nongai Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I don't see any of the digital images portraying HDR in it's true sense, either extreme or subtle. For me they are just under exposed and in need of processing. Here I spent 30 seconds per image tweaking levels and curves to bring out the hidden detail. And for DAL I inserted an RSJ to redress his sagging roof. I don't use Lightroom but I guess it has perspective alignment! LOL Just scratching an itch !!! Those two images of mine do look better after your 30 seconds fiddling... levels and curves is something I have never got to know when using Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fimgirl Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 In all fairness to fimgirl,the image I posted was a very low resolution Jpeg image,and so very little that could be done to it without destroying it! The reason I did post that image and ask fimgirl to edit it,was to make a point.......I actually asked for my image to be edited.Whereas,I am sure that the other two members,who's images were edited,didn't have that luxury. Taking it upon yourself to download/edit and then re-post someone else's work,just because you didn't like their post processing,is totally out of order.If the images offended you that much,then permission to edit,should of been asked first...... in my opinion! Point taken and I apologise to the two members concerned for which I'm relieved to see from their positive responses that they weren't offended. It seems therefore that it was only you that didn't see I was only trying to help, and thus felt the need to play games. But we do have history - don't we! It reminds me why I left in the first place and I must remember, that in the very unlikely event that I'll return, there are people like yourself still on the forum. Well Done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuijimmy Posted June 1, 2016 Author Share Posted June 1, 2016 Great discussion going on here guys.... I happened to look at this thread on three different monitors yesterday, each looked slightly different just because of the way the screens are calibrated.... I think everyone adjusts to their own preference (some may never calibrate!) It can make a difference to what we the actually viewer sees especially the finer details or light and dark! I did fiddle with some HDR a while back, often found with the "free programs" at least (Chrome) that it was limited adjustment factors... Sometimes the sky became over dramatic... I think this was better without the HDR effect. I can't find the original at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggy1969 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 In all fairness to fimgirl,the image I posted was a very low resolution Jpeg image,and so very little that could be done to it without destroying it! The reason I did post that image and ask fimgirl to edit it,was to make a point.......I actually asked for my image to be edited.Whereas,I am sure that the other two members,who's images were edited,didn't have that luxury. Taking it upon yourself to download/edit and then re-post someone else's work,just because you didn't like their post processing,is totally out of order.If the images offended you that much,then permission to edit,should of been asked first...... in my opinion! Point taken and I apologise to the two members concerned for which I'm relieved to see from their positive responses that they weren't offended. It seems therefore that it was only you that didn't see I was only trying to help, and thus felt the need to play games. But we do have history - don't we! It reminds me why I left in the first place and I must remember, that in the very unlikely event that I'll return, there are people like yourself still on the forum. Well Done! Paint me whichever shade of black you wish fimgirl,any 'history' between us....is of your making.Personally speaking,there would be nothing that I would like more than to see you back on the forum,your photography and editing skills are off the chart and have been any inspiration to many members on this forum,myself included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nongai Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Ideas about this? I like the colours and detail in the HDR image, but it is a pity the early morning low-flying clouds have been made more transparent losing some of their mood ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nongai Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Great discussion going on here guys.... I happened to look at this thread on three different monitors yesterday, each looked slightly different just because of the way the screens are calibrated.... I think everyone adjusts to their own preference (some may never calibrate!) It can make a difference to what we the actually viewer sees especially the finer details or light and dark! I did fiddle with some HDR a while back, often found with the "free programs" at least (Chrome) that it was limited adjustment factors... Sometimes the sky became over dramatic... I think this was better without the HDR effect. I can't find the original at the moment! I like this image... how did you achieve it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuijimmy Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 Thanks, Nongai Just using google edit in Chrome, it's fairly basic, and works sometimes, sometimes not! It gives several choices of effects, with pre-choices or using slider bars, but you cannot adjust just part of the image. All or nothing!... but that is what one gets for free! This is the original grrr .. the image size is smaller again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assurancetourix Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Great discussion going on here guys.... I think this was better without the HDR effect. I can't find the original at the moment! So I , like you; with the HDR it looks like a paint , not a photo ; I don't write it's not beautiful but I prefer the original even there are some imperfections in it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobs Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I think I agree with AT: too much is too much I like better the rendering of your original pic, Jimmy. Maybe a soft touch here and there would be ok, but the full Google thing, not my taste for sure... As well, I like better the atmosphere of your first one Nongai... