Thread: Stages of a photographer

May be a repeat...saw this on FM awhile ago, AD mentioned HDR in the POTD thread, made me think of the dreaded HDR hole



Sad but true.

I wish I could afford the gear faggotry phase.

I moved my post from POTD (I didn't want to cunt that tread up....)

Originally Posted by Mathematics

Its useful for saving shots like that one though, overcast weather with the colors & light kind of washed out.

HDR is pointless for a shot like that, because there isn't sufficient dynamic range in that scene to NEED a hdr treatment. Depending on your particular camera and sensor, modern DSLR's give us about 10-11 stops of dynamic range. The human eye can resolve between 17-20 stops of dynamic range, depending on conditions (where the light source(s) is relative to the eye). Most films were only able to reproduce about 8-9 (some could do more). Let's say we take a three exposure, -2, 0, +2 set in anticipation of doing some hdr work. When we do we are adding about 4 steps to the dynamic range to the photo. So less assume 11 stops of dynamic range from our camera, and 4 more from processing and that's 15 stops, and is getting pretty close to what the human eye can naturally resolve. If we use a wider spread of exposures to build our HDR, then it's even closer.

Where my beef with HDR users lies is that many of the scenes we see HDR'ed do not contain 15 stops of dynamic range. There is no technical reason to do an hdr shot of a car, tractor, building etc, etc if the shot is taken in broad daylight with good (even) lighting. Now if you are doing HDR for artistic reasons then you might have a valid reason for the HDR treatment. If it's simply to "expand the dynamic range of the photo", it's pointless as your camera can already capture the entire dynamic range present in the scene.

Originally Posted by The AD

This looks like a great subject, but I just can't get into the overdone HDR look. To me it's the photography equivalent of Thomas Kinkade's paintings. Nothing against your shot in particular, it's just the entire genre annoys me. Sorry for the rant!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-hate...29575593722022

Originally Posted by Lonnie

Where my beef with HDR users lies is that many of the scenes we see HDR'ed do not contain 15 stops of dynamic range. There is no technical reason to do an hdr shot of a car, tractor, building etc, etc if the shot is taken in broad daylight with good (even) lighting. Now if you are doing HDR for artistic reasons then you might have a valid reason for the HDR treatment. If it's simply to "expand the dynamic range of the photo", it's pointless as your camera can already capture the entire dynamic range present in the scene.

I hear you Lonnie. I just received a 3 exposure HDR of a landscape shot in broad daylight. The ONLY thing the HDR did is pull all the contrast out of the shadows. Seriously. WTF?

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

The ONLY thing the HDR did is pull all the contrast out of the shadows.

And if you know how to use any RAW editing software correctly, you can do the same thing, and not have it look like a cartoon. (On the flip side, some people like cartoons, and there are whole TV networks devoted to them.) If someone is using HDR as an artistic technique, to get a highly saturated, high local contrast image that's fine with me. There are no rules in art, and if you like doing that, it's cool with me. Not my style, but I won't judge the artist.

My point in this is HDR shooters need to think about what HDR does for them with regards to visualizing the original scene, storage space and processing time. In my mind, these last two things equal "efficiency". As a very simple example, if we are doing a simple 3 capture HDR then this increases our storage requirements by 3. There is also the extra processing time that comes with making these images. Now granted storage space is as cheap as it's ever been and with a fast computer processing time is minimal. Folks to answer for themselves if single capture techniques might be a more efficient way to visualize a scene given 1) the dynamic range present in the scene (is it more than 11 stops??) and 2) that no media format we have today (print or screen) can accurately display 15-20+ stops of dynamic range that we get from a multi-exposure, 32 bit HDR image anyway. All of these images need to be down rezed for print or display.

It's all up to the artist, but I don't think 99% of the HDR shooters actually realize what the technique does.

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

I hear you Lonnie. I just received a 3 exposure HDR of a landscape shot in broad daylight. The ONLY thing the HDR did is pull all the contrast out of the shadows. Seriously. WTF?

I never understand why people give the HDR treatment to evenly lit scenes (if it's not for the artistic tone-mapped look, which works in limited situations). But even better are people bragging about their 10-exposure HDR shots that still contain blown highlights or clipped shadows.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I never understand why people give the HDR treatment to evenly lit scenes

It's trendy??

