Are you guilty of any of these
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
HDR is a feking usefull tool and sometimes the only way of getting a shot looking like it should.
We really need two descriptions for HDR. One is as like Get, myself and probably you use it (to blend exposures to try to make a scene look more accurately represented) and another is where you want a 'special effect'.I think this quote from Robert Haas's book 'Special Effects Photography' pretty much sums up my attitude to much of the stuff that guy rants about:
"A really special effect in a photograph should show itself not just as a clever technique, but rather as something operating in conjunction with the photograph's subject that strengthens the total image in such a way that if you were to take one element away, then the picture would be effectively weaker. One element should to all intents and purposes rely on the other. Since simplicity is so important in a great photograph, it is very difficult in most cases to use a specialized method or technique in a photograph without actually obscuring or utterly destroying the feel of the subject. Applied judiciousness is as important as applied science. Progress may be slow as long as it is sure in this respect, and a jump in at the deep end, in photographic terms, could be your last one."
"A really special effect in a photograph should show itself not just as a clever technique, but rather as something operating in conjunction with the photograph's subject that strengthens the total image in such a way that if you were to take one element away, then the picture would be effectively weaker. One element should to all intents and purposes rely on the other. Since simplicity is so important in a great photograph, it is very difficult in most cases to use a specialized method or technique in a photograph without actually obscuring or utterly destroying the feel of the subject. Applied judiciousness is as important as applied science. Progress may be slow as long as it is sure in this respect, and a jump in at the deep end, in photographic terms, could be your last one."
The Young Simpo discovered Cokin in about 1984 and set off armed with an SLR, a few graduated filters and a Star 4. For some time almost every photo he took used one or both of these and he marvelled at the filtered graduatedness and star-fouryness of the resulting prints. And then one day instead of seeing a cool photo, he thought not of the nice E-Type or ducks or whatever was hiding beneath, but thought 'Graduated tobacco and a Star 4'. And they never came out again.
So yes, if you think of the effect before the image, it's probably too much.
So yes, if you think of the effect before the image, it's probably too much.
I think some of those photos are a right of passage for any new photographer. The long exposures example apply more to me than the others. I've never done HDR as it's usually poorly executed and overly used. Anyway, it's part of learning how to take good original photos. We could all look back through our flickr stream and question why we ever uploaded those first pics we took on our first SLR because they are crap.
Apart from that I do agree with him, most of those styles are over used and naff. Guilty as charged.
Apart from that I do agree with him, most of those styles are over used and naff. Guilty as charged.
Bacardi said:
Surely, you must have had the 'rainbow' one as well?
Don't recall that one! I do remember their catalogue with hundreds of different filters and examples, but from memory I had:Yellow
Sepia
Blue (for tungsten light)
Grad tobacco
Grad purple
Soft focus
Double exposure (the camera was able to re-cock without winding the film on)
Star 4
And the box to put them in. When everything went digital they all went on eBay and to my surprise sold remarkably well.
(Actually they may have been bought by the Top Gear production team, who seem to set their kit to 'Grad tobacco, vignette' and then knob came off...)
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 4th April 12:52
Simpo Two said:
We really need two descriptions for HDR. One is as like Get, myself and probably you use it (to blend exposures to try to make a scene look more accurately represented) and another is where you want a 'special effect'.
Simpo - can you be arsed to tell us how you do an HDR please ? MY HDRs come out looking like I've tried to get a fancy effect even when I'm just trying to do something sensible
(BTW - I use Photomatix to combine typically 3 bracketted shots, 1.5-2 stops apart).RobDickinson said:
HDR is a feking usefull tool and sometimes the only way of getting a shot looking like it should.
Agreed, the example in the link is an extreme shot and is nothing like the HDR stuff mainly seen in this forum.As has been said, the "trick" has to add to the photo rather than be the focus of the photo.
dibbly dobbler said:
Simpo - can you be arsed to tell us how you do an HDR please ?
I work from one RAW file (it being impossible to bracket when the subject is moving) and process it twice, once for highlights and once for shadows. Exceptionally I may make three versions, or make versions of different colour temperature. These are then opened in PS and the 'light' image copied over the 'dark' image. Then I erase through the highlights in the top image to get the detail from the dark image underneath, adjusting brush size and opacity as I go. Due to the nature of my work highlights are typically wedding dresses, white shirts, tablecloths and so on. In addition, with flash, things in the foreground can be brighter than things in the background, so using curves to boost dark areas allows me to even out the image fore and aft. Sometimes the scene is too complex to do manually in which case I use a layer mask technique I found on the net and learned parrot-fashion (it seems impervious to PS actions) - it can do a remarkable job.Amusingly the resulting histogram goes off both ends, even though nothing is visibly clipped.
So I'm not looking for a special effect, just to wring the pips out of the exposure. Nobody knows what's gone into it of course, they just say 'That's nice'. Which is what counts ATEOTD
Bacardi said:
I'm disappointed. It's very you. I think you'll have to reinvest to liven up your wedding snaps.
It would look nice round some of your boring door handles too!Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 4th April 13:20
Is the writer of that artical 14? He reminds me of one of those kids that shouts at his games console. How sad.
Some photographers want to take pure, technical pictures using their vast experience and knowledge.
Some just want to take great images. HDR, RAW, long exposure of water, lots of photoshopping allows the person who took the photo to create a cool image.
Yes the holding up the Tower of Pisa is the equivelant of dogs playing poker, but if it pleases the person with the camera then so what?
The only thing I hate is photo snobs.
Some photographers want to take pure, technical pictures using their vast experience and knowledge.
Some just want to take great images. HDR, RAW, long exposure of water, lots of photoshopping allows the person who took the photo to create a cool image.
Yes the holding up the Tower of Pisa is the equivelant of dogs playing poker, but if it pleases the person with the camera then so what?
The only thing I hate is photo snobs.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff