AT Shot of the Day Thread

[alfa147x]

And your screen has even less dynamic range because its max brightness is so much lower than sunlight. HDR is a misnomer. It's just compressing the real world's dynamic range into what a monitor can display, which is why HDR pictures look fake.

HDR has it uses. With any tool it can be over used.

I took this a few months ago
http://i.imgur.com/WraF8.jpg

The grass is a bit over saturated but it's better than these two:
http://i.imgur.com/T5pR8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vjFQo.jpg

 

[Throckmorton]

HDR has it uses. With any tool it can be over used.

I took this a few months ago
http://i.imgur.com/WraF8.jpg

The grass is a bit over saturated but it's better than these two:
http://i.imgur.com/T5pR8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vjFQo.jpg

I disagree. The 2nd pic looks fine. The HDR one looks unnatural, both because it's too bright indoors and there's also the fuzziness that I'm guessing is an artifact of the process.

 

[alfa147x]

I disagree. The 2nd pic looks fine. The HDR one looks unnatural, both because it's too bright indoors and there's also the fuzziness that I'm guessing is an artifact of the process.

It was from a post card size print. Thus the fuzziness.

 

[finbarqs]

Alfa147x's FIRST image is closer to what our actual eyes perceive. What makes HDR look fake is the contrast in the tones when one does HDR. It looks like a high pass filter. There's a true-tone HDR technique, and there is the traditional "fake" one.

Technically, I believe HDR term is used very loosely, and hasn't been properly defined. When people think of HDR in photography, they think this:

when this

can be defined as HDR as well...

My definition of HDR is an image that has 19+ stops of dynamic range. Something closer to what our eyes can see!

 

[Throckmorton]

It may be closer to what our eyes can see as far as information, but we're viewing the image on monitors. The greater dynamic range is compressed into a much smaller range.

If the point is to convey information, like with real estate pictures or whatever, fine, use HDR. But for artistic landscape photos and the like, it's just tacky and fake looking 99.9% of the time.

Scroll up and look at the pics I've posted. Is anything of value lost by having high contrast and deep dark shadows? Are the pictures less or more aesthetically pleasing than they would be if you could see what was in the shadows?

 

[finbarqs]

this is an argument among artists, and each statements can be taken subjectively rather than objectively. You talk about Dynamic range in monitors vs. dynamic range in sensors. What is displayed is much different than what is captured.


When you say "is anything of value lost by having high contrast..." that is actually a subjective question. There are different types of photography for different types of shots. Then, there are the artistic rendition of the shot. If you like to keep your images high contrast, there's nothing wrong for you to do so. If you want to retain detail in all your images, fine, there's nothing wrong with that.

What's more important is that you identify the dynamic range of the scene you're about to take. Some people like to go overboard with the HDR and create the tone mapping to "fake it out". Personally, there's a place for that, and a market. Then, there's people who would like to retain detail in the sky (let's face it, the sky sometimes has > 4 stops of dynamic range to keep) and maintain solid detail on their subject as well. Why? because sometimes, we'll get incredible cloud coverage, but yet our subject is beautiful at the same time. We would need at least a 18+ stop camera to reach that range.

Remedy? HDR or a graduated neutral density filter. The HDR technique is much more controllable, as the GND may be off a little...

 

[Throckmorton]

this is an argument among artists, and each statements can be taken subjectively rather than objectively. You talk about Dynamic range in monitors vs. dynamic range in sensors. What is displayed is much different than what is captured.


When you say "is anything of value lost by having high contrast..." that is actually a subjective question. There are different types of photography for different types of shots. Then, there are the artistic rendition of the shot. If you like to keep your images high contrast, there's nothing wrong for you to do so. If you want to retain detail in all your images, fine, there's nothing wrong with that.

What's more important is that you identify the dynamic range of the scene you're about to take. Some people like to go overboard with the HDR and create the tone mapping to "fake it out". Personally, there's a place for that, and a market. Then, there's people who would like to retain detail in the sky (let's face it, the sky sometimes has > 4 stops of dynamic range to keep) and maintain solid detail on their subject as well. Why? because sometimes, we'll get incredible cloud coverage, but yet our subject is beautiful at the same time. We would need at least a 18+ stop camera to reach that range.

Remedy? HDR or a graduated neutral density filter. The HDR technique is much more controllable, as the GND may be off a little...

Fair enough, it's subjective, but people need to understand that it's not really HDR. It's compressing more dynamic range into the small range of a monitor.

 

[Throckmorton]

 

[chipy]

ah, i like this! where's this at?

 

[Throckmorton]

ah, i like this! where's this at?

Lahaina, HI. The park behind the library, next to the docks.

 

[Griffinhart]

If the point is to convey information, like with real estate pictures or whatever, fine, use HDR. But for artistic landscape photos and the like, it's just tacky and fake looking 99.9% of the time.

While it's easy to over do HDR, there are times where it helps a lot.

This is a photo I took a couple of years ago. It's HDR made from 3 photos. HDR allowed me to produce a photo that was about as close to the scene I was looking at as I could. Adjusting contrast wouldn't have helped much for me.

Nicely done HDR can be striking and beautiful. Even HDR that's not completely "realistic" looking can be fantastic. Admittedly though, It's really easy to produce bad photos with HDR.

 

[alfa147x]

I hate how HDR makes pictures look like doomsday material

 

[Cienja]

 

[Cienja]

While it's easy to over do HDR, there are times where it helps a lot.

This is a photo I took a couple of years ago. It's HDR made from 3 photos. HDR allowed me to produce a photo that was about as close to the scene I was looking at as I could. Adjusting contrast wouldn't have helped much for me.

Nicely done HDR can be striking and beautiful. Even HDR that's not completely "realistic" looking can be fantastic. Admittedly though, It's really easy to produce bad photos with HDR.

Really nice photo. Great job.

 

[Throckmorton]

A sailboat ran aground on Friday night and I got some pics yesterday
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68357605@N05/sets/72157628008743998/

 

[Throckmorton]

Along the road to Hana

 

[Lotheron]

I finally have something to contribute again. I only really take family shots as my girls are growing up. But we went to the air show this weekend and I got some great shots of the Blue Angels. I got lots of great shots, here's a few:

The BlueAngels C130:

 

[xchangx]

From the Ole Miss-Auburn game this past Sat.

 

[Throckmorton]

I took a couple today that I think are pretty good

BTW, not sure why there's that weird chromatic abberation on the lower left of the dog pic. Check out the heat distortion on the ships though!

 

[Lotheron]

 

[basslover1]

A few from my walk last night:

 

[alfa147x]

 

[Throckmorton]

A Mustang on Front Street, Lahaina

 

[Throckmorton]

 

[KingstonU]

Just noticed this thread. Lots of great shots so far. Fav is the groundhogs kissing but also wow at CuriousMike's lightning and Finbarqs' cave.

Here is my first contribution that I took recently with my SX10. No idea what species this is but its huge with a 6" wingspan. EDIT: Got it working! Also if anyone sees anything I can do to improve my photos feel free to let me know here or by PM.