MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Jonathan Ross on October 18, 2010, 11:50

Title: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 18, 2010, 11:50
Hi All,

 I just read a big article in PDN this month about " The Controversy over HDR'S " Maybe I am missing something here but what is the worry. It is a new tool that can and cannot be used depending on the persons interest. It was painted as being gaudy and useless by some as well in some other articles I read. This is a great tool and if you don't want your HDR'S to look surreal they don't have to. We use them a lot for interiors but we keep the image looking photo realistic because that is what I want.
 Michael james was quoted in the article and I think he makes wonderful very salable images, for his clients or stock.
 Trey Ratcliff makes images that push the limits of the software and I enjoy looking at his work as well and he has a strong following. You can just ask him or check how many hits he gets on his site. I just purchased his DVD series to see if I could pick up some nuggets of wisdom and sure enough I have. Can someone explain to me why it is any different than all the other changes in photography that have helped enable photographers to create what they desire over the history of the invention of the camera.   
 New bee's do have some pretty horrid stuff out there but so did everyone when Photoshop first hit the market. Now all these years later some still don't understand the use of PS but they are learning. Am I missing something here or do some people just have a tough time excepting new information and change. I made a post on an ASMP blog the other day to answer a17 year olds question. I explained he might try HDR to solve the problems he was sharing and I got hit with several statements about how it is ruining our art. I don't get it. What do you all think?

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 18, 2010, 12:08
I love playing with HDR and have followed Trey Ratliff closely for several years.  I have a few HDR images online but all are landscapes.  The HDR images sell like landscapes ... slowly, intermittently, disappointingly.  But, HDR has allowed me to produce images that would have otherwise been impossible to expose properly ... unless I waited for the "right" light.   :P

I think most people get in trouble by overuse of the "Tonemapping" process; not the HDR blending.  Tonemapping is where the "garish" look comes from.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: vonkara on October 18, 2010, 12:08
If there is people ranting about a software that actually compensate the poor ability of digital cameras to reproduce the full spectrum of colors in a scene. Don't give them attention, they are dinosaurus.

It's true that there is people that use them at a too high level, but used wisely it make the image more accurate to the reality.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: etienjones on October 18, 2010, 12:15
As you said, HDR is just another technique that is available and can be used to whatever extent that pleases.  I personally don't care so much for the surrealist over use but find it does help in eliminating some of the deficiencies of Dynamic Range in Photography.

While working for an Architecture Photographer some years ago I was forced to replace the windows in PS with a differently exposed shot, . . .  not much fun at all and quiet time consuming.  
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: RT on October 18, 2010, 12:20
It's just another tool, if the person who created the image is happy with the end result then who are we to argue. 'Pure' photography died the day they introduced chemicals!

Slightly off topic but have a look at this guys portfolio, he uses what he decribes as the 'magic cloth', I'm sure you could probably get a similar result using HDR, personally for me it's the end result that matters and in this guys case I think the results are spectacular.

http://www.icelandaurora.com/ (http://www.icelandaurora.com/)
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on October 18, 2010, 12:35
I posted a few HDRs on Getty, some sell some don't. I like a lot these new tools. Many are a fads and tend, at least from a stock perspective, to fade quickly. But they keep life more interesting. Probably a member of the f/64 club still outraged about the selective focus fad. I've used HDR for some interior shots for clients that worked well.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: travelstock on October 18, 2010, 13:51
I have nothing against the technology, I just don't like most HDR images that I see, particularly when its used late at night when all you have is tungsten coloring through an image.

Combined with good photography technique it can produce some stunning results. 
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Randy McKown on October 18, 2010, 14:23
I don't think that HDR itself is hurting the industry. I think that 99% of the HDR images out there suck a big one and those photographers make the industry look lame. However, that has to do with bad photographers not bad technology.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Kngkyle on October 18, 2010, 14:27
I love HDR photos because they are unique and interesting to look at. The few I have sell moderately well. For me hdr just adds the wow factor. They show you the world in a way that you can't see with your own eyes. If I saw advertisements using hdr images I'd be much more likely to stop and look at them. But I guess thats just me since you never actually see that.  
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2010, 15:28
The folks who adhere to the "get it right in camera" school of thinking won't like HDR as it's a post processing approach to producing a result. I don't buy that line in any situation - it's about the final image (to me) however it is you get there.