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smo Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Ideas about this? I like the colours and detail in the HDR image, but it is a pity the early morning low-flying clouds have been made more transparent losing some of their mood ? Clouds, you gain some and you lose some...You've got to decide which one is more relevant to the mood of the pic. We sometimes tend to forget. Our imagination is also a very powerful tool...I myself don't want to see every single details and tend to treat negative space with deep reverence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobs Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 ...Clouds, you gain some and you lose some...You've got to decide which one is more relevant to the mood of the pic.We sometimes tend to forget. Our imagination is also a very powerful tool...I myself don't want to see every single details and tend to treat negative space with deep reverence. There are academic works and there are real life works, where feeling and emotion come first. Photography is said to be an art/expression, so a pic "has to speak" as the photographer speaks. IMHO, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manarak Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 The image is posted in the HDR thread, High Dynamic Range, the concept of which is to maximise, usually via several varying exposures, the full range of detail available in shadows, midtones and highlights. This is what I did. I opened up the image to show all available detail where possible, which is what I thought was the request. If one wants to retain the low key atmosphere of an image, why post for HDR? actually, "maximizing" all details is not the point of HDR photography. our eyes have HDR vision, and HDR photography is primarily aimed at producing images that are closer to how our eyes process what they see. So retaining the atmosphere is a key element. As wikipedia puts it, "High-dynamic-range imaging (HDRI or HDR) is a technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques. The aim is to present the human eye with a similar range of luminance to that which, through the visual system, is familiar in everyday life." and of course, a picture does not have only one HDR version... there are dozens of settings to play with, yielding a million different images. Many look bad, some look better than the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhythmworx Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 There seems to be a lot of criticism from people that don't post their photographs on this forum. Put your money where your mouth is and post some of your own, show us your exposure skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fimgirl Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 The image is posted in the HDR thread, High Dynamic Range, the concept of which is to maximise, usually via several varying exposures, the full range of detail available in shadows, midtones and highlights. This is what I did. I opened up the image to show all available detail where possible, which is what I thought was the request. If one wants to retain the low key atmosphere of an image, why post for HDR? actually, "maximizing" all details is not the point of HDR photography. our eyes have HDR vision, and HDR photography is primarily aimed at producing images that are closer to how our eyes process what they see. So retaining the atmosphere is a key element. As wikipedia puts it, "High-dynamic-range imaging (HDRI or HDR) is a technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques. The aim is to present the human eye with a similar range of luminance to that which, through the visual system, is familiar in everyday life." and of course, a picture does not have only one HDR version... there are dozens of settings to play with, yielding a million different images. Many look bad, some look better than the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fimgirl Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Our eyes do not evaluate atmosphere. That is the function of the brain and its interpretation. The eye function is solely confined to establishing detail. No more, no less. It (the eye) has no specificatly designated facility to interpret atmosphere. That's purely my take. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manarak Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Our eyes do not evaluate atmosphere. That is the function of the brain and its interpretation. The eye function is solely confined to establishing detail. No more, no less. It (the eye) has no specificatly designated facility to interpret atmosphere. That's purely my take. