But but but!... I like lens flare!
Go watch a JJ Abrams movie then.
----------
For being in a digital photography forum, it's incredible how much completely wrong information is in this thread
Point some out.
But but but!... I like lens flare!
For being in a digital photography forum, it's incredible how much completely wrong information is in this thread
For being in a digital photography forum, it's incredible how much completely wrong information is in this thread
This has probably been said but if you know its HDR, the photographer did it wrong.
HDR can produce fantastic results, but many photogs don't really know what HDR does, how to correctly process HDR images, or how to made the effect subtle not overpowering.
I see soooo many horrid looking images people claim to be HDR (like this, no offense if you are the photog):
Image
That have nasty haloing and uneven lighting. That is NOT correct HDR processing. Most of the times when you see this, its tone mapping not HDR.
I actually like the look....If I could see the full resolution version i might see haloing or nasty blur but who's to say what is wrong and right in terms of looks? Maybe the photographer had exactly that look in mind...I read this thread and I found it very bothersome....the iPhone only users posted bogus definitions based on assumptions and people posted about how its over used, no one knows how to properly use it, etc...along with other effects like sharpening and contrast. Sometimes I like lots of sharpness or contrast...of course as said before everything in moderation is good sometimes I like looking at a heavy contrast picture...
sometimes I like looking at something that was obviously heavily sharpened...just depends on the content and the intent its trying to establish...
Now if I take a picture of say someones face and my intent is for it to be a basic portrait over sharpening and jacking up the contrast is a BAD idea, it'll reveal the imperfections of the persons skin...I especially find when I take pictures of older persons I go for a softer image with less contrast and they are generally more please....now if I am taking a picture of say a guy from an action movie and he's just out of combat, dirty, sweaty, and has a hardened "not so friendly" look, I might add a bit on contrast and sharpen up a bit to show his rough skin, the hairs off his face, his visible poors to emphasize the dramatic "raw" nature that the picture is meant to give off...I can't think of any specific movies where these two ideas show case predominantly but I know Ive seen movies where the close up on someone you can see where they shaved, their sweat, etc. and others look intensely soft with less detail on the skin its self (the latter of which is important for say a female model).
This has probably been said but if you know its HDR, the photographer did it wrong.
HDR can produce fantastic results, but many photogs don't really know what HDR does, how to correctly process HDR images, or how to made the effect subtle not overpowering.
I see soooo many horrid looking images people claim to be HDR (like this, no offense if you are the photog):
Image
That have nasty haloing and uneven lighting. That is NOT correct HDR processing. Most of the times when you see this, its tone mapping not HDR.
How exactly is this wrong? The dark details are shown clearly and nothing is washed out due to brightness.
How exactly is this wrong? The dark details are shown clearly and nothing is washed out due to brightness.
Although I dislike most of the times HDR pics, this doesn't mean it has no application or can be helpful at times. To practice, I took this church interior as a subject for a HDR exercise. After several try outs, I choose a 9 image HDR composite, steps of 0.3 EV, processed with NIK HDR Efex Pro 2.0 and fine-tuned with Aperture and other plugins, but no perspective correction.
I like the HDR photography thing on the iPhone. And when I presented this HDR idea to the photographers, they hated it with disgust.
Personally, I think HDR is great for colors and details. I like lens flares too because it looks artistic.
I can't believe they rejected the idea of HDR. But since they're experts, I'm am sure I'm missing something.
What am I missing? Is HDR horrible for you or is it not? What about lens flares?
Time and a place for HDR. Generally speaking I've found it very good for dramatic landscapes, but also very easy to push a bit too far.....
Examples im pleased with:
[url=http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8293/7733939718_f26e70b45c.jpg]Image[/url]
Waxham Breakwater by simbojono, on Flickr
[url=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5225/5662223770_dd1cb0bf0e.jpg]Image[/url]
Iceland in HDR by simbojono, on Flickr
But for some things its just not so good......
[url=http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8020/7415184462_e7a42b6b8d.jpg]Image[/url]
glade 2012 HDR dance off by simbojono, on Flickr
[url=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7172/6824097285_4956e71f23.jpg]Image[/url]
Untitled_HDR7 by simbojono, on Flickr
Not trying to be harsh, even in the examples you put as you prefer are pushing it too far. The second one has a dull and botched sky and the picture seems fudgy, and the first one has the highlights all blown-out.
But the last two are definitely examples of what people think HDR is, and why it has gotten a bad rep by some.
HDR should be subtle, unlike any of those photos.
To be fair I think people like Ratcliff are the ones that gave HDR a bad name and over do it.For those of you not familiar with HDR, or in need of great informative topics related to HDR. Trey Ratcliff is a leading expert when is comes to shooting HDR.
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/
I don't think that this was the scene that a human eye was seeing. That's why it's not good HDR. Correct me if I am wrong but HDR's primary objective is to bypass the limited dynamic range of a camera compared to the human eye/brain and to create a picture as close as the scene perceived from the human eye/brain. Not to create something different and possibly flashy.
This recent post in the August POTD thread is my idea of what good HDR should be. Click below for image.
Laurenskerk, Rotterdam.
Not trying to be harsh, even in the examples you put as you prefer are pushing it too far. The second one has a dull and botched sky and the picture seems fudgy, and the first one has the highlights all blown-out.
But the last two are definitely examples of what people think HDR is, and why it has gotten a bad rep by some.
HDR should be subtle, unlike any of those photos.