If you're looking at journalism, then there's an additional set of issues to consider, but otherwise, I think that the image should stand or fall on the visual merits of the end result.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: ason on October 18, 2010, 15:38
I think..hohoh that hdr is some kind of a modern art of the zonesystem in color...but we just dont manage it, or have the skills to do it...
Just imagine Ansel Adams...what would he have done whit the HDR...just a thought...
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 18, 2010, 16:36
Hi All,

 Well I am glad to see we are all in agreement. I do think the posts came from some of the old time bottom feeders that still lurk the murky waters. I would love to see what Ansel would have said. We used to do a dip and dunk process back in school with our 4x5 b/w's negs. It was invented by Ansel to compress the range even more, so I think he would embrace it. What he did with the negative technically is not that much different than what we do today with digital, we just have it much easier. No more smell of fixer under my finger nails ;D

Cheers,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on October 18, 2010, 16:45
. No more smell of fixer under my finger nails ;D

Cheers,
Jonathan
But don't you miss it? I have all this darkroom gear, medium format, 4x5 enlargers, Color and condenser heads that I am realizing I have to get rid of and I can't bring myself to do it. Sigh.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: sharpshot on October 18, 2010, 17:48
I bought photomatix pro a long time ago but only started using it recently.  Will be trying some during the winter.  I like anything experimental, I would love to get a medium format digital camera for pinhole photos, they work better with larger sized film so I think the same would apply for digital.  I have been trying timelapse this year and that has been great fun.  Some of the timelapse HDR clips I have seen look amazing, something else I will be trying when I get the time.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: madelaide on October 18, 2010, 18:02
I don't think that HDR itself is hurting the industry. I think that 99% of the HDR images out there suck a big one and those photographers make the industry look lame. However, that has to do with bad photographers not bad technology.

I also think this is the reaosn why HDR gets a bad name.  People overdo it.  You may create interesting artistic images (not "stockish" perhaps), you can compensate lighting issues in high contrast scenes with a near-natural look, but if you don't do it right, you create an odd image.  And most what I've seen in HDR is not well done. Possibly the same people who don't know how to capture images properly to begin with, or maybe a matter of personal taste ("art" is very personal).

In my recent trip I took many 3-exposure shots to merge in HDR, and I played with a couple of series with very satisfying results. This is a new technique for me in fact, so I'm still learning, and my goal is to achieve natural images, not bizarre ones.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 18, 2010, 18:18
Why does it matter what anyone else says?  If you are using a tool to a successful (your definition) end, other people's opinion of the tool don't matter.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 18, 2010, 18:46
Here's a guy whose work I have admired for some time.  His posts on Flickr are almost exclusively HDR; 5 exposure images processed in Photomatix.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpn/5093458138/#sizes/o/in/contacts/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpn/5093458138/#sizes/o/in/contacts/)

I'm not sure if James Neely sells stock but he does host a lot of landscape classes.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Freedom on October 18, 2010, 18:53
Agree with Locke

Why does it matter what anyone else says?  If you are using a tool to a successful (your definition) end, other people's opinion of the tool don't matter.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: RacePhoto on October 18, 2010, 19:24
I don't think that HDR itself is hurting the industry. I think that 99% of the HDR images out there suck a big one and those photographers make the industry look lame. However, that has to do with bad photographers not bad technology.

I agree in that it's just a tool and a fad which isn't new as Jon called it. (Photoshop CS2 introduced the Merge to HDR function in 2005) Many do suck the big one. In fact it may have run it's course as a novelty effect just like the flood filter did, and now it's a useful tool for limited applications. Anything overused will eventually become a caricature of itself. :D

Yes, used properly it can solve the latitude of digital being slightly less than film. Nothing wrong with HDR, it's just that some people get all hung up on a trick and can't see past it. Digital, we can do tone mapping and make some interesting striking contrasting colorful effects. OK now I'll go back to taking "normal" looking pictures. ;)

Here's an interesting side note, and I'll drop it after that.

The idea of using several exposures to fix a too-extreme range of luminance was pioneered as early as the 1850s by Gustave Le Gray to render seascapes showing both the sky and the sea. Le Gray used one negative for the sky, and another one with a longer exposure for the sea, and combined the two in a single picture in positive.

