HDR Shootout #30

[GeorgieGirl]

GeorgieGirl you have made a few statements that are really BS. Shooting for HDR does not cover up for a lack of core disciplines or understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally dramatic photo. Its like saying using a camera covers up for those poor souls who dont have any artistic abilities and cant draw beautiful portraits or landscapes with a pencil or a paintbrush. Absolutely no one can argue against HDR. That being said then lets talk tone mapping. Thats where the trouble lays. Heavy handed people who screw up a good image either on purpose or quite unintentionally because of some reason or another. To get a good coverage for HDR the best 0 EV must be used and the over and under shots go from there. In the example in this thread Sparky supplied the 0 EV and Im assuming that that is the best shot that could be taken at that particular time. Not exactly a keeper, but that in combination with other shots does produce a better image. In the example I submitted I went the regular route and upon seeing the fuzzy look to the trees I cut and pasted one of the exposures I liked best for a sharp clear image of the leaves and branches. Photomatix et all, are just tools to be used any way we choose to produce any kind of image we want. This thread is about HDR so thats why we see HDR images (actually more like tone mapped HDR images), and we dont apologize for any of it. Its not a crutch, or any other kind of excuse thats being used by fools who dont know how to use their cameras and I take exception to anyone who suggests it is.

Bynx - For openers none of my comments were BS, but what I bolded here supports the camp that says HDR is a coverup. I agree Photomatrix is a fantastic processing tool. I have it. As for the best 0 EV, I think, and I have said for a long time that this is the single critical shot. If some feel that because HDR can render even mediocre into fanstastic, that lighting and exposure don't have to be dead on because it can be processed out, then so be it. I just think that all the rules of lighting exposure and compostion don't go out the window for HDR, and I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm just saying we all know that this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.

I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much, but I do look for opportunities to master it. I also at this point am more focused on doing better at landsacping photgraphy using the Zone System, as that to me would be, for me, a cleaner photo with greater technical integrity as a basis.

 

[480sparky]

........ this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.

I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much,...........

Interesting juxtaposition of statements.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

........ this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.

I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much,...........

Interesting juxtaposition of statements.

Meaningless comment that describes nothing. Put into a stament what you actually mean to say and we can potentially discuss it.

 

[480sparky]

Meaningless comment that describes nothing. Put into a stament what you actually mean to say and we can potentially discuss it.

You say it's easy to do, but you can't do it so you dismiss it.

How's that?

 

[GeorgieGirl]

;-)

Meaningless comment that describes nothing. Put into a stament what you actually mean to say and we can potentially discuss it.

You say it's easy to do, but you can't do it so you dismiss it.

How's that?

Sparky you are not going to like this, I'm sure...Here is what I said, word for word...

GeorgieGirl you have made a few statements that are really BS. Shooting for HDR does not cover up for a lack of core disciplines or understanding of lighting and exposure that can create a naturally dramatic photo. Its like saying using a camera covers up for those poor souls who dont have any artistic abilities and cant draw beautiful portraits or landscapes with a pencil or a paintbrush. Absolutely no one can argue against HDR. That being said then lets talk tone mapping. Thats where the trouble lays. Heavy handed people who screw up a good image either on purpose or quite unintentionally because of some reason or another. To get a good coverage for HDR the best 0 EV must be used and the over and under shots go from there. In the example in this thread Sparky supplied the 0 EV and Im assuming that that is the best shot that could be taken at that particular time. Not exactly a keeper, but that in combination with other shots does produce a better image. In the example I submitted I went the regular route and upon seeing the fuzzy look to the trees I cut and pasted one of the exposures I liked best for a sharp clear image of the leaves and branches. Photomatix et all, are just tools to be used any way we choose to produce any kind of image we want. This thread is about HDR so thats why we see HDR images (actually more like tone mapped HDR images), and we dont apologize for any of it. Its not a crutch, or any other kind of excuse thats being used by fools who dont know how to use their cameras and I take exception to anyone who suggests it is.

Bynx - For openers none of my comments were BS, but what I bolded here supports the camp that says HDR is a coverup. I agree Photomatrix is a fantastic processing tool. I have it. As for the best 0 EV, I think, and I have said for a long time that this is the single critical shot. If some feel that because HDR can render even mediocre into fanstastic, that lighting and exposure don't have to be dead on because it can be processed out, then so be it. I just think that all the rules of lighting exposure and compostion don't go out the window for HDR, and I'm not pointing any fingers, I'm just saying we all know that this is a mental trap that is easy enough to fall into because its so easy to get an interesting result.

I have tried HDR and I have not done it well so I don't bother with it too much, but I do look for opportunities to master it. I also at this point am more focused on doing better at landsacping photgraphy using the Zone System, as that to me would be, for me, a cleaner photo with greater technical integrity as a basis.

For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR is easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.

I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.

Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.

 

[cgipson1]

For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR is easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.

I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.

Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.

