Ping Ebbs (HDR) - Page 3

Trip · 04-24-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eBBs15

better equipment MAY give you a slightly broader dynamic range (I don't know) but it will not be the same as what your eye sees.

so I guess the only good photos are the ones un touched... cause any amount of post processing even cropping is adding or removing data and thus... not photography in your mind. gotcha...

get over it... just cause you and a hundred thousand internet experts dislike the genre doesn't make it worthless or a fad.

Of course it won't give you the same as an eye. The eye is a much more complex device that we haven't made the tech to equal as of yet. Give it time. We will probably move beyond it one day.

No, some post processing has value, but it is beyond the photography as an art aspect and more to do with marketing and production.

Dude, you are an internet expert.... You are just the same as us.

Yes, it is an internet fad and it's fading from it's hey day thank god. Not as many people are using it anymore. I am seeing more and more threads referring to not using "HDR trickery" than I am seeing HDR threads.

Trip · 04-24-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eBBs15

no... you still have to pick a decent subject, you have to set the adjustments right... you can't just merge and do auto tone mapping and have the computer turn out a perfect HDR image.

yes you need to have a creative mind when photochoping... but you have to have just as a creative mind to find a subject that lends it self well to HDR...

It's the exact same with photoshop filters.

Not really, because HDR is shitty, so you can really do it with anything. Nothing really lends itself well to that crap.

Mr Lefty · 04-24-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip

Of course it won't give you the same as an eye. The eye is a much more complex device that we haven't made the tech to equal as of yet. Give it time. We will probably move beyond it one day.

No, some post processing has value, but it is beyond the photography as an art aspect and more to do with marketing and production.

Dude, you are an internet expert.... You are just the same as us.

Yes, it is an internet fad and it's fading from it's hey day thank god. Not as many people are using it anymore. I am seeing more and more threads referring to not using "HDR trickery" than I am seeing HDR threads.

not really... I'm not bashing this and that because I don't like it... I'm supporting something that know a little about...

your whole argument is that HDR is shit because of what? that it changes the photo... but then say that a little post processing is ok... sorry... can't have it both ways.

either Photos should be untouched (even in camera) or any type of post processing is ok (not saying you have to like it... )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip

It's the exact same with photoshop filters.

Not really, because HDR is shitty, so you can really do it with anything. Nothing really lends itself well to that crap.

sounds like someone who has no experience with actually trying it

Trip · 04-24-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eBBs15

not really... I'm not bashing this and that because I don't like it... I'm supporting something that know a little about...

your whole argument is that HDR is shit because of what? that it changes the photo... but then say that a little post processing is ok... sorry... can't have it both ways.

either Photos should be untouched (even in camera) or any type of post processing is ok (not saying you have to like it... )

sounds like someone who has no experience with actually trying it

You don't have to bash to be an internet expert. You have no formal training in photography. You are an internet expert on it, just like me. I understand what it does and what it is far better than you think. I am very accustomed to using photoshop and a lot of it's higher level resources from designing stuff for video games before I got into motorcycling. I worked with light maps for 3d models and understand dynamic range far better than you think. Photoshop does have HDR capabilities, but they aren't as easy to use as software that you use that is specifically designed for that function like you are using.

I think HDR is shit because most of it is ugly and looks retarded. The ones that aren't are ones that you can't usually tell anything is been done to them, so it's not even worth doing.

Dude, you have no idea how much time I have spent messing with filters and messing with light maps to adjust the lights and the darks of models. I burnt myself out on that shit long before I came onto TWF. You can ask my wife, before my TWF addiction, all I did was create shit for this video game and play that game.

AquaPython · 04-26-2010, 10:14 AM

trip you can bash whatever you want, but most HDR you are seeing is the more artsy / photochoppy of the two ways to merge THE SAME PHOTO. the realistic method takes takes all of the raw data that the equipment captures (but yet cannot visually reproduce it because it is 32 bit image), and recombines them to show details closer to how the naked eye would see it.
so your argument that it is bad equipment is bunk, the equipment actually captures it, but you cant see it all on a 2d screen, thats why it is a RAW. by processing it via HDR, you are able to pull out the details in the lights and darks like you would see it.

all of the HDR shots with the crazy colors etc is the "fad" , that can have it's place, but that is all opinion.

Trip · 04-26-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaPython

trip you can bash whatever you want, but most HDR you are seeing is the more artsy / photochoppy of the two ways to merge THE SAME PHOTO. the realistic method takes takes all of the raw data that the equipment captures (but yet cannot visually reproduce it because it is 32 bit image), and recombines them to show details closer to how the naked eye would see it.
so your argument that it is bad equipment is bunk, the equipment actually captures it, but you cant see it all on a 2d screen, thats why it is a RAW. by processing it via HDR, you are able to pull out the details in the lights and darks like you would see it.

all of the HDR shots with the crazy colors etc is the "fad" , that can have it's place, but that is all opinion.

It's not the same photo unless you take 3 or more different exposures at the same time which some cameras can do. You transform the photo to bring out more whites and more blacks to increase the dynamic range of the photo. Most times, there is too much pure white added to the photo that isn't realistic at all as light sources aren't pure white.

AquaPython · 04-26-2010, 10:30 AM

you can do it nicely with one photo that is a raw.
the white point and the black point are sliders that people have control of, so when you see it done poorly (to your taste) its people who are starting out , and trying to learn to do it better.

Trip · 04-26-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaPython

you can do it nicely with one photo that is a raw.
the white point and the black point are sliders that people have control of, so when you see it done poorly (to your taste) its people who are starting out , and trying to learn to do it better.

The white and black sliders are adding data that wasn't there to get your result. That is editing a photo, the same as any photoshop filter. A true HDR photo is taken in different exposures and is true data, not post editted to get a false HDR.

AquaPython · 04-26-2010, 10:55 AM

not really, where are you getting that definition from?

from what i have read, as linked in the first reply, the images need to be either Tone Mapped or Tone compressed (unreal / realitstic) to get the desired result.

Trip · 04-26-2010, 11:11 AM

Because you are adding false dyanmic range into the single photo. Your dyanmic range is determined by the the difference between the lightest and darkest areas. If you are adding data to give yourself more light and more dark to create your image, then that is not realistic. By shooting the same photo in different exposures, you are capturing a more realistic light source.

04-26-2010, 11:11 AM	#30
Trip Hold mah beer! Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: 80 Miles South of Moto Heaven Moto: 08 R1200GS Posts: 23,268	Because you are adding false dyanmic range into the single photo. Your dyanmic range is determined by the the difference between the lightest and darkest areas. If you are adding data to give yourself more light and more dark to create your image, then that is not realistic. By shooting the same photo in different exposures, you are capturing a more realistic light source.