It's not new.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 18, 2010, 20:28
 Hi All,

 Yea, I have used it a lot recently for work and love it from surreal to photo realistic. I spend a lot less time shooting an interior as apposed to having to light every nook and cranny and spend more time on the backend in my office which is cheaper and easier than spending days at a location. We just shot a new High end Condo building with 84 floors and we shot 25 shots a day of interiors, got to love that. We started dropping in a model for an exposure and lighting them then just stripping the model into the shot in post.
  Photomatix is my choice but the one good thing in the article in PDN was they mentioned some other softwares on the market that are starting to challenge Photomatix. One photographer in the article (I think it was Michael James ) said he uses different softwares for different images or different effects and does not rely on just one HDR software.
 Take a look at all the layering and masking Trey Ratcliff does and the HDR is just a small portion of his workflow. I say bring on any new app. or software and let the user decide if they like it or not. Maybe this is a good sign in PDN. There has been so much controversy over the past couple of years with Micro and Macro that this might be a sign of digging for controversy because things are starting to settle in a bit, or people are just tired of hearing about us ;)

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: louoates on October 18, 2010, 22:05
I will be using HDR more in the future. I've found that it can help resurrect some images that I had written off for one reason or another. Plus lots of play value...and sometimes it makes a winner. The best thing is that you can use it without detection in many cases.

I also agree that it is somewhat of a fad -- like some of the overused filters we can all recognize in like one second. I put HDR in the same category as pinhole, panoramic, infrared, Holga and similar techniques. At least when not used with finesse. The only time any of those fad things work is if it would have been a good photograph to start with.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 18, 2010, 22:38
Hi Louoates,

 I couldn't agree more. If it isn't a good concept or photo to begin with there is no filter that will save it, well said sir.

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: louoates on October 18, 2010, 23:07
Ansel would have been on the cutting edge of everything Photoshop...plus HDR and whatever is coming next.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on October 19, 2010, 07:57
It's just another tool, if the person who created the image is happy with the end result then who are we to argue. 'Pure' photography died the day they introduced chemicals!

Completely agree.

It's just a tool and it's up to the photographers to use it in a way or another, to obtain subtle effects or bold uninspiring exaggerated results.

Which are selling by the way... so who cares, this is microstock and I am doing it even when I am not happy with the end result if buyers are. To quote a British post-punk group, We're all prostitutes.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: grp_photo on October 19, 2010, 08:02
It's an overused tool that is all, with the right concept behind the results can be stunning but most pictures I saw rely solely on the HDR-Effect and have nothing else to offer. And the new iPhone offers HDR too ;-).
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 20, 2010, 09:52
This thread renewed my interest in HDR.  I returned to Trey Ratliff's web site for a refresher and found a 15% discount coupon for Photomatix software.  I stayed up way too late playing with it.  Much more versatile than my previous package ... Dynamic-Photo HDR.

$84.95 with discount coupon code.  Google "LostinCustoms."
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Elenathewise on October 20, 2010, 11:22
Hi All,

 Yea, I have used it a lot recently for work and love it from surreal to photo realistic. I spend a lot less time shooting an interior as apposed to having to light every nook and cranny and spend more time on the backend in my office which is cheaper and easier than spending days at a location. We just shot a new High end Condo building with 84 floors and we shot 25 shots a day of interiors, got to love that. We started dropping in a model for an exposure and lighting them then just stripping the model into the shot in post.
 

Do you have any examples to post? Would be interesting to see the end result!
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 21, 2010, 23:48
Hi Elenathewise,

 I would be happy to but to be completely honest I don't know how to upload images to the site. If some of you smart people can steer an old man the right direction I would be happy to share some examples. Can you believe I don't know how to upload a photo here :o Embarrassing!

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: RacePhoto on October 22, 2010, 00:53
Hi Elenathewise,

 I would be happy to but to be completely honest I don't know how to upload images to the site. If some of you smart people can steer an old man the right direction I would be happy to share some examples. Can you believe I don't know how to upload a photo here :o Embarrassing!

Best,
Jonathan


Don't upload, link to it from one of your storage places or use Imageshack which is FREE. I like free...  http://imageshack.us/ (http://imageshack.us/)

You never posted an image to the web before?
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 22, 2010, 00:59
Hi Race,

 Yes but other sites make it way easier. My Facebook is a snap. I am old and feeble as my memory has proven twice this week but I will give it my best. I imagine I will screw it up a couple of times but I will figure it out and show some of my HDR experiments. Thanks for the road map :)

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: RacePhoto on October 22, 2010, 01:05
Hi Race,

 Yes but other sites make it way easier. My Facebook is a snap. I am old and feeble as my memory has proven twice this week but I will give it my best. I imagine I will screw it up a couple of times but I will figure it out and show some of my HDR experiments. Thanks for the road map :)

Best,
Jonathan


I'm an old fart, so you can handle it. :D

You'll need to have the image hosted somewhere, anywhere. Then use the third button in the tool bar above "Insert Image" or just use the [ IMG] command with a link and the [/ IMG] (no space before the "I") and that will show your image in the message. It's that easy.

