PDA

View Full Version : Does HDR affect us at all?



400d
2-Sep-2006, 00:46
Just looking around for a technique call HDR (high dynamic range photography). It's the first time I heard of it...just couple minutes ago, damn it, how outdated I am!!

It seems the new digital buzzers are all over this thing, what do you guys think?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

Gary Smith
2-Sep-2006, 00:51
Have not bothered paying attention recently. But many of the HDR images I saw several months ago were utter crap. They looked completely unnaturual, almost sureal. Maybe the use has improved recently, but my first look completely turned me off of HDR.

Gary

400d
2-Sep-2006, 01:21
Well, I shoot both digital and film. But digital is only limited to my job, I really don't care much about digital files, as long as the clients or my boss is happy. But film is different, it's real to me, the real deal, I am totally devoted to film, my passion wise.
Back to HDR, I think they just won't stop coming up with bells and tricks trying to get more out from the limited digital sensor (say..trying to reproduce AA's ten stops range?! :)). But after all, I am not against it, I am just apathetic to it.

Walter Calahan
2-Sep-2006, 05:03
HDR will improve over time, as the software improves and the computing power increases - along with improvements in the capture chip. The human beings behind this technology are just as passionate as we are with film.

Just another tool in the toolbox. Think of it as a digital Singh-Ray filter. http://www.singh-ray.com/index.html

I'm sure we'll see benefits in this technology as scanners improve so we can get even more from our film.

We're still in the infancy of digital capture.

Jack Flesher
2-Sep-2006, 06:51
Think of HDR as a digital version of the Split ND, but with variable-pattern, variable-feather and variable-density. Just like using a split ND with film, when done properly it looks good. But when done poorly it looks like crap -- and unfortunately we're seeing a lot of poorly done ones. I agree things will improve as this is early-stage technology.

Helen Bach
2-Sep-2006, 08:16
Digital image processing offers a whole load of tricks and techniques that are either very difficult or impossible to replicate by solely light-sensitive/optical means (I don't want to use 'analogue'). HDR is one of them. It's two useful things - a way of combining images taken with different exposures; and a way of representing a scene with a high brightness range without it looking flat.

Those of us who use film rarely need the former because all but the most extreme lighting conditions can be captured by a single exposure (I reckon that colour neg can record between 11 and 13 stops of usable range, but many disagree with me). The latter doesn't need HDR software to accomplish, especially if you want a natural rendering.

There are lots of other digital processes that can be useful techniques, but only if you have a purpose for them. 'Focus stacking' is one of those that has the potential to change a whole field of imaging, and deep focus is fairly 'straight': it doesn't look like a cheap trick.

Personally, I think that straight photography usually produces the most powerful images so tricks or unnatural effects of any kind don't often appeal to me. But that's just a preference, and it isn't a hard-and-fast rule.

Best,
Helen

Frank Petronio
2-Sep-2006, 08:32
It can really beautiful. But most of the current examples look like bad acid trips and colorful versions of infra-red shots.

harrykauf
2-Sep-2006, 09:07
Hi,

HDR images are nothing new and the technology is not in its infancy waiting
for a usefull application. They have been around for almost 10 years and are an
invaluable tool in 3d computer graphics and related fields. The flood of
horrific images is just a result of the recent support of this image format in Photoshop.
This tells more about the skills of the photographers than about the technology.
Here is some information why HDR is important and what a difference it can make:
http://www.debevec.org/Research/HDR/

neil poulsen
4-Sep-2006, 11:28
I haven't been using the official HDR that Photoshop offers. However, I've been doing the same thing by hand. I typically start with about seven exposures, each a stop apart. I select one that's correctly exposed, one that's about two or three stops underexposed, and one that's about two or three stops overexposed. Quite beautiful results can be obtained.

Peter Langham
4-Sep-2006, 16:39
Check out Dan Burkholder's new work from New Orleans. It is an example of what is possible. It is quite startling and surreal. You will have to decide for yourself if you like it. He uses from 6 to 16 different expsoures to create work unlike anything I have seen. I have seen a bunch of original prints and was impressesd, but again, it is going to be very personal.

400d
9-Sep-2006, 02:45
Is HDR gonna eat up the skill from years spent in the darkroom? (I know nothing about darkroom)