Prev: New archive DVDs...
Next: [review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby
From: Rich on 18 Nov 2009 22:09
We keep hearing as responses that HDR "should" look good if it's done
properly, and yet we see so few examples of this.
HDR is to digital imaging what Velvia is to film-only worse.
From: rwalker on 18 Nov 2009 22:37
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:23:48 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

snip

>
>With extreme HDR which results in an artificial look, I believe there
>are several contributing factors:
>
>1. In order to provide definition in the opened up shadows, edge
>contrast is emphasized beyond the soft edges usually found in shadows
>and shadow/light boundary areas. This is not what the eye & brain
>expects with reality.
>
>2. Saturation is off balance, with saturation applied to the newly
>revealed shadows, contrasted with desaturation in the light areas. To
>make things worse, many HDR artists then boost the saturation, and we
>end up with Kinkaide nightmares.
>
>3. The eye/brain combo does not make dynamic range adjustments to the
>entire field of view at once. The eye/brain combo adjusts as it pans
>and scans, making dynamic range adjustments on the fly. So a fully
>adjusted HDR is not what the brain expects from reality, but is fully
>prepared to tolerate (to some degree) in a one dimensional painting.
>Given that works of art are single dimension illusions of
>dimensionality and dynamic range.
>
>So it seems the key to the "grungy" HDR is hard edges and desaturation
>after multi-exposure processing. Then to get the over the top cartoon,
>up the saturation beyond a level the brain understands, or is able to
>tolerate.
>
>That is my silly opinion.

I like it. Mine seems to be a subset of yours.
From: As Misinformation Keeps Spewing Along -- sung to Over Hill Over Dale on 19 Nov 2009 00:22
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:37:53 -0500, rwalker <rwalker(a)despammed.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:23:48 -0800, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>>With extreme HDR which results in an artificial look, I believe there
>>are several contributing factors:
>>
>>1. In order to provide definition in the opened up shadows, edge
>>contrast is emphasized beyond the soft edges usually found in shadows
>>and shadow/light boundary areas. This is not what the eye & brain
>>expects with reality.
>>
>>2. Saturation is off balance, with saturation applied to the newly
>>revealed shadows, contrasted with desaturation in the light areas. To
>>make things worse, many HDR artists then boost the saturation, and we
>>end up with Kinkaide nightmares.
>>
>>3. The eye/brain combo does not make dynamic range adjustments to the
>>entire field of view at once. The eye/brain combo adjusts as it pans
>>and scans, making dynamic range adjustments on the fly. So a fully
>>adjusted HDR is not what the brain expects from reality, but is fully
>>prepared to tolerate (to some degree) in a one dimensional painting.
>>Given that works of art are single dimension illusions of
>>dimensionality and dynamic range.
>>
>>So it seems the key to the "grungy" HDR is hard edges and desaturation
>>after multi-exposure processing. Then to get the over the top cartoon,
>>up the saturation beyond a level the brain understands, or is able to
>>tolerate.
>>
>>That is my silly opinion.
>
>I like it. Mine seems to be a subset of yours.

See? Just like I told you, SavageCluck. Someone dumber than you are. Now
you're all going to believe your own misinformed guesses borne of
ignorance.

From: bucky3 on 19 Nov 2009 03:48
On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>  We keep hearing as responses that HDR "should" look good if it's done
> properly, and yet we see so few examples of this.
> HDR is to digital imaging what Velvia is to film-only worse.

Maybe if HDR is done properly, you don't realize it's HDR. I found
these examples that showed HDR results with different settings
(natural and surreal):

http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/#examples
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/HDR_ps/compare.jpg

I compare HDR to AutoTune. When AutoTune's done subtly, you won't
notice it. But people love to use AutoTune on its extreme settings for
the effect (which get old really fast).
From: bugbear on 19 Nov 2009 04:12
bucky3 wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> We keep hearing as responses that HDR "should" look good if it's done
>> properly, and yet we see so few examples of this.
>> HDR is to digital imaging what Velvia is to film-only worse.
>
> Maybe if HDR is done properly, you don't realize it's HDR.

Like breast implants.

Many people think they can spot them, because "they're obvious".

BugBear
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: New archive DVDs...
Next: [review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby