OverHDR-ed portraits. Are they digestible to you?

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Josh, I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't. Still, I believe that if I don't like something, I should speak it out instead of turning away and pretending it's not there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Adam, I wasn't calling you out personally. Just making a point about my own personal opinion regarding this sort of thing.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>My reaction: YUCK! </p>

<p>All the power to him, it's his vision and he should be able to do what he wants, yadi yadi yada....but, to my eyes, yuck!</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>OverHDR portraits.</p>

<p>So do we have a link to some that are done just right?</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>I don't clutter my life worrying about how other people approach their own photography. Why should I? </em></p>

<p>Ironic. You worry so much about people asking questions that are not necessarily directed at you about topics you are not interested in that you spend time cluttering your life writing to tell them that you don't like to clutter your life by responding to such questions.</p>

<p>I suppose I worry about irony.</p>

<p>Anyway, Its fun to try different techniques and all and I have my share of highly post produced imagery as a result. My opinion of HDR in portraits is that it usually seems too over the top and works well in limited situations. The kid and the chess set works best out of those example to me. Perhaps because it is more than just portrait and has other aspects to it.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>Now, it's fine to say that you don't like the way the effect looks. But it's misleading to speak of it as "right" or "wrong." It is what it is, which is a personal aesthetic choice as to how the photographer wants to portray the subject. It doesn't have to appeal to everyone.</p>

<p>That said, it is correct to apply the notion of "right" and "wrong" when these images are being referred to as "HDR." That is clearly a misnomer. The problem here is not that these photographers are making these particular aesthetic choices--it is that they are doing so and applying the "HDR" moniker as sort of a gimmick, to make that choice appear 'sexier' or more interesting than it actually is.</p>

[don_e]

<p>Don't look now, Rob, but in-camera HDR is a reality. Expect lots more like this. Photorealistic photographs, the wave of the future. Who knew?</p>

<p>To do it with film:</p>

<p>a. Take a straight photo of the subject</p>

<p>b. Make a painting (in the Photorealist style) of the photograph.</p>

<p>c. Take a straight photo of the painting.</p>

<p><br /></p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I saw a photo, I can't remember where, that someone had made of a tree root using HDR. It didn't look like those example photos in the OP link. It looked more like a tree root might appear to the naked eye. I thought that was an interesting idea. I preferred those.</p>

[mikeoday]

<p >I find myself in the minority on this one (where to be frank I often find myself ); I actually quite like most of the images you linked to Adam.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There are plenty of much better examples of this approach on Flickr. Use the "lucisarts" tag. It works well for grotesquely humorous portraits, but is being overdone. It was hip for a few minutes. Now it's a cliche.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>I did like the one of boy playing chest. It could stand to be pulled back alittle, but I like it fairly well. I also like the richness of the color in the one with the guy that has one eye closed. But just a bit over the top for my taste. Then the one with the guy showing his pit hair...well that is just never good, yuck!</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><em><strong>But most of the examples in the set you linked to are terrible examples of this generally ugly style.</strong></em><br />How refreshing to hear someone call it like it is....Ugly...with a capital U.<br>

If I ever post something like this...please contact me and get my address so you'll know where to come to shoot me in the head.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Not to worry, even if "it" (whether it's this "look" or Nehru jackets) takes, there will still be someplace like Photo.net 10-20 years from now when we'll all look back and laugh. They don't do much for me but it's not really all that important.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>it's misleading to speak of it as "right" or "wrong." It is what it is, which is <strong>a personal aesthetic choice</strong> as to how the photographer wants to portray the subject. </em><br>

<br /><em>it is correct to apply the notion of "right" and "wrong" when these images are being referred to as "HDR." That is clearly a misnomer. The problem here is not that these photographers are making these <strong>particular aesthetic choices</strong>--it is that they are doing so and applying the "HDR" moniker as sort of a gimmick, to make that choice appear 'sexier' </em><br /><em></em><br />Peter, the first paragraph in your post tells us its not appropriate to say the HDR technique is "right or wrong" because the photographer wants to use the process to make an image appear a certain way which is an 'aesthetic choice'. The second paragraph tells us it IS appropriate to say the HDR technique is "right or wrong" because the photographer wants to use the process to make an image appear in a certain way which is also, obviously, an 'aesthetic choice'.</p>

<p>So which paragraph is right and which is wrong? I choose the first.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>The first being right that is.</p>

[dkm]

<p>God those are awful.</p>

<p>That said, I've watched people struggle mightily to achieve the technique (or more often, find the plug in). Sigh.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>John--</p>

<p>The two paragraphs I wrote are not contradictory. The first discusses the appropriateness of using the terms "right" and "wrong" as it applies to the photographer's choice of expression. The second discusses the appropriateness of using these terms as it applies to the photographer's choice of nomenclature to describe what he or she is doing.</p>

<p>For instance, it is factually incorrect to state that a given photo was taken at f/2.8 when in it was actually taken at f/8. It is equally factually incorrect to apply a particular terminology to one's own photography when it is not the case. That does not mean one cannot USE a particular methodology--whatever it may be--to achieve your desired effect. All it means is you shouldn't call it something it is not.</p>