Originally Posted by Fuzz

(if it's not for the artistic tone-mapped look, which works in limited situations).

FWIW, technically, pretty much every adjustment we make to an image in PS or LR is a tone map. If you look at the definition of "Tone mapping" it is defined as

Graphical method changing tonal relationships by transferring values from one curve to another of different shape or slope. * Using the Curves control in image manipulation applications is essentially tone mapping.

Every time we move a slider in Lightroom or Photoshop, everything we paint with a brush in these programs is doing just that, mathematically changing the values of the effected pixels from one value to another, and, by definition, is tone mapping.

My point here is that once upon a time I frowned upon the idea of "tone mapping", yet I was doing it all the time. That term is normally used in a negative light because 99% of the time when people use it they are referring to the overly saturated, high local contrast "grungy/cartoony HDR look". I didn't know the difference until I was corrected. If people mean "the HDR look" then they need a more specific term than "tone mapping", because that means alot of different things.

^ I stand corrected. I was using tone-mapping to mean the cartoony HDR look, because that's the response I got when I asked an over-eager HDR imager why he was doing HDR on a low dynamic range scene.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ I stand corrected. I was using tone-mapping to mean the cartoony HDR look, because that's the response I got when I asked an over-eager HDR imager why he was doing HDR on a low dynamic range scene.

Yeah, it's a very, very common "mistake" (it's not really a mistake as it is a technically correct use of the term (a hdr image is a tone mapped image), it's just that there is a lot more that's covered by that term as well). As I said, I didn't know until I was recently educated on it too. I posted the info as I'm on a mini-crusade to take that term back from the Hdr folks.

Have you looked at the galleries on Fred Miranda and the Nature Photographers Forum? I can't remember the last time I saw an image that was composed of ONE shot. They're ALL multi-exposure shots, described as "blending" to get away from "I used HDR on this image"....

is the /p/ as in 4chan?

Originally Posted by smmokan

Have you looked at the galleries on Fred Miranda and the Nature Photographers Forum? I can't remember the last time I saw an image that was composed of ONE shot. They're ALL multi-exposure shots, described as "blending" to get away from "I used HDR on this image"....

Very True.

Originally Posted by Lonnie

HDR is pointless for a shot like that, because there isn't sufficient dynamic range in that scene to NEED a hdr treatment. Depending on your particular camera and sensor, modern DSLR's give us about 10-11 stops of dynamic range. The human eye can resolve between 17-20 stops of dynamic range, depending on conditions (where the light source(s) is relative to the eye). Most films were only able to reproduce about 8-9 (some could do more). Let's say we take a three exposure, -2, 0, +2 set in anticipation of doing some hdr work. When we do we are adding about 4 steps to the dynamic range to the photo. So less assume 11 stops of dynamic range from our camera, and 4 more from processing and that's 15 stops, and is getting pretty close to what the human eye can naturally resolve. If we use a wider spread of exposures to build our HDR, then it's even closer.

Meh...I understand where you & others come from regarding HDR but as far as I'm concerned its just another tool to use in post. If I cant get my raw image to pop like I want it to, alot of the time breaking that raw image into 3 or 5 different exposures and then blending brings out the highlights I want to see. Alot of photogs "in the know" on HDR will look down on it, but alot of non-photog types dig it. As I'm just a lowly hobbyist, I really don't care if my photos are as technically sound/pure as others...I just likey the photos, or I dont.

And x2 on the FM landscape photos...I'd wager over half of the scenic/landscape/etc photos you see now a days have some type of HDR / blending going on. Its just either toned down enough you can't say for sure its HDR, or the photog is skilled enough at it that people won't notice.

re: the graph
doesn't it all start with, "hey dude, your camera takes really good pictures...what kind is it?"

Originally Posted by Mathematics

Meh...I understand where you & others come from regarding HDR but as far as I'm concerned its just another tool to use in post. If I cant get my raw image to pop like I want it to, alot of the time breaking that raw image into 3 or 5 different exposures and then blending brings out the highlights I want to see. Alot of photogs "in the know" on HDR will look down on it, but alot of non-photog types dig it. As I'm just a lowly hobbyist, I really don't care if my photos are as technically sound/pure as others...I just likey the photos, or I dont.

