--



http://www.peternilson.zenfolio.com
WSSA MEMBER #245PK
Click to expand...
 
To Cedrec...

Could you please post some of your own HDR pictures, so we can see/learn by example how it is done correctly? :)

To the OP:

Really nice shots. I believe the appeal of an image is not defined on an empty theoretical concept about highlights or light blowouts but for the appeal it communicates and the capacity to engage the three participants of the visual experience: the photographer, the image and the observer. When I look at your images I see beauty, balance, colors, light directions, textures; your images convey a sense of equilibrium, harmony, .....hard to describe but they engage the observer. When so many poster agree you did an excellent work it indicates you got results that are appealing to many people, specially people in these forums who have very good training, visual education and graphical experience.
 
Unexpresivecanvas said:
To the OP:

Really nice shots. I believe the appeal of an image is not defined on an empty theoretical concept about highlights or light blowouts but for the appeal it communicates and the capacity to engage the three participants of the visual experience: the photographer, the image and the observer. When I look at your images I see beauty, balance, colors, light directions, textures; your images convey a sense of equilibrium, harmony, .....hard to describe but they engage the observer. When so many poster agree you did an excellent work it indicates you got results that are appealing to many people, specially people in these forums who have very good training, visual education and graphical experience.
Click to expand...
Thank You for your kind words. If you could only see my beaming smile.
Peter

--



http://www.peternilson.zenfolio.com
WSSA MEMBER #245PK
 
Went to the beach today. Took a shot of the Beach Cafe, under the 2:00pm extremely bright and harsh light. I checked the image and immediately knew the contrast was too high. Then I thought that the camera HDR could give me a little help and just for fun tried it twice, using the HDR-I. Below are the results. The first one is the normal shot (non-HDR) and the following two shots taken with HDR.

I know, I know, according the the HDR fundamentalists, HDR shouldn't be used with people, only with special landscapes, where certain hypothetical conditions should be present. But I tried anyway. Of course, some subjects moved between shots but I liked the results. At least, the exposure improves a lot.











 
Cedrec, I'm not offended by strong opinions. In fact, I support them, finding them to be stimulating for discussion, and often entertaining. But I don't agree with you on this one. I think Peter's photos are very good for their objective. Still, you have aroused my curiosity, and I would be interested in seeing examples of what you consider good HDR (yours or others). Could you please post some? Thanks.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top