(http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8015/crapstocklogo.jpg)
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: louoates on October 22, 2010, 10:19
(http://www.louoates.com/images/FavoriteBlack&White/2Boots-700.jpg)

I just tried this and I think it will work.

-- another old fart
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: louoates on October 22, 2010, 10:21
By the way. The boots are not HDR.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 22, 2010, 12:28
Nice, they have a bit of an HDR look from the contrast, very cool.

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 22, 2010, 12:29
Thanks again Race, you rock!

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: astrocady on October 22, 2010, 16:53
HDR is one of many "tools" that I use when it's appropreate.  On some things it works great.  But, even when I take an HDR spread, most often I use the only the middle normal exposure shot.  When HDR works though, it can make a really great pix.

One thing I have learned, never put HDR in your keywords until AFTER it's been approved ;-)
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 25, 2010, 17:49
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/525295/525295,1287764031,3/stock-photo-dark-clouds-over-grand-teton-national-park-with-mountain-stream-in-foreground-added-emphasis-with-63509983.jpg)

Just for kicks I ran this 3 exposure image thru Photomatix and intentionally made it evident that it was HDR; submitted to SS with explanation that it was HDR in description field.  It was approved.

 ;D
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: BulBul on October 25, 2010, 18:14
not always
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Roadrunner on October 26, 2010, 09:42
The only thing I don't like about HDR is that it creates a lot of noise - even though I process it as close to normal as I can get.  I have to shrink most images to under 4 MP and use Topaz Noise reduction.  If I cut it to 4MP for stock, it usually gets rejected for "Blurry".  So I use HDR for my personal use or occasionally when doing a job for our church.

It is fun though.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: basti on October 26, 2010, 10:05
HDR does not create more noise - it does only brutal use of Photomatix. In fact HDR makes less noise as the random noise is averaged from several pictures.

HDR = high dynamic range - this is 32 bit image no possible to display on normal screens.

HDRI =high dynamic range image - processed (tone-mapped) 8 bit or 16 bit image made from HDR, this is normal low DR image but computed special way from HDR. If you do post process the wrong way, it will result in strange colors, halos, high noise etc. -  this is the whole problem of HDR controversy! Many ppl simply do tone-mapping the most extreme (and often awful) way. I bet you wouldnt recognize some high quality HDRI from "normal" images.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: louoates on October 26, 2010, 10:58
basti,
  Thanks for the info but I have trouble understanding it. Can you elaborate? I'd love to see some tutorials if you know of any. I have Photomatix Pro and CS5 but haven't been happy with experimenting so far. I think there is great potential in HDR or HDRI (?) -- especially with selling landscapes at art shows, etc. -- with a little more tech info.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: basti on October 27, 2010, 02:04
Well, allright - first you need to make HDR - the normal way is to stack several exposures into one HDRfile. Maximum DR range of modern DSLR is up to 13EV, but usually they struggle with dark areas. So you better make more exposures. Some ppl say 2EV steps are enough, some say 1EV - depends on situation, but I usually do 1EV steps. If you stretch the EV steps too much and then process the images the extreme way, then it will result in serious noise. And you of course need to cover whole range of the image, better have images from nearly black to nearly white. It doesnt work properly sometimes, then removing one or two too dark or too light frames and stack HDR again. For example if you doo enough light frames but just few to dark, then the result tends to be too noisy or it doesnt allow you to process towards "normal looking" result - then removing one or two light frames could help.
You can stack HDR in any program you want, I use both Photomatix and Photoshop CS3 and both have their advantages and disadvantages. Photomatix can better handle ghosting but Photoshop can handle hand-shot sequences while Photomatix usually struggle with proper aligning.

