Manhole Cover HDR

[manaheim]

Wow. Nicely said, Arch. I enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate you taking the time.

*goes back to lurking*

 

[Womec]

Thanks for the feedback especially the bit from pbelarge about the debris should have paid more attention to it and removed it.

Sry my piece created so much controversy and argument, but hey a lot of good art does, and its a sign I'm doing something right.

As for HDR versus single exposure, I liken it to driving an automatic or manual. With HDR you have a ton more control over individual parts of an image because you have access to multiple exposures therefore you can tweak the image to a greater extent without it looking too processed like it would if you did the same level of tweaking with a regular image. Although I do appreciate the simplicity of taking a single shot and thats that its done. I take photos both ways, usually where I can and if there are extremes like really dark or really light I like to have multiple exposures because they can come in handy.

And the whole thing about "tools" it seems to me that HDR is more of a procedure than a tool, without experimenting with different methods how am I supposed to learn anything or discover anything new. My personal preference however leans largely towards a more subtle HDR than one that fries the photo to a saturated crisp unless of course thats what your going for.

 

[Womec]

No, manaheim, you dont get it. You cant accomplish the same results, only very similar ones with curves. His HDR photo is more interesting than your curve adjusted photo.

I agree without multiple exposures it looks flat and boring.

Also I do indeed understand what HDR was meant for, but I don't want to do the same boring stuff everyone else is doing. I'd much rather experiment and create something new and interesting.

 

[Garbz]

Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?

 

[Provo]

This topic is the one that keeps on going I think it's time we all moved on we all took part in this and took over the op's thread. Not trying to get on anyone's nerve here but let's just let it be fellas come on post some images and let's keep it somewhat in order.

 

[Womec]

Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?

There en lies the controversy, but you still have more control regardless of whether or not your dynamic range fits into one exposure or not.

To answer that more simply... You can pick and choose the best part of the overall image from each exposure to create an overall better image, sometimes this is pointless but sometimes it is not even if the entire dynamic range fits into one exposure. And yes for the millionth time I know you can go about this probably a million different ways.

 

[manaheim]

Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?

There en lies the controversy, but you still have more control regardless of whether or not your dynamic range fits into one exposure or not.

It really isn't a controversy, and I don't say this to be inflammatory... Your assertion here is simply incorrect.

 

[Fedaykin]

This won't end....

 

[Hugo Leung]

Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?

There is more to HDR than just expanding dynamic range. It also fills out shadows and dulls highlights. With badly done HDR, this leads to a compressed contrast and ugly images. But if done properly, it might lead to images that would take less time to create with HDR than with curves.

Let me illustrate this with an example:

The bottom one is HDR, and the top is a properly exposed original. Notice the subtle differences in the lighting of the clouds and the buildings. I dont want to mess around in photoshop with masks to accomplish the same effect.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ I suppose putting that top one into photoshop and tweaking brightness, contrast and putting maybe 2-5 points on saturation into it and reposting it would be largely pointless...

There is almost NO difference there.

HDR=high dynamic range

YES... the point of it is in fact to expand dynamic range. You can do this to crazy extremes if you like... or you can do what most people call HDR but is really just tone-mapping... but all you did is tweak some very basic settings in a much less basic method.

 

[bigtwinky]

This topic is the one that keeps on going I think it's time we all moved on we all took part in this and took over the op's thread. Not trying to get on anyone's nerve here but let's just let it be fellas come on post some images and let's keep it somewhat in order.

As long as people keep it civil and there is no childish name calling and sarcasm, no real reason to stop a thread. While they may sometimes start to take a turn for the worse, they can straighten up and actually come out with some interesting information

 

[Hugo Leung]

all you did is tweak some very basic settings in a much less basic method.

The idea that HDR is a non-basic method is myopic and limiting. I worry that putting this technique on a pedestal will do nothing to help those learning its pros and cons.

I chose HDR for this photo because it was faster and easier. Like you said, you couldnt be bothered to put it into photoshop. The top HDR photo i posted took 20 seconds of post processing. I ran it through photomatix with previous settings, and adjusted curves in lightroom. This is all.

HDR does not need to be an advanced time consuming technique and to present it as such is disingenuous to those new to it.

 

[myshkin]

We should start a new section called tonemapped instead of HDR so no one can say anything. The point is do you like your image more after running through HDR software. Thats all that matters

 

[Garbz]

I was just about to say. Tonemapping and HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging are two completely different aspects. One is nothing more than an method of determining the luminance of a point based on the weighted luminance of surrounding points (tonemapping), and the other is a method of creating an image which has a dynamic range which is too wide for any single sensor to capture.

Both your example Hugo and the OP's are examples of simply using tonemapping. This has nothing to do with HDR, and does not require more than one image. In the case of the OP it doesn't even require creating 3 seperate tweeks of a RAW.

By all means use tonemapping it's a valid way of creating a sensation of micro-contrast around an otherwise dull image. But let's call a spade a spade and not call it an elephant shall we. Simply opening an image in Photomatix and saving it again does not make it a HDR image.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ I was kind of avoiding even opening that particular can of worms given the nature of the audience, but you're absolutely right.