will king

I don't remember seeing any surveys on whether or not people liked the look. The OP asked how not yay or yuck.

I never mentioned Lab. It was the OP that mentioned Lab. I stated that it couldn't be done in LR or Raw and after watching the tutorial video again, I stand by my statement. There are several layer masks and blend modes that are employed to achieve this look which simply is not available in LR or ACR.

If anyone wants to see the tutorial video for this effect, here it is:

 

http://photography.jinkyart.com.au/cj/newcolorplus.avi

Anthony, thanks for your very mature opinion on this.

 

Jeff, perhaps my response was too quick. I'd like to think I'm pretty good with LR and ACR (not on Andrew's level)and I just can't see how this look is achieved by RAW adjustments alone. Especially after seeing a video on the effect and breaking down the action. There's just too many steps performed in PS. Not to say that just because I can't, than no one can. If Andrew would like to post his suggestions, I'd certainly would be open to seeing his technique.

No, you can't replcate this look in LR or RAW. Maybe close but not close enough.

Waimea Bay, Oahu<div></div>

Kauai surf.<div></div>

Let's try that again.<div></div>

Kauai surf<div></div>

You can actually buy and download an action that will mimick this look. Some parts of the action actually coverts to cymk and back to rgb.

I just shot mine in Kauai, where some of the island is amoung the wettest on Earth. It did just fine. Since there are very large waves in the Hawaiin islands, mist and haze are very prevelant on the beaches. The 40D and my 1D Mark III performed beautifully. I just had to clean the body from all the salt residue after a day of shooting.

Yinka, I don't think it's HDR in the true sense of the spirit in which HDR it was created. The artist who created that image went way beyond high dynamic range and into illustration. I agree that digital sensors cannot capture the range that the human eye can in one exposure, and I'm all for innovation to achieve dynamic range. Having said that, the image in question goes so far beyond HDR, it's more like a cartoon. This is just my opinion of course, but I think HDR was intended to create more realism. I cannot say that image looks believable. Not to say that it's not a good attempt at creating some form of art, but calling it HDR is like calling Wild Irish Rose a fine wine.

 

Oh, and Tim, change does scare me buddy.

Charles, I agree with what you're saying. I'm all for progress and new techniques, but let's call a dog a dog and a cat a cat. This is <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/HDR-16-thumb.jpg" >HDR</a> . This, in my opinion is. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6741045" >NOT</a>

Could probably be done by perhaps sampling from another part of the body that doesn't have hair. Don't be fooled though. It will take a lot of work to make it look natutal. Probably be better by just using a razor as Patrick suggested. Wow, that's a lot of hair.

Yes, Ed the smaller the aperture the larger the star effect, but you wouldn't want to use a small aperture here because you'll get blur with moving subjects. These star filters DO create lareg tacky effects. I bought one when I first got into photography and they were even bigger and tackier than the ones in your photo.

Oh and BTW, I love Jill Greenberg's work.

Yinka, I'm glad you see it that way. Really, I wasn't trying to scold anyone for trying something new. Again, I just think some people have taken a tool like HDR went buck wild with it, which is okay, but let's not call it HDR. Just my perception, but I think HDR was designed to closer emulate what the human eye is able to see, (approximately 11 stops of light difference) Some of these images are just closer to illustration.

Lets see the arm in question.

Yinka, yes I agree. It is a big world out there and an artist has the freedom to do whatever he/she feels likes, however, critics have the same freedom to express their likes or dislikes. There's no crime in manipulated photos, and yes I have and still do it myself, but let's not fool anyone and try to pass it off as a photograph or realistic. I recently had a debate with a member on this site about what is realistic and what is well....not so believeable. Some will even go as far as stating that such images are considered unmanipulated.

 

Getting back to my main reason for the post is that HDR is no longer for creating dynamic range. It's turned into creating out of this world images. People are using one exposure and processing it through Photomatrix and calling it HDR. That's like nails down a chalkboard for me. Some of these image are interesting but most are just sloppy and repulsive. Just my opinion. Again, I'm not against it, but let's just call it what it really is: digital art.

 

Happy New Year to you and yours,

 

Will

Yes, I did what you mentioned and also increased the blacks in the upper portion to lessen the washed out look.

The sharpness is pretty good. You could add some blacks to the sky to give it more pop.<div></div>

<i> "Who are we to say what it can be used for?" </i>

<br>

<br>

Hence the acronymn. I never said one should not use it for creating cartoon like images. I was merely making an observation that HDR has shifted from High Dynamic Range to Cartoon Like Images.

Dennis, I just browsed through his photos and yes, I must say that I am impressed. When I think of HDR, that is what comes to mind and I believe that's what HDR was intended for. Thanks for the link.

Thanks Mathew. Sorry Don. I wasn't around in the 1860's.

Mathew, I'm so glad you stated that in your post regarding single exposure HDR. Agree. NO SUCH THING! Don't get me wrong. I like HDR photos if they're done properly and for what HDR was intended for, but all too often people go buck wild with HDR. I won't post anyone else'e example out of respect, but you've seen them before.

<br>

<br>

Mathew, your example is NOT too over the top, however, there does seem to be some haloing around the top of the trees.

<br>

<br>

Personally I use exposure blending to achieve dynamic range. It's a lot more work, but I find the results are worth it.

Here's a image I created using 5 exposures:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5590081" >5Exposures</a>