Second impotant step is to tonemap the final HDR image again into something "visible" - the tonemapped result is usually called HDRI. Generally tonemapping is some special algorithm, which chooses some of the pixels to push 20-30EV DR into 8bit reality which in best case provides about 8EV. (here we go, btw. DR of most current DSLRs is far ahead from printers which can do just 8 EV with good ink and paper) If you do not enough frames, too wide steps between frames or push it too much into extreme look then the noise will appear. Its no beacuse of HDRI being noisy - its because you push the image over the limit. Pushing RAW too much delivers the same result, especially pushing exposure up.
The trick with noise works this way: You have one image with random noise pixels - but if you stack 5 pictures, then well, the noise pixels are not on the same places. Tonemaping algorithm is usually smart enough to make average result = so if you have pixel dot on one frame and not on eg. 4 other frames, it will throw away the noisy pixel. Of course the more frames, the better result. I did some pictures shot on iso 800 which in result have less noise then iso 100. It could be done even with Photomatix, but you need enough frames, better tight steps and no extreme pushing. Photoshop CS5 has great options for HDR tonemapping unlike CS3, but still it is far from easy use of Photomatix.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: louoates on October 27, 2010, 08:04
Thanks basti. You cleared up lots of questions I had. Will try both programs again.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: madelaide on October 27, 2010, 09:47
I have recently taken several series of 3 shots using +-2/3EV. I'll see if I have time tonight to do one of these series calmy and post it here.  So far I only did a trial, without proper alignment and without playing much with the settings, but I was pleased with the results. One problem I found was with the vegetation, because always something move - an issue only for microstock's obsessions, but not for printing or artistic applications.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: madelaide on October 27, 2010, 17:00
So here we go, first example, not the best series to test it, because contrast was not as high as in other series.

Anyway, three shots taken with +-1EV, edited in Dynamic Photo HDR 4.7. First example without a heavy editiong, the second with bolder colors which I believe would go well in a poster/print despite some oversaturation.  There are too many controls to play with, leading to a huge range of results.  Still have a lot to learn.  I didn't notice any significant amount of noise indeed, even in the second one.

(http://www.mariaadelaidesilva.net/photo/IMG_9410smooth.jpg)

(http://www.mariaadelaidesilva.net/photo/IMG_9410bold.jpg)
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: jbarber873 on October 27, 2010, 18:12
    To go back to the original post, I think photography goes through these fads periodically. HDR is just another in a long line. Jonathan, you may remember the Hosemaster, which was just a fiber optic bundle with a high intensity lamp shining through it. You turned off all the lights, opened the shutter and "painted" your shot with the light from the hosemaster. You could open up dark areas, or apply a blur to just one area of the shot. ( this was before photoshop). All of a sudden, everyone had these shots in their book. Then about six months later, dozens of hosemasters were for sale in the back of PDN. ( they cost a lot of money- proving that the best business to be in is selling things to photographers)
  Then there was the "shoot everything way out of focus except for one little area" fad. And the " blue and green and yellow gel on the lights " fad. And  the "shoot lights through a coke bottle " fad. And the "ring flash " phase. And the "jumping" phase.
   The real skill is to know when these techniques advance the idea you are communicating, and when they just get in the way. There was a photographer named Hiro years ago who was always the first one to use  new techniques in a high profile way, but it always made sense and helped make the image memorable. I'm all for learning new techniques, and having them in your back pocket to be used at the right time. Just not all the time.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: Jonathan Ross on October 29, 2010, 05:53
 Hi jbarber873,

HA! I have one in the garage, I've even thought of doing some static portraits lately with it. Arron Jones was the rage now Trey Ratcliff. The hose was fun but boy did we burn through Polaroid's ;D

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: leaf on October 29, 2010, 06:16
This discussion reminded me of an article I read about autotune... (which I wish I could find now :()

But anyhow the basic idea was that autotune was a great invention and had lots of great uses.  Then as with all good things it became overused, then WAY overused.  Sometimes the overuse became a trend in itself like with T-Pain (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tpain&aq=f) using it heavily on EVERY song or Shmoyoho (http://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho) using it to create their own songs out of news and other types of content. .. but mostly it just gets overused... but it is still a great tool in moderation

So I feel that is very similar to HDR, it is very usefull but people have overused it very often, giving it a bad name.  When you hear HDR you generally think of some gaudy photo with horribly merged dark and light areas.  I suppose this happens when we discover any new technology, we tend to overuse it then eventually bring the use back to something more reasonable. 

