HDR Hell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy shite. What a mess.

 

Yep. Most of them have been affected/inflicted by the current craze for
sliding the saturation lever too far and also doing HDR in excess.
Bloody awful.

 

It's the current trend old bean. HDR can look good in certain
circumstances - but mostly it makes the photo look like a CGI image and
not real at all.

 

I don't know what HDR stands for, but I looked at those yesterday and
realised sometihng wasn't quite right.

There should be a limit on post-processing, or the amount should
notified to inform the casual viewer.

 

I'm starting to find my way round a digi camera, and I don't know what
HDR is either. Wikipedia says it's 'High Dynamic Range', but the
article doesn't really tell me how it's achieved - there's lots of
references to multiple images, which I'm sure weren't used here
(certainly not in the case of the runners).

But, as you say, there's something "not quite right" about them.

That'd be impossible to draft, or enforce. The judgement should be
"does it look good". I'm surprised that the judges here have voted
for such processed images - perhaps they all work for image software
companies.

 

High Definition Range.

Take 3 photos at different exposures (one normal, one under exposed (dark),
one over exposed (light)) and use photoshop or gimp to take out the
brightest bits from normal replacing them with the bits from dark, take the
darkest bits from normal and replace them with the same bits from light
and.. well, blend them together.

I've tried a few times but never really got a good effect like that one

 

The first time I saw those I thought they were created by one of those
landscape generating programs.

 

Ah, DYNAMIC... sorry for my last post then...

If you take a raw image, you can do some HDR tricks without taking multiple
images apparently. Not entirely sure how though.

I'm not sure the runners is HDR, it's probably just had its contrast tweaked
up .

 

And verily, didst hastily babble thusly:

^Dynamic, sorry

 

So it's not *a* photograph then.

And further to my point about making the viewer aware, and to address
Champ's point of it not being enforceable, why not make the
photographer state that it's a composite of X images?

 

Yeah, same here. I looked at those last night and thought that
they looked unreal. Didn't know what HDR was either.

 

It looks, well, interesting. But it's not a photo.

 

See Vass's post - sounds like it can be generated from a single source
image. Which it would have to be with any moving subject matter, like
the runners.

 

One photo of the landscape without the runners, another with the
runners, combine the two.

 

<Grumpy Old Man>What happened to the good ol' days where you exposed for
the shadows and printed for the highlights? Proper photography!</GOM>

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

OK, but I really do think it is important that the viewer is made aware.

And for my (hypothetical) CT's Photography Competition 2009 I'd
categorise entries thus:

1. Single frame, no post-processing.
2. Single frame, post-processing allowed.
2. Multiple frame (max. 3), post-processing allowed.
3. Open category - anything goes.
And maybe 4. Film )

 

There's no particular trick to it. It's just that if you make the light
bits darker and the dark bits lighter you have more bits available to
show details. It's a bit like the way NICAM compression works. The
camera won't do this by default because it looks so bloody odd.

 

I think that's problematic, in that if you don't allow any
post-processing the metering on modern cameras is so good that pretty
much anyone who is in the right place at the right time can take a
winning picture - where's the skill gone? where is the art?

 

And what's wrong with that? If the judges, viewers et al. are all
aware that it's a "snap", I don't see what the issue is. If you want
skill and art, enter your photos in one of the categories that allows
it.

 

That's nice.

I agree - photography can never be as the eye sees it - the camera and
the eye/brain work differently - but HDR is an effect it's easy to overdo.