<p>Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion about the linked images. I am more concerned with the casual--and in my view, inappropriate--use of the "HDR" acronym to describe the process by which such images were made. The reason why this matters is that if you start using terms to describe your work that are not really applicable, then not only do you end up looking like an idiot, you also end up diluting and disrespecting the work of those who do in fact correctly use such terms to describe their own images, even if the product of your process is aesthetically pleasing or interesting in its own right. Maybe I should've stuck to my very first post and left it at that:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The funny thing about these photos is that they're not HDR at all.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[shaloot]

<p>*swallowed a bit of my throw up*<br>

not fan of these, not a fan at all... the kid with the chess set and the girl on the tree are the only ones that could stay in my stomach.<br>

That being said, I'm going to try it out on my own!</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>I am interested in exposure blending and/or HDR and in fact have tried to "mightily find the plug in". Didn't have to struggle as it is not that hard to find one, actually.<br>

But, I cannot digest these linked images nor do I intend to "create" those images. I just want to learn available techniques or technologies to broaden my knowledge in this hobby. In the end, like many others argue here, it is the photog's/users' discretion whether or to what extent to use such technologies or softwares, let alone to show it to the public.<br>

Personally, I think these softwares are interesting "tools" to play with and want to give it a try. Sure, I may get tired of it quick, though. I have to try to learn and to decide.<br>

Ken</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Before dismissing the technique completely, do a search for better examples of the technique. Those on that blog were among the worst I've seen, mostly hamfisted rookie attempts and used in photos that didn't lend themselves well to the technique.</p>

<p>A lot of folks using the Lucis technique seem to be trying to recreate a Norman Rockwell or Thomas Kinkade world. I guess that's fine, if it makes 'em happy. The only time I get bugged is when they submit this stuff for ratings and critiques as "street photography".</p>

<p>As a fan of all graphic arts I like what *can* be done with the effect, in skilled hands. But most of what I've seen online look like the equivalent to paint-by-numbers efforts from someone with a whole week's experience.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Don't look now, Rob, but in-camera HDR is a reality. Expect lots more like this]]</p>

<p>Don,</p>

<p>So you have direct experience with the K7 and have evaluated the output of the image files?</p>

 

[steve_swinehart]

<p>Them are "stunning portraits" alrighty....I'm stunned anyone would think they looked good...</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>I'm not sure what "in-camera HDR" is supposed to mean.</p>

<p>HDR = High Dynamic Range. As such, it is a relative term. "High" implies a comparison to another standard; for instance, it refers to the notion that the dynamic range of the captured or composite image is greater than what is normally obtainable by a device through a single exposure. If new technology enables a camera to capture greater dynamic range than previous cameras, then that's not HDR, it just means that camera has greater DR.</p>

<p>The fundamental concept behind HDR is that you use some kind of compositing technique to capture a larger dynamic range than what is obtainable in a single shot. You adjust the sensitivity to incoming light in some fashion over multiple exposures to capture overlapping but distinct subsets of dynamic range, and then remap the tones in a way that is perceptually consistent with the human visual system. This often requires a high bit depth in the digital image to preserve the expanded DR. The display of such an image may then involve the compression of the tonal range in order to properly represent the relative luminosities in the image. So the concept of "in-camera HDR" to me could only really mean that the camera does automatic exposure bracketing (more or less already present in current devices), and then composits the images in real-time with minimal or no user interaction (this has yet to be implemented but already programs like enfuse can do it on a computer). But even with all this algorithmic processing one still hasn't quite addressed the representation and display of such an image, which is a part of the HDR process.</p>

<p>HDR is a tricky technique because it attempts to statically represent what the human visual system does dynamically. That is to say, the captured image is unchanging, but our eyes and brain are biophysical systems that have evolved various "tricks" that enable us to perceive our surroundings with an unparalleled flexibility. You step out into the sun and instantly your eyes stop down, your retinas register the incoming light differently, and your brain adjusts the exposure. You step into a dark room and your irises accomodate by opening wide. Your brain does all kinds of strange and wonderful things that modern science still does not fully comprehend, when you interpret those signals coming from your eyes. This is a large part of why we can see a much larger DR than a camera can capture. To try to simulate that biological process in a single unchanging image is a tall order.</p>

[don_e]

 

 

<p>"So you have direct experience with the K7 and have evaluated the output of the image files?"</p>

<p>Nope. Not every followup to yours is a challenge to make your day.</p>

 

 

 

 

<p > </p>

 

[don_e]

<p>"I'm not sure what "in-camera HDR" is supposed to mean."</p>

<p>The Pentax K7 is has three-shot in-camera HDR capture. It is probable, I think, that it will become a common feature.</p>

<p> </p>

[astral]

<p>Sadly this sort of thing is very popular with some misguided and self-congratulatory club competition freaks in the UK - not many, but enough to potentially ruin your evening. Often the photos involve cigar-smoking Cuban women set against a backdrop of ancient Detroit rust-buckets and urban deprivation, or ageing Himalayan tribesmen with far too few teeth ..... It's a cliched technique that makes me want to reach for the brown paper bag.</p>