Suggestion to add an HDR category under Practice and Technique

HDR might be a good category to add to the forum. I bet it would be more popular than Aerial and Drone (22 discussions since October 2016). So how about it?

Start your own thread, maybe the Digital Darkroom section would be a good home for it.

Categories do not exist because of popularity, but for a certain logic in splitting up topics. HDR fits perfectly fine in digital darkroom, while Aerial & Drone doesn't really fit anywhere else. Plus, why would HDR be so much more popular? Seems like an assumption or a personal preference at best.

Less categories would - in my view - be better anyway. Too much niche forums doesn't help navigation one bit, and spreads the attention of members thin across all those categories, which with the reduced number of people actively contributing, seems completely counter-productive.

Isn't HDR an idea whose time has 'went'?

 

I've always felt that if you can tell it's been done, it's been done too much.

I've always felt that if you can tell it's been done, it's been done too much.

Anything can be overdone (overcooked), but HDR and tone-mapping techniques have improved greatly, without obvious artifacts. It's no longer necessary to use a tripod or avoid motion, when software (e.g., AuroraHD) can adjust for slight variations in framing and reduce or eliminate ghosting. Halos are a thing of the past.

 

That said, I don't think HDR photography merits a new category. Ordinary Q&A in an existing forum will probably suffice. Besides, the topic invites trolling, while the intensive manipulation of artists like Ansel Adams is ignored.

To the extent it pulls out detail that represents what was seen with the eye, it’s great.

Most of that can be done with the high ISO digital.

Beyond that I don’t really have great affection for it beyond an occasional artistic flair.

Just not to my taste.

Kinda like a black light poster or Elvis on velvet.

To each his own.

 

And who is this Ansel dude???

the intensive manipulation of artists like Ansel Adams

is an example of a finely honed craft, organically integrated, as opposed to a lot of hdr work which is blatant and gimmicky

is an example of a finely honed craft, organically integrated, as opposed to a lot of hdr work which is blatant and gimmicky

There was a time when car bodies were shaped by hand, pounded into wooden molds with hammers. Horses were often used to pull them out of ruts. There weren't enough car owners to pay for roads without mud and ruts. Craftsmanship, certainly. Practicality, no. Adams' singular advantage was capturing scenery not many had the resources to visit, nor the luxury of awaiting the perfect time and place. Forget, for a moment, that he was known to cut down branches and trees that didn't fit his vision.

 

One of the best uses I have found for HDR is restoring structure to a hazy or overcast sky. It can also extract color in an otherwise drab landscape, much like Velvia (which fails miserably under overcast). Landscape art is not valued for documenting reality, rather as depicting something as we prefer to remember it. There's a place for gritty representation of squalor, or flattened cans amidst weeds and mud, but not in my portfolio.

 

I could spend as much time manipulating a single image as Adams spent making a print (with the distinct advantage of doing it only once). Who would care? I derive personal pleasure in creating something attractive, and occasionally others agree.

 

The photo above is a neolithic stone circle in Ireland, taken on a lovely day typical of the Irish Spring.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

I didn't mention that this shot was an HDR rendering of a 3 shot, +/- 2 stop bracket, taken with a Sony A7Rii + 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM lens. The the eye, the sky was like an eggshell viewed from the inside. The software was AuroraHD2018.

Adams' singular advantage was capturing scenery not many had the resources to visit, nor the luxury of awaiting the perfect time and place.

 

What resources? Adams used a car to travel to many of the scenes he photographed, so there were roads leading to at least a subset of his locations. If I were you, I would have replaced the word 'resources' with 'insight' and 'luxury' with 'patience and dedication'.

 

I think, Adams also structured a lot of hands on knowledge about print making into well formed theories that benefited the next generation of photographers, to be aware of exposure and print making and quickly catch up. The fact that he pioneered it was his advantage too. In digital work, while converting many of my images to black and white I have found Adams' writings about zone system etc useful, so his works are still relevant to this day.

 

I could spend as much time manipulating a single image as Adams spent making a print (with the distinct advantage of doing it only once). Who would care?