GeorgieGirl...

I have to say this.... yes.. HDR is easy, and anyone can do it. BUT not many can do it well.... most do it with a sledge hammer, instead of a scalpel.

Your statement about having little personal interest in it, unless you can do it well is a paradox or oxymoron.... you can't do it well unless you learn how.... and that requires the interest to pursue. That is like saying "I would love to be able to cook, but I cant.. so I have no interest in learning how". I am confused!

We are here for that very reason.. we are interested, and want to learn to use it well. That is why I find it so interesting that others (who profess a lack of interest) have the gall to come in and basically tell us we are wasting our time... lol! Are we going into your thread (assuming you have one) and telling you that "NO.. that is not the best way to do it! My way is better, or that way over there is better"? If you are going to bash it.. fine, but tell us why you don't like it... what your experiences have been, etc... so that we can hopefully learn from what you have to say.

I am glad you have found an alternative... one that I am interested in also, but not on this thread! I am not trying to be negative.. or "twist your words"... just saying....

 

[480sparky]

It's also incredibly easy to throw on a 1000mm lens so you can shoot wildlife without disturbing it or ending your life.
It's also incredibly easy to cram a camera on a tripod, set the shutter to B and get star trails.
It's also incredibly easy to take 10 shots and stitch them into a pano.
It's also incredibly easy to slap a GND in front of your lens to keep the sky from getting blown out. How is that any different than utilizing HDR to do the exact same thing?

What I find fascinating is so many HDR detractors feel compelled to tell the rest of us we're all on the wrong track.... that's we've somehow strayed from the 'correct' path. Who decides what the 'correct' path is? Shall we start posting in the PhotoShop forum about how PS users are failing miserably because they need expensive software? Must we go the the Film forums and tell silver nitrate addicts they're time is past? Those that prefer to shoot in a studio environment.... are they failures because they must control all the lighting instead of reacting to what Mother Nature provides?

I will state it again: As long as the end result is what the artists wants, then that's all that matters.


Perhaps you can take ONE of the images in the OP and show/tell us what you can do with it. I don't care which one... any one will do.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

For myself, there is no benefit for me to say wow, look at this photo I created with HDR. Sparky, HDR is easy, its so easy that anyone can do it, but I have little personal interest in it unless I can do it well, and my preference and focus is along different lines. In other words my goals are to pursue another format, not HDR; it simply is not that important to me to put my energies into HDR ahead of somehting that I'd prefer to pursue, and I have studied HDR it a good bit to test drive it.

I have seen some incredible HDR images, ones that you can smell the dirt and damp, see the peeling paint, touch threads and even feel creepiness. I have seen them here on TPF. I enjoy the effects and the artfulness of them just as much as I enjoy seeing an exceptional portrait.

Please don't twist my words any longer, I'm being civil with you.

GeorgieGirl...

I have to say this.... yes.. HDR is easy, and anyone can do it. BUT not many can do it well.... most do it with a sledge hammer, instead of a scalpel.

Your statement about having little personal interest in it, unless you can do it well is a paradox or oxymoron.... you can't do it well unless you learn how.... and that requires the interest to pursue. That is like saying "I would love to be able to cook, but I cant.. so I have no interest in learning how". I am confused!

We are here for that very reason.. we are interested, and want to learn to use it well. That is why I find it so interesting that others (who profess a lack of interest) have the gall to come in and basically tell us we are wasting our time... lol! Are we going into your thread (assuming you have one) and telling you that "NO.. that is not the best way to do it! My way is better, or that way over there is better"? If you are going to bash it.. fine, but tell us why you don't like it... what your experiences have been, etc... so that we can hopefully learn from what you have to say.

I am glad you have found an alternative... one that I am interested in also, but not on this thread! I am not trying to be negative.. or "twist your words"... just saying....

Going back to the book I referred to: Digital Landscape Photography...

The Zone System as it applies to Landscape Photography and what should be, IMHO of course, used as the platform basis for any attempt to excel at HDR with that critical 0EV, I'd encourage anyone to obtain this book and read it. It goes through blending, processing, and HDR.

It essentially descrbes the need to start with the correct highlights for landscape photography. Landscape photogrpahy is based on correct lighlights. Expose for the highlights. It explains how to determine the critical highlight that must remain detailed and of the correct color, and for example if that is a waterfall, that it will need to be placed in Zone 7 for white or nearly white. Pastels go into Zone 6. It explains how with correct metering to get there and get the camera settings correct to achieve zone placement that can be checked back via the histogram.

I often asked in the past on this HDR forum how do you know who many shots you need and where to start your exposure and the responses were: take 3 to 5 shots at least. Not once did anyone ever say this is how you start to be sure you have your correct exposure for 0EV. Not once did anyone say this is what you need to meter. I found my answers because I was detemined to find them. And IMHO it starts with a hand held meter and detail work to find the measured dynamic range for HDR. So I think its more than a taking a stab at it approach.