Everything in moderation!
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 29, 2010, 10:32
This discussion reminded me of an article I read about autotune... (which I wish I could find now :()

But anyhow the basic idea was that autotune was a great invention and had lots of great uses.  Then as with all good things it became overused, then WAY overused.  Sometimes the overuse became a trend in itself like with T-Pain ([url]http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tpain&aq=f[/url]) using it heavily on EVERY song or Shmoyoho ([url]http://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho[/url]) using it to create their own songs out of news and other types of content. .. but mostly it just gets overused... but it is still a great tool in moderation

So I feel that is very similar to HDR, it is very usefull but people have overused it very often, giving it a bad name.  When you hear HDR you generally think of some gaudy photo with horribly merged dark and light areas.  I suppose this happens when we discover any new technology, we tend to overuse it then eventually bring the use back to something more reasonable. 

Everything in moderation!


Do you think Digital Photography will REALLY replace film?   ??? ;D
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: jbarber873 on October 29, 2010, 18:35
This discussion reminded me of an article I read about autotune... (which I wish I could find now :()

But anyhow the basic idea was that autotune was a great invention and had lots of great uses.  Then as with all good things it became overused, then WAY overused.  Sometimes the overuse became a trend in itself like with T-Pain ([url]http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tpain&aq=f[/url]) using it heavily on EVERY song or Shmoyoho ([url]http://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho[/url]) using it to create their own songs out of news and other types of content. .. but mostly it just gets overused... but it is still a great tool in moderation

So I feel that is very similar to HDR, it is very usefull but people have overused it very often, giving it a bad name.  When you hear HDR you generally think of some gaudy photo with horribly merged dark and light areas.  I suppose this happens when we discover any new technology, we tend to overuse it then eventually bring the use back to something more reasonable. 

Everything in moderation!


Do you think Digital Photography will REALLY replace film?   ??? ;D


   i used to joke to my clients that one day they would invent a helmet that you put on your head and think of a photo, and it would pop out of the machine, eliminating the photographer. ( this was way before digital).
I don't make that joke anymore ;D
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: madelaide on October 29, 2010, 18:40
Do you think Digital Photography will REALLY replace film?   ??? ;D

Well, I miss Velvia...
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: vonkara on October 29, 2010, 18:54
My first camera was a Nikon F75. The sale woman told me the digital camera would never beat the film camera. I think about it today and feel it was kind of awkward. 1 year later I had a Nikon D70s
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: jbarber873 on October 30, 2010, 08:58
My first camera was a Nikon F75. The sale woman told me the digital camera would never beat the film camera. I think about it today and feel it was kind of awkward. 1 year later I had a Nikon D70s

You got away easy. My first digital camera was a Leaf DCB 2 camera. It cost $36,000. I had to drag my clients into shooting digitally. They all thought film was better. This was 1996. About 2 years later, I shot my last sheet of film. The point is that in photography you have to try to be out ahead of where the business is going, or you get left behind. All of my competitors who didn't get into digital are out of business. To bring it back to HDR, it's a technique to learn and know about, and to use in the right circumstance, but it's not something to base your whole look or style on, because when the buyers get tired of it, they will get tired in a big way.
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 30, 2010, 17:08
My first camera was a Nikon F75. The sale woman told me the digital camera would never beat the film camera. I think about it today and feel it was kind of awkward. 1 year later I had a Nikon D70s

You got away easy. My first digital camera was a Leaf DCB 2 camera. It cost $36,000. I had to drag my clients into shooting digitally. They all thought film was better. This was 1996. About 2 years later, I shot my last sheet of film. The point is that in photography you have to try to be out ahead of where the business is going, or you get left behind. All of my competitors who didn't get into digital are out of business. To bring it back to HDR, it's a technique to learn and know about, and to use in the right circumstance, but it's not something to base your whole look or style on, because when the buyers get tired of it, they will get tired in a big way.

Isn't that true of nearly everything a photographer learns or develops?
Title: Re: HDR: Why all the controversy
Post by: jbarber873 on October 30, 2010, 20:55
My first camera was a Nikon F75. The sale woman told me the digital camera would never beat the film camera. I think about it today and feel it was kind of awkward. 1 year later I had a Nikon D70s

You got away easy. My first digital camera was a Leaf DCB 2 camera. It cost $36,000. I had to drag my clients into shooting digitally. They all thought film was better. This was 1996. About 2 years later, I shot my last sheet of film. The point is that in photography you have to try to be out ahead of where the business is going, or you get left behind. All of my competitors who didn't get into digital are out of business. To bring it back to HDR, it's a technique to learn and know about, and to use in the right circumstance, but it's not something to base your whole look or style on, because when the buyers get tired of it, they will get tired in a big way.


Isn't that true of nearly everything a photographer learns or develops?

Yes