 

If the final result justifies the time and energy spent, I think people would care, as they did in case of Adams. Anyone can spend as much time as they want on something, but at the end its the final outcome that matters. I think, Adams' vision and compositions were highly traditional and not very adventurous, but his works were highly successful in portraying what he wanted, the majesty and pristine-ness of nature and landscapes, and increase public awareness in that regard. So, at the end, people did care.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Supriyo

What resources? Adams used a car to travel to many of the scenes he photographed, so there were roads leading to at least a subset of his locations. If I were you, I would have replaced the word 'resources' with 'insight' and 'luxury' with 'patience and dedication'.

Much of Adams' work was done in the thirties and forties, when people were struggling in the Great Depression or the aftermath of global warfare, and many families did not own cars. Even in the fifties, travel was a luxury until the interstates were built late in that decade.

 

Adams' masterworks were created in the darkroom, in the printing process. Each print was hand crafted with dodging, burning, and almost certainly, dust spotting. The same efforts in Photoshop accomplish the same goals, but are often derided as "manipulation." I admire Adams as much as anyone, but recognize his was 20% vision and 80% craft.

I shoot nearly every landscape and still life with a three shot HDR bracket, +/- 2 stops. That adds 4 stops to an already impressive dynamic range of a Sony A7Riii or A9. I don't have to use HDR processing when the first shot will suffice, but it's there if I need it. I found it particularly useful in Iceland and Ireland, on probably my only occasion to visit. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

IMO, 5 and 7 shot brackets are overkill, as are 1 stop increments. If you think about it, all of Adams' 15 "zones" are covered in the 3 shot process, which takes as little as 1/2 second. Running out of space is not a problem. Even at 84 MB per image and 64 GB cards, I can take nearly 1500 image before reloading, and on a single charged battery, I can reload at least a six times (12 cards) if necessary.

 

I have three or four books by Ansel Adams, and like you, find them helpful for digital photography. In the early years, application of the Zone Method to digital photography was condemned as heresy. Like most dogma, there was little basis in fact.

OK, I understand your point better now. By the way, as far as my knowledge goes, dodging, burning and dust cleaning are not considered manipulation by almost anyone with a basic understanding of digital workflow. Even places like National Geographic who have stringent policies regarding digital manipulation allow such editing without requiring disclosure. Also as per my knowledge, Ansel Adams never did any heavy handed editing in his work, like composites, cloning objects, etc, which are deemed as serious manipulation in digital photography nowadays.

 

his was 20% vision and 80% craft.

 

I have said before that his work/composition was more traditional and less groundbreaking or adventurous in its appeal, although his craft was groundbreaking as a whole. He definitely had a vision, which was in the choice of the medium and the subject matter and combining the two to achieve the end result he envisioned. It inspired a lot of people during his time and continue to do so even now. After all, thats what vision does, isn't it. Whether Adams' work will have eternal appeal is not known, but they will always be valued as the pioneering examples of it's kind, thats my belief.

Also as per my knowledge, Ansel Adams never did any heavy handed editing in his work, like composites, cloning objects, etc, which are deemed as serious manipulation in digital photography nowadays.

In "Moon over Half Dome", how can you have a late afternoon shot with a nearly full moon directly overhead, illuminated from the opposite direction from the sun?

 

5010117-U-2.jpg

This thread is supposed to be in support of or opposition to addition of an HDR Category, not discussion of Ansel Adams work. His work will most likely continue to be be valued more than most of what the rest of us produce regardless of the methodology.

In "Moon over Half Dome", how can you have a late afternoon shot with a nearly full moon directly overhead, illuminated from the opposite direction from the sun?

 

5010117-U-2.jpg

 

The moon is not directly overhead. It's rising and looks to be relatively near the horizon.

 

See:

 

adams vision summed up by adams -

 

“the negative is comparable to the composers score and the print to its performance”

 

his vision appeals to me less as an expressive rendition of subject and more as manifestation of the beauty of the print

This thread is supposed to be in support of or opposition to addition of an HDR Category

 

Can we get back to this issue? uglyhedgehog.com e.g. has a very illuminating (pun intended) HDR section. I think is would be nice to have something like that on this forum as well.

