HDR Hell

Well, it's just a set of pixels - why do you care whether there has been
post-processing? Even the processes involved in getting the data off the
CCD and turning it into a JPEG involve some manipulation of the image.

You're like the people who want magazines to put warnings on the
pictures where the models have been touched up.

 

I'm old fashioned enough to believe that most of the creativity should
be about being at the right place at the right time, and seeing and
framing the picture, not in the dark room/at the PC.

 

That looks a bit garish to my untrained eyes.

 

I guess the question is whether that describes the subject accurately!

 

Composition.

 

Until fairly recently a big part of a photographer's skill was how he
printed his own photographs. Darkroom skills were a very big part of the
job.

Using your criteria above, you're saying people like Ansel Adams weren't
the photography geniuses they actually were.

However, I am of the opinion there is a big difference between a good
photographer and a good image technician.

--
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

 

Photography wouldn't be the first discipline to succumb to the It's All
Been Done effect - the first person to climb a mountain or sail around
the world is always going to be more notable than the thousandth.

 

No, I used the word 'most' deliberately.

I guess that was the point I was trying to make.

 

I don't care whether there has been post-processing or not. However,
I, as an untrained observer, would like to know whether "a photo" is a
single frame or multiple frames.

To go back to the original subject, I *knew* there was something "not
quite right" with the photos in the gallery, but I didn't know what. I
would have liked to have known.

<mode=Roy Walker>
Is not right.
</mode>

 

Like the Leadenhall Market shot. I used to go for a sneaky lunchtime pint
in the boozer in there sometimes.

 

Quite. I like the more subtler versions of HDR composites. Some seem to
go all out to get the halo effect in Photomatix which I'm not a fan of.
When done right, I think it can work well.

Here's a couple of mine:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29162046@N04/3815570030/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29162046@N04/3638468408/

I've been playing around with Mediachance's HDR tool, which is a bit
cheaper than Photomatix, but I find I have to work harder to achieve a
nice result. That said, it has some wonderful tools, particularly the
ability to pin parts of the image to align them. I don't use my tripod as
much as I should.

 

"Oi, keep your hands to yourself!"

 

That's quite striking, but the question I ask myself is - what did it
look like on the day? I occasionally use HDR and nudge the saturation
bar along a bit to recreate the range and colours I remember being
there. That's just my personal position on it, others' views differ.
The problem is that even superficially attractive one-off HDR pics now
get lost in the great heaving miasma of crap output from everybody who's
discovered the controls.


My main gripe with the BBC landscape pics is the judges (or office
juniors) are so inept as to think that those heavily processed pics are
in any way representative of real landscape colours and textures, and
what's more actually put them in the running for a prize of sorts, even
if that prize was only greater publicity.

 

Why? You either like the result or you don't. In the old days one had to
dodge and burn at the printing stage. Or develop the wrong process to get
wacky colours. Post-processing isn't new, neither is HDR. Computers have
just made both a lot easier.

 

I'm sorry that this answer isn't in the spirit of intelligent debate,
but "because".

It's probably because I enjoy looking at photographs and I would like
to know what I'm looking at, or at least how a particular look or
effect has been achieved. How else is one supposed to learn?

I do realise this. I'm not anti post-processing at all, but as someone
who knows little about it, it would be nice to be told, rather than me
just thinking "that looks a bit weird to me"[1]

[1] Which has no effect on liking it or not. I did like many of those
photos, but didn't know what I was looking at, IYSWIM.

 

I'm not against HDR or other post-processing but it can be over done.
All those photos with the exception of the B&W one look like they've
had the same effect applied to them. Once or twice OK but all of them?
Or was that the terms of the competition.

 

I like some of those - there's a lot of skill in doing HDR well, and
this chap has the knack.

 

Ditto that.

 

Well, it was at dusk and it just sort of came out blue. )

 

Like the bloke who takes pictures of the TT when the riders are almost down
his throat? Fucking wonderful photo's they are.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19