I don't mean to sound confusing. Simply put, (I hope) I want to produce a technically solid landscape in one shot if possible, in two shots by blending. I do not want to produce a properly metered EV range for HDR until I have completed producing techncially solid landscapes. When I accomplish that, and I don't know when that will be, I might decide to produce high dynamic range photos. I do feel certain though that its a step by step approach and that as a result of what I am pursuing now, HDR efforts will be worthwhile rather than what just anyone can do as a result of software.

I am putting my one foot before the other for me.

 

[480sparky]

.............Not once did anyone ever say this is how you start to be sure you have your correct exposure for 0EV. Not once did anyone say this is what you need to meter. I found my answers because I was detemined to find them. ..........

And that's the same direction I am headed. This is why I purchased a 1º/5º spot meter.... to determine the actual dynamic range of the scene. If it's within the camera's range, then I just take a set of 3 bracketed shots and move one. If it needs 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 25, whatever, then that's what gets taken. This is why some of my posts have just 3 frames, some have 5, some have 9. It just depended on the scene.

However, I'd like to know what you do if the scene's range falls well outside your camera's abilities.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Sparky - If the metered range let's say is 1/125 for the lightest area of a scene and 1/4 for the darkest area of the scene the range is a 6EV gap.

125, 60, 30, 15, 8, 1/4

You need to shoot 7 exposures if you use a 1 EV gap to accomplish bridging the entire range.

So a meter will ultimately be telling you what your number of exposures is going to need to be.

You might enjoy Practical HDR by David Nightingale. Perils and Pitfalls of processing, how to work around them and details of Photoshops HDR Tools, FDR Tools and Photomatrix. I think its a fantastic book.

Enjoy your meter, you will be very happy with this tool.

 

[Bynx]

This is going from bad to worse. I think Im starting to understand where you are coming from GeorgieGirl. You havent got a clue. When asking how many shots over and under are needed for a given scene its always assumed, (at least by me) that the over and under is from the ideal 0 EV shot. Its not just starting anywhere and hoping you can capture it all. That whole way of thinking is just out to lunch if thats what you believe. People who take the exposures are doing it from a starting point Im sure. There are over 30 shootouts posted so far. I havent done them all, but Id be surprised if the 0 EV of each shootout wasnt in the money being close to the ideal single best shot of the lot. All the over and under shots should be based around that 0 EV. No wonder you are not doing well in any HDR attempts you've tried. You think its all just dumb luck if any shot it right. What can I say to that !!!!!

 

[GeorgieGirl]

This is going from bad to worse. I think Im starting to understand where you are coming from GeorgieGirl. You havent got a clue. When asking how many shots over and under are needed for a given scene its always assumed, (at least by me) that the over and under is from the ideal 0 EV shot. Its not just starting anywhere and hoping you can capture it all. That whole way of thinking is just out to lunch if thats what you believe. People who take the exposures are doing it from a starting point Im sure. There are over 30 shootouts posted so far. I havent done them all, but Id be surprised if the 0 EV of each shootout wasnt in the money being close to the ideal single best shot of the lot. All the over and under shots should be based around that 0 EV. No wonder you are not doing well in any HDR attempts you've tried. You think its all just dumb luck if any shot it right. What can I say to that !!!!!

On the contrary Bynx. You are again saying why people think HDR is a stab at photogprahy. I have actually indicated in multiple posts in this particular threat that I fully well understand HDR and I have backed it up with accurate details. Its dumb luck for many people and that's why its easy and generally with poor results.

My question to asking how many shots are needed is because the standard answer by those who profess to know HDR and know it well is always three. You though, take 9 mostly I think you said. Do you meter for that 9? Is nine the magic number for you? Maybe you have a trained eye. I don't. I meter and detmine the number of exposures. The sad part was asking an even when asking in a number of ways (my limit is three) no one could say why they did what they did and meters were a complete non-event.

Stop now, you know you are not dealing with a dummy here and if you are just trying for argument those moments came and went quite a few posts ago. We've moved on to being productive so try and keep up.

 

[Bynx]

Please GeorgieGirl dont presume I know Im not dealing with a dummy. The jury is still out on that. I just wish this would all stop and you guys would take a hike so this thread could get back on track.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

To be brutally honest Bynx, your acceptance is negligible in the grand scheme of things for me. And like many threads on TPF...there is something worthwhile in all the brouhaha once you get past all the complainers complaints.

Stay well.

 

[Bynx]

Nothing worthwhile in anything that has been said other than the comments made about the photos posted. Some stupid remarks were made followed by stupid comebacks. Didnt accomplish anything. You and the rest arent any wiser about HDR and it just makes enemies when confrontations like this occur. Nobody can stop you from coming into any forum and saying anything you want. But how about lets keeping it to the topic at hand -- and thats the pics that are posted. Now I wonder how long this BS is going to continue. Can anyone post an HDR image here ----- please, please, please.