Edited August 20, 2018 by frans_waterlander

Don't see the need for a special category for HDR. Why doesn't it simply fit within the digital darkroom forum where there's been numerous discussions about it before. Personally, I never cared for the technique though that's probably less because of the method itself, and more on choices people make when using it. Most of what I've seen of it, especially here on p.net, is atrocious.

uglyhedgehog.com

The most recent post on this topic seems to be 2015, and the earliest 2012 or so. A lot has changed since then. I used Photomatix for a long time, but once AuroraHD came out in 2017, it emerged as a clear winner. Effects range from near normal to bizarro, and everything between. If people (or things moving) are the main subject, AuroraHD does an equally artful job with tone-mapping.

 

The effects can be modified to taste, with controls that closely resemble those in Lightroom. Unlike Photomatix, you can save the 32 bit HDR master, and use it for other rendering options. There's even an adjustment that mimics the effect of polarizing filters.

 

If you don't use a tripod, the image size may vary depending on automatic adjustments for alignment. Some stitched panorama programs insist that all the frames are the same size. In that case, you can stitch single images then tone-map the results. PTGui can now handle size variations with only a warning to that effect.

 

Early versions of HDR rendering created halos around dark areas. From my example above, you can see that is no longer an issue. IMO, HDR processing makes split-ND filters obsolete. You can still create halos (or the smog effect of split-ND filters), if that floats your boat ;)

From my example above, you can see that is no longer an issue.

 

Your example appears like a natural photo, not an HDR image. In fact thats what a good HDR processing should look like in my opinion, where people can't tell that any special processing was applied. The exception is, where the halos and artifacts of HDR are used deliberately to create a surreal or special effect.

 

I don't think, a separate section on HDR is necessary, since it is and should be part of regular digital processing, as required. However, a special thread on HDR could be useful to increase awareness among members about the utility of HDR techniques (from those who are experienced) to improve an image, not to make it unnatural. Yes, I have seen many atrocious examples of HDR all over the web and PN is no exception. I think, posting good examples in a HDR thread could go a long way to show people what this technique can do when applied properly.

 

I think, HDR is a stopgap or transient technology, and future improvement in dynamic range of sensor and display devices would continue to reduce the need for multiple exposures in all but the extreme of situations.

Sony cameras are often accused of producing flat images. IMO, they are quite accurate, but that's often not what we want to see. The segment on the right is the original, and on the left, a 3-shot HDR. Better monitors may not provide the effect we desire, since the visual effect is not much different between 8 bits and 16 bits per channel. A calibrated monitor should be visually neutral.

 

HDR rendering brings out details often buried in the original. It also highlights dust spots and other variations, as we find to our detriment. Our eyes change to accommodate variations in color and illumination. A print or image is what it is, so perhaps and HDR looks more like what we remember seeing.

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

Suppose it is my monitor, or my eyes but I don't see any difference from a regular photo in either example. I have seen some remarkable macros with multiple shots combined.

A good ole polarizing filter works just fine for me.

I'm with those who don't think a separate HDR forum will work. However, I'd appreciate a thread where we can learn from one another what works and what doesn't. For example, I was in Oregon earlier this month shooting at the Tillamook Air Museum. The museum is located in a WWII blimp hangar, said to be the largest free-standing wood structure in the world. The interior was very poorly lit. I first tried a long, single exposure. After minimal processing in LR, here was the result:

 

Photographed in RAW and processed with a touch of sharpening, some noise reduction, added contrast, and a single graduated filter. Note the anti-perch bird nets hanging overhead and around the lights...

 

I wasn't sure how this would come out, so I used the in-camera HDR of my D810 to capture this (in JPG, of course):

 

 

Processed with a graduated filter (from the bottom this time), and a touch of sharpening, noise reduction, and contrast. The D810 is an amazing unit, and the outcome would certainly have been different with my older, less capable bodies. To my eye, the first image is plenty visible enough (even though the upper areas started out very dark), and gives more of a natural feel for the variably lit space, while the processing allowed visibility in the dark, poorly lit upper regions. The HDR image is more uniformly lit, and would be better as a documentary, but also required less manipulation on my part. What think you?