What HDR and film shooters have in common

[The_Traveler]

I was reading some posts in the film forum and have in the past read many hdr threads.

In both of those instances, the shooters seem to focus (no pun intended) on just how wonderful the method is to the virtual exclusion of the subject.

The film people just glow when they talk about tones and grain yet the images themselves are often fairly ordinary.

You could add in the large format people who just love the fact that everything is in focus and the tiniest detail is see-able and distinct.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

You know, the whole series Breaking Bad was really impressive to me from a cinematography standpoint. The series is supposedly shot on film, it is amazing the dynamic range that is captured by those cameras.

 

[chuasam]

They're both a fad past its due

 

[djacobox372]

So shooting film is the same as lame hdr processing? Okay......

 

[Compaq]

Both techniques have its merit, but the process itself can't be enough. There's a learning curve with both, and in that periode of time, the subject matter plays a smaller role than the processing.

I have posted poor compositions with HDR treatment, but (I like to believe) that was in the process of getting to know photomatix, and to know how to achieve what I wants

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I was reading some posts in the film forum and have in the past read many hdr threads.In both of those instances, the shooters seem to focus (no pun intended) on just how wonderful the method is to the virtual exclusion of the subject.The film people just glow when they talk about tones and grain yet the images themselves are often fairly ordinary.You could add in the large format people who just love the fact that everything is in focus and the tiniest detail is see-able and distinct.

Not unreasonable.

 

[molested_cow]

So basically you meant that folks who shoot film and HDR are more thrilled about the technical aspect of it as opposed to the content?

I don't know if this is a fair observation because people go to HDR or film forums to talk specifically about technical issues for the most part. If you made these observations in landscape, wildlife, sports, photojournalism forums, then I think it will be a much stronger point.

Not trying to deviate from the topic, I do find wildlife and landscape folks extremely technical. I like the easy one, spontaneous street photography.

 

[SCraig]

I was reading some posts in the film forum and have in the past read many hdr threads.

In both of those instances, the shooters seem to focus (no pun intended) on just how wonderful the method is to the virtual exclusion of the subject.

The film people just glow when they talk about tones and grain yet the images themselves are often fairly ordinary.

You could add in the large format people who just love the fact that everything is in focus and the tiniest detail is see-able and distinct.

Why stop there? The B&W shooters will rave about that perfect dynamic range spread, the portrait shooters are enamored with having perfect shadows, the action shooters love it when they snag one with a perfectly blurred background and tack-sharp subject, the astrophotographers love to get that halfway clear shot of a distant galaxy, and on and on and on.

Every niche of photography has elements that make it challenging. Not necessarily more difficult than other aspects of photography, as fans of one venue of the other would have one believe, but difficult in its own way.

Why should the subject always be more important than the method? After all sometimes the technique IS the subject.

 

[The_Traveler]

I was reading some posts in the film forum and have in the past read many hdr threads.

In both of those instances, the shooters seem to focus (no pun intended) on just how wonderful the method is to the virtual exclusion of the subject.

The film people just glow when they talk about tones and grain yet the images themselves are often fairly ordinary.

You could add in the large format people who just love the fact that everything is in focus and the tiniest detail is see-able and distinct.

Why stop there? The B&W shooters will rave about that perfect dynamic range spread, the portrait shooters are enamored with having perfect shadows, the action shooters love it when they snag one with a perfectly blurred background and tack-sharp subject, the astrophotographers love to get that halfway clear shot of a distant galaxy, and on and on and on.

Every niche of photography has elements that make it challenging. Not necessarily more difficult than other aspects of photography, as fans of one venue of the other would have one believe, but difficult in its own way.

Why should the subject always be more important than the method? After all sometimes the technique IS the subject.

It is my 'philosophy' that technical elements are irrelevant unless they interfere with the impact of a specific picture.
Part of that is believing that primary concern with the technical elements, as opposed to the content/subject, makes pictures that are technically perfect but acutely boring and irrelevant (to me, at least).

[Almost certainly this is why I find 95% of AA's work boring.]

I'm with 'molested cow' in that I find street photography the most exciting because the content is king and technical issues subordinate.

Lew

 

[SCraig]

It is my 'philosophy' that technical elements are irrelevant unless they interfere with the impact of a specific picture.
Part of that is believing that primary concern with the technical elements, as opposed to the content/subject, makes pictures that are technically perfect but acutely boring and irrelevant (to me, at least).

[Almost certainly this is why I find 95% of AA's work boring.]

I'm with 'molested cow' in that I find street photography the most exciting because the content is king and technical issues subordinate.

Lew

Lew, we always seem to be on opposite sides of a common fence for some reason.

To me street photography is the least inspiring type of photography simply because the technique is so simple. "F8 and be there" with a short prime will work 90% of the time because for street photography composition and subject are everything.

I prefer photography where the technique is a large part of the photograph and not necessarily subordinate to the subject. Where one facet does not work without the other. A perfect example is Chris Fabbri's motorsports shots with perfect panning and dead-sharp subjects. The subject without the technique or the technique without the subject do not work but when combined the results are something extraordinary.

Again, just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree. That's why we don't all shoot the same thing.

 

[The_Traveler]

Lew, we always seem to be on opposite sides of a common fence for some reason.

To me street photography is the least inspiring type of photography simply because the technique is so simple. "F8 and be there" with a short prime will work 90% of the time because for street photography composition and subject are everything.

