StephenVL Loc: Los Angeles, USA

Fort years ago I studied the zone system. I tried to incorporate some of what I learned into my photographic process. Over the last couple of years as I have been watching and the HDR debate I have often thought that this is the zone system for the digital age.
I can now do things in Lightroom and Photomatix that I only dreamed about in the pre-digital age.

StephenVL Loc: Los Angeles, USA

Or Jackson Pollock.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I agree, it is certainly not used all that often, but it does has it's place in certain situations, and as already being said, one has to be more conservative in the adjustments, as it is easy to get the "overcooked" look. That's one reason, I like to use photoshop for it and not a dedicated software.

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Sounds like your more of a photographer than a "wannabe" way to go. Learn your craft and your art!

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Very well put Dan ! :thumbup: :thumbup:

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

Pretty much what has been said, but, the human eye has a greater dynamic range (by far) than your camera--so if you want to record a scene that is as the eye would see it HD is a valuable tool--a better one is to shoot things that already are in the dynamic range of your camera--but what we see happen is "if a little is good a lot must be a whole lot better"--and away they go. Nothing wrong here though--for something to be art the viewer must relate to it--and if the resulting image is something that you relate to--great. Not everyone is going to relate to everything--and thats the way the world is. A lot may be art to the creator alone.
Stan

Highlake Loc: Yucaipa, CA

wrr and ManRay 1 have pretty much come to the same conclusion I think - no line needs to be drawn. I agree. As in most art, if not all, it is all in the eye of the beholder. Some like it "overused" and some don't. If an individual really likes the results of "overusing" HDR, I say go for it and enjoy - but as in all art, don't expect everyone to enjoy it as much. It's really no different than a hundred other "special effects" that many use in PP. And like other "special effects," HDR processing can be used in a wide range of degrees according to the artistic tastes and end purposes of the user. Personally, I really don't like a lot of modern art paintings and can't imagine paying more than $10 bucks a painting for most of it. I don't think those paying $10,000 or more would agree. :-) To each their own.

scootersurfs Loc: Buckeye, Az

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Kingmapix Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I agree with your sentiments. With today's image adjustment software, you have the capability of reducing the intensity of lighter shades like clouds, and bring out detail in darker areas.
I believe this should be the first approach if you wish to capture better detail and lessen burnout. HDR can also be effective, but must be used in moderation.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I am in agreement with you, as for the over done HDR that seems most prevalent. Coming from a film background, and still using film, the ideal exposure is always a welcomed treat. However, there are times when over or under exposure is needed to contain the entire range of light within the capabilities of the media one uses.

So, when it isn't needed, I don't use it. When it is, it is used with a great deal of judiciousness. However, there are times when it appears that it is the choice, but really isn't needed at all. Just careful exposure measurements and planning is all that is required. An example is here. Single, well measured exposure, and a good deal of post processing involving brightness and contrast adjustments, as well as a bit of burning and dodging. That's it.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-128345-1.html

--Bob

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

First... one key to success on UHH is to not say you "sincerely doubt" something somebody says when they may be in that industry and are telling you a truth but you don't know what they do for a living. There's at least one member here who is a Hollywood still and video photographer who has shot many celebrities and knows more about his industry than all of us combined. He owns a plethora of lenses and many of them cost more than a residential home. I wouldn't dare to doubt anything he says. You're either here to learn something or to argue trivia and learn nothing.

You seem to be a drummer, so I sincerely hope you wouldn't walk up to Steve Smith, Mike Portnoy, or Gregg Bisonnette and say you doubt what they just told you in a clinic.

If you are using a Windows 7 PC, for example, you are provided with a series of nature desktop photos. ALL of them are clearly HDR'd although you may not notice it until you actually have worked with HDR and see the signs of subtle tone-mapping.

Use "Photoshop" or other editing software in moderation and it can look natural. Use HDR or Fusion with bracketing in moderation and it also can look natural. Overuse either one, whether intentionally or by not knowing any better, and it's not natural.

There are two schools of photography apparently: those who are old school minimalists and those who use new technology to overcome the limitations of the camera and digital sensors. There is no perfect digital camera and fixing the imperfections is not a sin against the gods of photography. I suspect Ansel Adams would be a top user of digital post editing if he were alive today and might even thoroughly enjoy HDR.

If you want to be old school and limit yourself to what the camera and its sensor can do - that's your choice. If others want to expand the the dynamic light range of their photos with HDR, go too far and edit to surrealistic for art's sake or remain moderate and have a natural realistic result, that's their choice. There's no argument required because both are acceptable.

There have been discussions on here where posters feel that photo competitions should have separate categories for "straight out of camera," "post-edited," and "HDR/Fusion" and that's true. I agree. I do all three and I can see that as totally fair for everyone.

Editing and HDR can make a photo "pop" in viewers' eyes in ways that straight out of camera cannot. Personally I find about 25% of HDR creations I see to be attractive for me because, like you, I enjoy natural and realistic.

Creating Eye Candy has been done with post-editing since the film days in darkrooms so any form of post editing is nothing more than the digital version of that.

You need to have an open mind about this. Again, if you are a drummer as your avatar indicates, you know that a guitar player can't just plug an electric guitar into a mixing board and sound like Frank Gambale or Steve Vai. There needs to be post-processing of the initial natural instrument sound with distortion, chorus, reverb, a tube amp, etc. to reach what the player wants to hear. That's no different than post-process a photo with several techniques to reach what the shooter wants to see.

Maybe you don't know this since you just pound slabs of plastic with chunks of wood! (standard musician joke for ages) :wink:

natron

Water colors?
Acrylics?
Oil paints?
Which one is ‘real’?
None of them. Don’t sweat it, it’s not real, it’s a picture!

Highlake Loc: Yucaipa, CA

:D

coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA

Terrific post! Thanks.
:thumbup: :thumbup:

Highlake Loc: Yucaipa, CA

:thumbup: :D