HDR for RTF

[ebiggs1]

Some are 'ordinary' aren't they?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Some are 'ordinary' aren't they?

---

This one looks a little soft to me, but we'll overlook that because it's hardly the point. These qualify as good HDR shots because it's not obvious why HDR was needed. The HDR shots that I disparage are those that look artificial but have little or no redeeming artistic value. These do look natural, presumably because the technology made them so.

[ebiggs1]

RTF,

Might be a little soft because it was hand held.  Plus there was almost no light besides the tree.  Real photographers find a way!  

[Waddizzle]

Ernie, you should post these [and your others like the power lines] in the "Share Your Photos" forum, too.  I don't think that there is an HDR thread, yet.  All the photos that RTF says he dislikes.

Here's a shot that I'm still trying to figure out what I could have done better.  Multiple WB settings and [wide] Dynamic Range everywhere.

[ebiggs1]

"I don't think that there is an HDR thread, yet."

Perhaps you or I should remedy that.

 But this thread was to show RTF that HDR can be and is used in places where most people are not even aware.  HDR is not only for stills either.  It is in video and I suspect there will be video HDR 3D sooner than later.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I don't think that there is an HDR thread, yet."

Perhaps you or I should remedy that.

 But this thread was to show RTF that HDR can be and is used in places where most people are not even aware.  HDR is not only for stills either.  It is in video and I suspect there will be video HDR 3D sooner than later.

---

But Ernie, I've been saying all along that HDR's forte is to produce pictures in which you don't notice that the technique has been used. The French horn and the Christmas tree are two such, and you've shown us several others of that sort as well. The HDR shots I don't like are those that come out looking unnatural, but provide no artistic justification for that look. Yes, such artistic judgements are subjective, and others may make them differently. But when one puts such a picture out there, one has to recognize that it may not gain universal acclaim.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I don't think that there is an HDR thread, yet."

Perhaps you or I should remedy that.

 But this thread was to show RTF that HDR can be and is used in places where most people are not even aware.  HDR is not only for stills either.  It is in video and I suspect there will be video HDR 3D sooner than later.

---

But Ernie, I've been saying all along that HDR's forte is to produce pictures in which you don't notice that the technique has been used. The French horn and the Christmas tree are two such, and you've shown us several others of that sort as well. The HDR shots I don't like are those that come out looking unnatural, but provide no artistic justification for that look. Yes, such artistic judgements are subjective, and others may make them differently. But when one puts such a picture out there, one has to recognize that it may not gain universal acclaim.

---

I tend to agree with you on the special artistic effects.  Similar effects can be introduced ot any photo, not just HDR composites.  I'm not a big fan of some types of special effects because they break the "less is more" principle. 

But, in some cases the exaggerated effects do work pretty effectively.  The special effects fall short when people try to make the end result still look like a photograph, IMHO. 

[ebiggs1]

Man from Boston,

Just toying with ya Robert! 

Did this one especially for you.  Enjoy...............................

[ebiggs1]

Whoops sorry I mean this one!  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Whoops sorry I mean this one!  

---

Much better, I guess. But what happened to the horizon? It was straighter in the garish one you didn't mean to send!

[ebiggs1]

"It was straighter in the garish one you didn't mean to send!"

Gosh, you guys are hard!