I prefer photography where the technique is a large part of the photograph and not necessarily subordinate to the subject. Where one facet does not work without the other. A perfect example is Chris Fabbri's motorsports shots with perfect panning and dead-sharp subjects. The subject without the technique or the technique without the subject do not work but when combined the results are something extraordinary.

Scott, I totally agree that Chris' motor stuff is virtually always perfectly done, but in a series of 5 or 6 the sameness becomes apparent and the subject becomes less important. (Except to your motorcycle worshippers ).

And street photography my be simple but not easy to do well.
It requires a much different set of skills that may not be obvious until the photographer tries.
Again my belief is that, become of the mental skills necessary to see the situations develop, get in place and get the shot, many people just can't develop the skills.

No argument intended, just different interests and skills involved.
We each drift towards whatever niche that draws us.


and regardless of what you think, it's not one f stop and one focal length, that's one style and its not mine.

 

[molested_cow]

Craig, ask any motorsport fan what they see in a well executed pan shot of their favorite racing driver or rider. They don't see the tack sharp focus and the blurry background. They don't see the well balanced colors. They don't think about the lens, the camera body, the settings, the set up and how much effort and experience that the photographer needs to capture that shot. They see their idol doing what they've only dreamed of. They see aspiration, not from the technicality of the photograph, but what the content means to them.

I am a industrial/product designer and I can careless about what other designers say about my work, whether it's an Oscar-grade award or bashing. I care about the impact that my end users receive, if my efforts do impact their quality of life in a positive way. The same goes with my philosophy in photography. Every photo means differently to different people including myself. Just like a product, people are not going to make specific complains about imperfections in manufacturing or a corner too big. They will describe their emotions when using it.

It's absolutely true that all the technical executions lead to the final result, therefore isn't to be dismissed. However, that's just a basic part of it. It will be a shame if a photographer, like a designer, simply stops at perfecting the technique and forget about who those photos are for.

 

[MReid]

I can agree with the part about how people that use those methods do so because they enjoy the process.

....however if they didn't also think the end product was to their liking they would soon lose interest.

 

[SCraig]

Craig, ask any motorsport fan what they see in a well executed pan shot of their favorite racing driver or rider. They don't see the tack sharp focus and the blurry background. They don't see the well balanced colors. They don't think about the lens, the camera body, the settings, the set up and how much effort and experience that the photographer needs to capture that shot. They see their idol doing what they've only dreamed of. They see aspiration, not from the technicality of the photograph, but what the content means to them.

I am a industrial/product designer and I can careless about what other designers say about my work, whether it's an Oscar-grade award or bashing. I care about the impact that my end users receive, if my efforts do impact their quality of life in a positive way. The same goes with my philosophy in photography. Every photo means differently to different people including myself. Just like a product, people are not going to make specific complains about imperfections in manufacturing or a corner too big. They will describe their emotions when using it.

It's absolutely true that all the technical executions lead to the final result, therefore isn't to be dismissed. However, that's just a basic part of it. It will be a shame if a photographer, like a designer, simply stops at perfecting the technique and forget about who those photos are for.

Not this motorsports fan! I've been watching motorsports since Jimmy Clark drove for Lotus yet I've never had any serious aspirations to drive (or ride in the case of motorcycles).

In the case of still photography as opposed to videography the technique is, to me, what ALLOWS the drive and determination on the faces of the drivers or the energy of a top-fuel car on launch to be shown. Without that technique the shot is nothing more than a pinpoint of color among other pinpoints of color. Race tracks are very busy places. There are seldom any shots with a clean background, and being able to isolate a single emotion in that sea of colors IS the technique and it's what I admire in a good motorsports photographer.

Scott, I totally agree that Chris' motor stuff is virtually always perfectly done, but in a series of 5 or 6 the sameness becomes apparent and the subject becomes less important. (Except to your motorcycle worshippers ).

And street photography my be simple but not easy to do well.
It requires a much different set of skills that may not be obvious until the photographer tries.
Again my belief is that, become of the mental skills necessary to see the situations develop, get in place and get the shot, many people just can't develop the skills.

No argument intended, just different interests and skills involved.
We each drift towards whatever niche that draws us.


and regardless of what you think, it's not one f stop and one focal length, that's one style and its not mine.

As a kid I worked in a camera shop (when corner camera shops still existed) and it was right behind the local newspaper. Small town, small town paper, small town shop. Most of the reporters bought their supplies where I worked and I knew all of them. For that reason "Street Photography" will always, in my mind, be associated with "Newspaper Photography". I know that's not necessarily the case, but it's ingrained into my mind to associate the two. Newspaper photography is probably the WORST association I could make for street photography, but I've never been able to disassociate the two in my mind.

And I do agree, Lew, that only a motorsports enthusiast would be able to see a significant difference in 20 or 30 shots from a race, but by the same token only a street enthusiast would see the differences in 20 or 30 shots from a street scene. A photographer "On another forum" (you know exactly who I mean) takes a dozen shots of a person on a street, and they are utterly boring to me. Same style, same boring character, same sameness.

Each facet of photography has very similar requirements, but sometimes we never see the comparison. You mentioned:

Again my belief is that, become of the mental skills necessary to see the situations develop, get in place and get the shot, many people just can't develop the skills.

This is an absolute requirement of motorsports photography or wildlife photography or bird photography or even landscape photography.

We aren't so different, we just like to think we are

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I'll be glad when the HDR fad follows the same path of "selective coloring".