Shipwreckalan

Cool!

hlmichel Loc: New Hope, Minnesota

Wow, that is quite a challenge.

I've been planning--and putting off--to spend one day shooting 'as is' shots to see what I end up with. Camera settings on manual, but leave the comfort of RAW. No PP at all, not even to change the white balance.

guy145 Loc: Norridge IL

They had microwave ovens back than?

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I just went to Wikipedia to read about HDR. They say the first example was in 1850 with a sky negative and ocean negative of the same scene combined. Photographers have used lab tricks and multiple negatives since then to accomplish HDR. The article even discusses Ansel Adams and his artistic use of dodging and burning in the lab, which was his way of accomplishing HDR. My most interesting find in the article was this:

"Information stored in high-dynamic-range images typically corresponds to the physical values of luminance or radiance that can be observed in the real world."

Isn't capturing the real world what we're striving for? If we have HDR ability in our cameras or in post editing, shouldn't we be using it for the betterment of our art and not be dragged into real world dynamics while fighting, kicking, and screaming foul? Do you really want a teenage girl with an iPad or iPhone that has automatic HDR built in taking photos with better dynamic range than your $3,000 dSLR rig?

When digital came out, there was a big uproar about digital being inferior to film. Because film had multiple layers of emulsion with varying sensitivities it could capture higher dynamic range than digital. Digital was, and still is, accused of being too easy to wash out and/or lose detail in dark areas. Now HDR overcomes those limitations of digital to make it more like film and we reject it and fight against using it? What's that all about?

I don't personally use HDR in camera (my Sony Alpha 55 has it) nor in post processing but I can see where I'd like to experiment with it in post processing. I tried it in my Sony on the first day I got it and saw what it does but I wasn't overly thrilled at the time. But that's not to say it's a bad thing or that I understood what to do with the technology yet.

Let's embrace HDR not fight against it. I don't see it as needing a separate competition category. I see it as something we all need to incorporate into our quest for capturing reality.

twitcher32 Loc: North Carolina/Costa Rica

I agree that contests should recognize categories, not just categories of subjects such as people, nature, etc., but include HDR and straight. I only shoot straight and limit editing to Picasa.

Emmett Loc: Onalaska, Texas

OK let's do a thread about how to do HDR. I only have CS2. Can I do HDR with it? I also shoot with a Canon 30D. How about that? Can I still do it? I can't wait to get started.

drobbia Loc: Near Middletown, CA

YEP, categorizing photographic images into sub-categories makes the most sense. Some contests will ask for B and W AND color but the time has come to standardize entries into at least 5 sections ie, Color, Black and White, post processed, Hdr, Misc.Images or mixed media. - Why we continue to somehow believe that only images direct from the camera is somehow "better", more artistic or "purist" is like saying that commodore computers are the only correct and pure machines on which to compute(or something like that!) - tg

Horseart Loc: Alabama

:lol: :lol: :lol: I am an artist and admit to being OLD. I have painted for 70 years, but I'm still not old enough to remember any artists being upset when photography came on the scene. You are really older than photography???
I can't imagine an artist being upset over photographers "capturing their landscapes and portraits", because they are not private in any way. I can paint them any way I want to.
If we don't like something we see in a scene, we just leave it out or if we want to add something, we add it and make it like we want it.
What I love about photography is that it's already there and much faster than painting, but I never ever felt, not ever will fell that painting and photography are in any way competitive.
I have never believed that one could upset the other. I feel that they can walk hand in hand.
If I thought they were in competition, I'd be fighting with myself.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

gstephan73 Loc: California, Nevada, and Minnesota

Actually the eye does no better than the lens, that is it too only sees highlights, midtones, or highlights, but not all at same time. Unconsciously the iris very rapidly opens and closes in response to various light intensities, but it does not see all intensities at the same time as is often presented in HDR images. I believe that this is what gives HDR images the "special effect" of being surreal. The value of surreal images depends on the intent of the photographer.

CocoaRoger Loc: Cocoa Florida

I have mixed feelings. If I'm working on photo's for myself or to show friends then I don't mind PP. Go ahead and remove that annoying telephone pole etc... but if it's for a competition of sort then no PP should be allowed. It should be straight skill, talent and composition. If not why not just take pics of the beach at sunset, crop in a full moon, maybe a sailboat or two...

Shipwreckalan

Remember we have a dead spot in our sight? Our brain fills in the dead spot. Hey so our brain has an auto fix? I wonder if it also adjusts for color?

slickrock Loc: jacksonville

HDR gets it's " bad name" in this posting for the garish,over-saturated images most commonly produced and is even promoted by hdr software vendors. Using HDR to expand dynamic range is a boon for relatively small sensor photography.

Shipwreckalan

Blind spot in our vision. Check this out. Ok, I am easily side tracked, Kinda!
tracked.Kinda.http://www.colorcube.com/illusions/blndspot.htm

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

But how are you going to define 'post processed'? ALL digital images are post processed to a greater or lesser extent by the camera. After that, is cropping 'post processing'? What if a crop is made by a lab to fit on a standard paper size? Is 1/3 stop exposure adjustment 'post processing'? Again, what if the lab prints light or dark, or with a colour bias?

I completely agree with you that pretending that images direct from the camera are somehow "better", more artistic or "purist" is like saying that commodore computers are the only correct and pure machines, but I don't agree with "we continue to . . . believe." There's no continuity involved: this is a very recent (and very stupid) belief. Knowing how to control the process has always, and quite rightly, been regarded as one of the hallmarks of a good or at least skilled photographer. How can anyone think otherwise?

Cheers,

R.

PhotoDeb Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

I agree. There's room for all media all kinds of photography and it's all art. The diversity and creativity is good. Judges vary, personal preferences vary, but art is art.