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary? Indeed. The brain will produce a feeling or atmosphere for the picture by interpreting the signals sent to it by the eyes... HDR is commonly used to increase a picture's realist feeling by increasing details but staying close to what the eye could see in the same situation, which does also include they way the brain interprets what the eye sees. But HDR can of course also be used to change the perceived atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assurancetourix Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 As I wrote before, I have never used HDR because I don't like the " rendu " I can see on nearly all the photos I can see on this forum; BUT only the fools never change their minds ; I knew that DXO version 9 is free until august 31 this year , so I will try it ... First link in french http://www.lesnumeriques.com/appareil-photo-numerique/jusqu-en-aout-dxo-optics-pro-9-est-gratuit-pour-windows-mac-os-n52717.html Second in german, they ask you a valid mail adress; you receive immediatly a mail from them and a link inside for downloading it ; 334 Mo http://www.dxo.com/de/profifoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi850m2 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 As I wrote before, I have never used HDR because I don't like the " rendu " I can see on nearly all the photos I can see on this forum; BUT only the fools never change their minds ; I knew that DXO version 9 is free until august 31 this year , so I will try it ... First link in french http://www.lesnumeriques.com/appareil-photo-numerique/jusqu-en-aout-dxo-optics-pro-9-est-gratuit-pour-windows-mac-os-n52717.html Second in german, they ask you a valid mail adress; you receive immediatly a mail from them and a link inside for downloading it ; 334 Mo http://www.dxo.com/de/profifoto Do you have a link to a free down-load Ver9 in English? I looked at the DXO homepage and I can only see buy options? Ohh, DXO don't support Fuji X, so can't process RAW from them, how odd man. Well I stopped shooting RAW a while back, don't spend much time fiddling with post processing my pictures, I got better things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assurancetourix Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Use the second link ( in german ); they will send a link for downloading the logiciel; when it is downloading; you can choose the language u want ; about your second remark; I agree with u; I will try it but I prefer cycle or play with my dogs than pass so many hours in front of the screen of my laptop . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi850m2 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Use the second link ( in german ); they will send a link for downloading the logiciel; when it is downloading; you can choose the language u want ; about your second remark; I agree with u; I will try it but I prefer cycle or play with my dogs than pass so many hours in front of the screen of my laptop . Yes thank you, I downloaded it and it's okay, I downloaded the manual too, so will read that when I can find the time and interest. You can also process JPG files so that is good. Fuji is considered by many to make the best JPG's and all this hype about RAW's is a bit overrated, especially for amateurs, just try shooting with the right settings in the camera and you don't have to spend hours sorting your pictures out afterward and many overdo it so it don't look like a photo anymore, but a mix of I don't know what; oil paining/photo? What did they do in the 35mm days, it was very very difficult to alter the outcome of the picture in the darkroom, only experts could do it and very keen amateurs, burning and dodging and stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangaroa67 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 I'm into manual HDR. Meaning I controlled the amount of HDR applied on every specific area of the photo. [edit] Make sure you got a good exposure on site and you can do the rest in lightroom with the right knowledge... No extra software needed at all. Stunning, DAL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangaroa67 Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 .... all this hype about RAW's is a bit overrated, especially for amateurs. Actually, the thing about RAW files is they are very forgiving. If anything, they are actually MORE useful for amateurs, as an amateur (and pros likewise) can correct amateurish mistakes, even after the image has been made. Yes, there's a bit of extra 'processing' required of a RAW image, but it's certainly worth its while. And if you shoot RAW and JPG simultaneously, you can have the best of both worlds ... the convenience of JPG's backed with a RAW 'safety-net'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi850m2 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 .... all this hype about RAW's is a bit overrated, especially for amateurs. Actually, the thing about RAW files is they are very forgiving. If anything, they are actually MORE useful for amateurs, as an amateur (and pros likewise) can correct amateurish mistakes, even after the image has been made. Yes, there's a bit of extra 'processing' required of a RAW image, but it's certainly worth its while. And if you shoot RAW and JPG simultaneously, you can have the best of both worlds ... the convenience of JPG's backed with a RAW 'safety-net'. Well I stand my ground, if I take a bad shoot, I just bin it and wont loose any sleep about it. A pro could be in trouble if he/she miss an important shot. JPG engines in cameras are quite good today (well depending on which brand off-course) and you can also alter a JPG image in post if needed be. I simply don't have the patience to sit for hours post processing my images but do a quick inspection of them after a day in the field and bin the hopeless ones and keep the better ones and then do a more careful inspection of the better ones. I sometimes bin the whole lot but try remembering what I did wrong but mostly, its just bad composition. I want my images to look pretty much as what I saw and not some kind of dream world lookalike images that not really have anything to do with the real world. Okay that is me some will off-courses see things differently, thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.