Jump to content

Separate HDR landscape category?


persechini

Recommended Posts

<p>It seems as though HDR and enhanced color saturation images look better on screen than more naturalistic images, which tend to appear "drab" by comparison. Interestingly, these same "drab" images look fine to me as prints.<br>

Perhaps more experienced hands can recommend Lightroom settings that will display images to their best effect on screen, without going overboard. I also wonder if experienced folks routinely use separate settings for on screen display and prints.<br>

I further wonder if there shouldn't be a separate category for HDR landscapes, which although often quite attractive are not naturalistic, i.e., they often look VERY different from what the photographer actually saw. While this is obviously an artistic choice, is it possible that ratings, which I hope to use to improve my photography, might be biased towards HDR images?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I also wonder if experienced folks routinely use separate settings for on screen display and prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do use different files for on-screen display and for prints. Sometimes I want the print to kind of mimic what I'm seeing on-screen which may require some changes since the screen image is back lit and the print is not. So it can require some finessing to get the print to look like what the screen image looks like. Other times, because prints to me are different from screen images, I might completely re-envision an image for a print vs. how I envisioned it for the screen. The screen and the back lighting sometimes just do not lend themselves to certain subtleties and understatements that a print does, so I will bring out different aspects of an image depending on the final format.<br>

<br>

I think we should add some categories but wouldn't be in favor of a separate HDR landscape category. I'd like to see categories kept distinct by genre and content more than process applied, though I can see some exceptions to that. There are many categories and genres of photography that are not at all represented yet on PN, so I'd like to see those established before we kind of sub-categorize what categories are already here.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I don't care for the photos that look obviously to be manipulated by the

use of HDR. I prefer to see the image more as my eye saw it (or as I think I remember seeing it). Most

times, lightening the shadows is all that is needed.

 

While there is nothing wrong with HDR, and I do not mean to discourage you from trying that. But also try

shooting RAW if you do not already, and then lighten the shadows and or blacks and see how this works for you. Works

for me, using a Canon 6D despite the negative publicity of those "terrible Canon sensors".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>HDR (high dynamic range) is more a technique than a pictorial expression.<br>

Even if many of the type of images you mention is created with the aid of a HDR tool or plugin, they do not catch the basic idea of HDR which is representing a high dynamic scene (a scene with very high over all contrast such as a sunlit landscape with deep shadows) in a much lower dynamic media (for example a JPG image) in a way where it looks as if the scene actually was captured as is (i.e. it looks as a true representation of the scene). <br>

"Artistic landscapes", "Non-naturalistic landscapes" or something like that would in my opinion be a much more descriptive category name for the images you address. This is not to say that there in any way is something wrong in making those images, but if clarification by category name was the goal, one should not use a name that (at least historically) describes the exact opposite which is making a high dynamic lit scene look as natural as possible in an image. If not, confusion will still remain.<br /><br>

<br>

Best wishes,<br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"Artistic landscapes"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>. . . would, in most cases, be a perversion of the use of a form of the term "art." "Non-naturalistic" or "software-enhanced" would be better terms. I would also agree to "faux art landscapes." and I'd be OK with a new category called "photographic excess." ;-)</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that if images are shot in raw mode with a well chosen exposure we have quite a bit of leeway for image

manipulation via the tone curve (?) without the need for HDR. Hence wondering about the idea of an HDR category. On

the other hand, if employed with subtlety I guess HDR can result in a naturalistic image, but couldn't this also be done

with a single exposure via the tone curve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"It seems as though HDR and enhanced color saturation images look better on screen than more naturalistic images, which tend to appear "drab" by comparison."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

HDR images can look completely natural, or they can make a normal landscape look like a photograph of an alien planet. It depends on how the files are processed and/or what presets were applied.<br>

<br>

Which looks "better" is a matter of individual taste. I don't care for the hyper-processed HDR look, but if you like it, that's fine. It's difficult to suggest settings, because I don't know exactly what look you want. I would guess that you start by trying different Lightroom presets for your camera and tweaking the contrast slider, but that's only a starting point.<br>

