Sometimes the images look like paintings not photos.
steveNovice wrote:
Sometimes the images look like paintings not photos.
It is just a matter of how you use HDR and a matter of taste. Just like with any other pictures.
I like it when it looks like it's not even been used.
Most of it, as used, creeps me out. Image post processed a bit much, and then a layer of plastic laminated over the top. Ew!!!
Oftentimes they look very flat, two-dimensional. Sometimes even visually confusing. That's what happens when you brighten shadow areas too much. For a convincing three-dimensional quality, shadows need to be allowed to remain dark and mysterious, to effectively set themselves apart from the lit areas and highlights. This gives the image a sense of spatial depth. Skilled classical painters such as Rembrandt knew this all too well.
Sure, there are photo's that use HDR to achieve surreal results. The whole phenomena made "Photoshopped" a negative adjective. BUT, using exposure or focus point bracketing for capture of a series of exposures and merging them to allow for photo to show all the exposure values is a very legitimate form of processing photos. We used it in the B&W dark room for years and called it dodging and burning. Because color printing was so complex and demanding and "sandwiching" negatives etc., that would have been required in the film genre, was so challenging and expensive, we weren't used to seeing many HDR color images.
For me, the HDR I've used has allowed me to create a photograph that resembles, LARGELY, what my eye saw--especially under difficult lighting light sunrise and sunset. Anything that turns out looking posterized, solarized or just plain bizarre gets deleted. It is not my intention for this processing. It is a form of "artwork" that doesn't interest me.
I suggest we find a way to discuss the kind of mild blending I and many others use to provide a wide range of tonality and exposure in a photograph without the disdainful references to the sometimes otherworldly images yielded by the infamous practitioners without defaming the entire practice of expanding our imperfect instruments' limited Dynamic Ranges.
C
bdk
Loc: Sanibel Fl.
In the beginning when I started playing with HDR, the funkier the better, Now I use it to help show things in shadows, thats about all.
Except when shooting cars, if done right it can make them look like they are under bright lights as if in a museum collection etc.
HDR when used properly and as intended is a wonderful thing. Now that it's so popular, a lot of folks go overboard with HDR'S color enhancement capabilities and end up with photos that are puking excess color. I like to use it when there's not enough light to get as good an image as I want, then it does what I want it to do, and sometimes just for fun, use it to exaggerate the colors. It all depends on the subject...
steveNovice wrote:
Sometimes the images look like paintings not photos.
It is very easy to scale it back and get away from that look. There is a point that the image looks significantly looks better than any of the originals, but still doesn't look like an HDR. And that's the way I like it. And that's what so many fail to do. But like you, I hate the look that screams out "Look at me, I'm HDR!"
steveNovice wrote:
Sometimes the images look like paintings not photos.
What I find overwhelming is the amount of bad photography that's being past off as good. It has nothing to do with HDR.
Good photography and good photographers will rise to the top, no matter WHAT method was used to creat it. It's not at all complicated!!
SS
steveNovice wrote:
Sometimes the images look like paintings not photos.
Respectfully, Steve, I do not agree. Here are two examples of HDR not 'over-cooked' - a little finesse goes a long way.
steveNovice wrote:
Sometimes the images look like paintings not photos.
It is you who decides what it looks like, there is no sometimes, it always looks like how you want it to look like! Why do you call it a phenomenon (that's strange)?
I appreciate all the comments and agree with them all to a large degree. I am seeing a lot of photo posted to a FB group where people go way over board and they have a cartoonish look to them, as if the bolder the colors the better and I don't appreciate that art form. I must be just an angry old man ;-)
speters wrote:
It is you who decides what it looks like, there is no sometimes, it always looks like how you want it to look like! Why do you call it a phenomenon (that's strange)?
I call it a phenomenon because all the camera phones have this option and I think it is being overused.
bdk wrote:
In the beginning when I started playing with HDR, the funkier the better, Now I use it to help show things in shadows, thats about all.
Except when shooting cars, if done right it can make them look like they are under bright lights as if in a museum collection etc.
Here is an HDR that I did not too long ago. It does not look over done.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.