Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I am post these three photo in response to a comment from another UHH member that says he doesn't Like HD because he doesn't see in HD. I understand his comment. But I feel that there is another side to that coin.

For the most part we do see in HDR or 3D. having two eyes set inches apart gives us depth prescription. A photo for the most part is a 2D object. HDR can be a tool to help create a 3D effect. It can also be a misused tool by over cooking (common term). It's all in the eyes of the beholder. This was a simple rock shot I should have deleted. I put it thru the HDR mill to show a side by side comparison and effect and how it will help bring up contrast and tones.

Note: if you have a problem with my spelling or wording, sit back and enjoy it.

Standard out of the Box

(Download)

Some HDR

(Download)

A little over Done.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Are you sure that other UHH member didn't mean High Definition? (as opposed to High Dynamic Range). The dynamic range of the human eye is far better than that of the best sensors.

The middle shot isn't too bad apart from the colour of the sky - which could be easily fixed.

The main purpose of HDR is to bring more of the shot into the mid-tone range where the eye is happiest and at its best when it comes to discerning details. It isn't difficult to achieve that and at the same time avoid the over-cooked look.

Over-processing comes in many guises, and to my mind it isn't a matter of taste. I would say that good processing involves developing the skill of maximising or optimising the desired effects while avoiding any form of obvious over-processing. Good HDR looks just like a well-exposed and well-taken shot.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Thank you for your comments R.G. Note this photo is also in my garbag file and was used because I felt rocks are area that that can benifit a lot from HD or HDR. Wood grain is also another.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You're right - your HDR shots demonstrate exactly that, and the extra detail and vividness does indeed impart a 3D effect.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Here is a example of selective HDR, where it's just the Rock from the same Base Photograph.

Just the Rock HDR

(Download)

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Bill - I actually think the HDR in your third photo is quite good and entirely realistic as far as the rock is concerned. Yes, the sky is 'popped' more than I would prefer (and possibly a bit over-sharpened), but those aspects could be toned down in post. Thanks for the samples.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Much better. Your shots also demonstrate another aspect of single-shot HDR processing - it won't bring back blown highlights. On the other hand, properly done exposure bracketing will avoid blown highlights.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I understand about the sky, but to wasn't even thinking about till RG mentioned it. Hence the last photo, showing you don't have to effect the hole photo, and chose just the sections you want to bring out. You can become kind of like Picasso or Van go (SP) with your photos. If you have the right software.

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your C and C

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

This one is perfect! The 2nd picture on the first set could be called - a little overdone and the 3rd - a lot overdone. My opinion - Dave

Pierre H.J. Dumais Loc: Mississippi Mills, Ont.

I like both HD version Bill. The second, if you think it's over done, could be backed up a bit. But still, it's quite appealing.

Pierre

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Double post.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Thank you wilson.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Thank you Pierre.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Bill Houghton pictorially presented and stated in words his rebuttal to the SOOC people well. (straight out of camera) Actually if only looking at the rock in the 3rd shot the rock is the best. There are lots of ways to mask the effect on the sky and to keep it mild.

I often complain that there are too many photos presented in the Gallery section of UHH, in all their SOOC purity, lack detail and color snap. By color snap, I mean color subdued by shadows lacking detail and having muddy contrast.

They have thousands invested in their Canon or Nikon cameras/lenses... what a shame. (I have 2 Sony Alpha and many lenses from the Minolta hay days, but) I take most of my shots with a pocket Zoom 24/7 Sony HX50v 20 mpix, with its small sensor. By applying Topaz deNoise, Detail, Clarity my shots they become crisp and bring the viewer into the photo. By downloading their Gallery Submissions, I can breath life into them with the same set of Topaz Programs.

The other,IMO, error is they fail to crop to a single story. To twist an old saying, "you can not see the burning bush for the forest."** With proper cropping they would get the story that there is a burning bush... we do not need to know about the 2000 pine trees, a few OK, but not thousands that obscure the story.

Generally the composition is problematic also. They should read:
http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/article_index.htm

** you can not see the forest for (interference of) the trees

Pierre H.J. Dumais Loc: Mississippi Mills, Ont.

Right on!

Pierre