<br>

HDR landscapes, as you call them, do not need a separate category, because the concept of HDR is not new in landscape photography. Historically, HDR-like effects were be created in the black and white dark room or with the use of special "graduated" filters. In recent years, HDR software has added a convenient way of achieving a similar result. But the HDR concept has been around for a long time.<br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>HDR is only as good or bad as the person who uses it. Who says you can't use raw images for HDR? Someone above said try raw instead. I myself use raw files for HDR images. I don't like having to put filters on my lenses anymore, some won't accept filters without adapters. If you understand lighting you can combine a few images to bring out the right amount of highlights and shadows. Some HDR images are way over saturated or have too much contrast. That is a look some like, but most of us do not. A well done HDR image is magnificent, and not over-saturated. You have prob seen many of them and did not know it. <br>

I use to feel this way until I understood what HDR actually is, and how to use it right.<br>

Remember over saturating an image can be done with any program. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for all the interesting responses.<br>

I realize that for me they are two issues:<br>

(1) What is a photograph, or how does a photograph distinguish itself from other types of digital images? I am probably old fashioned in this regard, but concede that a separate category would be problematic. As someone said, a highly unnatural image can be created without HDR. Where would those go? In any event, I am sure this is a highly controversial question in the "What is art?" category.<br>

(2) How was the image I am looking at made? This is simpler to address. In fact, there are already guidelines (<a href="/photodb/manipulation">http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation</a>) recognizing that it would help folks learn from expertly produced images if what are referred to as manipulations are described in some manner. With respect to HDR, I would especially like to know when it has been applied where it is NOT obvious. A cursory examination of a few images suggests that few follow these guidelines, but I could have been misled by this small sample of images.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Firstly and briefly:<br /> I agree with Fred G: <em>“keeping categories kept distinct by genre and content more than process applied”</em><br /> Further I agree that: <em>”There are many categories and genres of photography that are not at all represented yet on PN”</em><br /> And as a general comment, for my interest and thirst for education, there are too little technical and technique descriptions supplied by many Photographers, when they submit images for either: ratings; critique; or both. <br />Of course there is always the option of engaging the Photographer and asking for details of technique, procedures and technical and shooting applications, which is probably not often done, either.<br /> <strong>But exploration of those three topics is for another thread in another forum.</strong></p>

<p>***<br /> Secondly to your question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I further wonder if there shouldn't be a separate category for HDR landscapes"<br /> "A cursory examination of a few images suggests that few follow these guidelines, [(<a href="/photodb/manipulation">http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation</a>)] but I could have been misled by this small sample of images."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your original post was, in essence twofold in its content: in one part seeking assistance regarding Post Production of images such they are rendered (more) visually appealing on screen; and in the second part, seeking opinions about "<strong>HDR</strong>" being a separate category, in the display (for ratings) of <strong>Landscape Photography</strong> Images here at Photo.net.</p>

<p>I'm only commenting on the second part of your OP and from my experience in Competitions, Editorial Submissions, Judging and similar:<br>

It's reasonably obvious that the option at Photo.net, whether to mention if any image submitted for ratings is "<em>manipulated</em>" is an<strong> honour system</strong>.</p>

<p>> Some people might choose not to honour that system.<br /> > Some might not even read down the page and see the box as an option.<br /> > Some might see the box, but not investigate the definition of "<em>manipulated</em>" and proceed assuming that their image is not manipulated.</p>

<p>Sometimes, Competition Entry Forms stipulate strict guidelines, including the ability of the Judges to require citing the <em>raw</em> file or the negative. Similarly, many Images submitted/accepted for Editorial Use have very strict Post Production conditions on the Photographer which are outlined in Editorial Policy, for example Reuters, here: <a href="http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards,_Photoshop_and_Captions#Photographers">http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards,_Photoshop_and_Captions#Photographers</a> It's occurs to me reasonably obvious that such guidelines and followup measures would be inappropriate for Image submissions, here.</p>

<p>Moreover, “<em>manipulation</em>” is not only restricted to being “<em>HDR</em>”: nor is “<em>HDR</em>” restricted only to being used for “<em>Landscape Photography</em>”. It would be cumbersome to create separate HDR sub-categories, for other categories such as: Still Life; Architecture; Fine Art; etc:</p>

<p>Even then, if we were to label an image “HDR” and have a separate sub-categories for those images, that does not exclude other images in the “non HDR” categories from being submitted even though they might have “<em>manipulation</em>” whilst still not be labelled as such.</p>

<p>I think that the honour system here, which asks the Photographer to indicate whether or not “<em>manipulation</em>” has taken place, is a simple system and more importantly the most appropriate system when <strong>considering all circumstances: </strong>even though it is probably neither strictly adhered; nor is it enforced - for various reasons, some of which are outlined above.<br /> <br /> WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...