Missing the point here. I'm not knocking the HDR process. I agree it's is a useful tool, if used correctly. (I've personally never used it, I've never had the need.)

My point is that unless you just like the look of HDR photos, and some folks do, most of the HDR work we see is "pointless" because of the lack of dynamic range in the scene. If that's what you like, by all means use it, you are the artist. Just know the trade off's for using that technique, like increased storage requirements and processing time.

By shooting raw and using forms of processing other than HDR, a single capture image can get you all the highlights, all the contrast, all the saturation that a HDR image of a scene with limited dynamic range (<10 stops) can, without having to process it 3-5 different ways. When you multi-exposure processing a single exposure raw file, you are not adding any additional data that isn't already in the file. All you are doing is emphasizing different parts of the data in different exposures, and then blending those back into a single image. Nothing wrong with that work flow (slightly in efficient, but if it works, it works). However, if you know what your are doing, you can make the same adjustments to local areas of the image (and very quickly too), without any blending and without any HDR processing artifacts. I do this all the time to recover "blow" highlights or bring back shadow areas. Sometimes, I even use these techniques to push things the other way. This image (semi-nsfw) of my wife early in her pregnancy is an example of that. The original exposure was much more evenly lit. I pushed the exposure on the curtains to wash them out (you could see thru them in the original raw file), and enhanced her silhouette by lowering the exposure on her figure. This is one exposure worked up in ACR with no blending. It took me less than 5 mins to work it up (worked up in ACR, exported to CS5, saved to jpg in CS5, done.) It's just different ways to crack the same nut.

And, like you, I don't buy the "technically pure" argument. I don't care if an image is pure or not. HDR has gotten the rap of being "digital art", but hey, isn't it all "digital art" these days? So that one doesn't pass muster with me. I want it to move me on an emotional level. If it does that, then technical perfection can be thrown out the window.

I love how every thread in here lately has become an argument over everyone's different techniques.

Ridiculous.

That said, this HDR is awesome:

Originally Posted by kalisto

I love how every thread in here lately has become an argument over everyone's different techniques.

Ridiculous.

That said, this HDR is awesome:

^^^^That HDR is awesome. I was just knocking the useless ones.

In the specific instance I mentioned the photag is a Zion Park/Redrock guy who does landscapes for calendars. His Redrock images are great. I'm sure for him using HDR to increase shadow detail is a regular part of his workflow. I'm sure his redrock images respond very well to HDR because as images they rely more on color variation than contrast/perceived sharpness.

His same work flow sucks balls for wide angle, northern utah canyon shots. Evergreen trees look better with a contrasty edge. The "ultimate" evergreen shot is the silhouette on the moon. The "ultimate" delicate arch is evenly lit on blue sky (orange/blue color contrast).

This was just an example of a photag getting hung up on a technique and not realizing that his favorite tool was wrong for the job.

The interwebz is a good place for discussing technique because you can't "really" see what the images look like anyways. ;-)

Originally Posted by kalisto

I love how every thread in here lately has become an argument over everyone's different techniques.

that's always been Photo/Video

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

This was just an example of a photag getting hung up on a technique and not realizing that his favorite tool was wrong for the job.

This is the only point I was trying to make. Know the best tool for the job......

I´ve never dumped into the HDR hole. I use dodge/burn where necessary, but I just don´t see the need, I guess. Does that mean that I will at some point fall into the depthless pits of glary HDR?

So I have been in this Google + group "Behind The Lens - Photo Critiquing Circle" started by this dude Colby Brown. I was kind of shocked during the first session I watched at how much they use doge/burn, and make trees or miss placed signs disappear. Just saying.

^^^ That HDR is awesome, but it's not photography... it's art.

Without the photography there would be no art. IMO

Some HDR photos look like silly shit, but it's still both photography and art even though both may be of questionable quality. I don't see how you can separate the two. Looking at Man Ray's work, do you see photography, art, or both?

Originally Posted by outabounds

Some HDR photos look like silly shit, but it's still both photography and art even though both may be of questionable quality. I don't see how you can separate the two. Looking at Man Ray's work, do you see photography, art, or both?

meh, Man Ray could never cut it as an action sports photographer