HDR - A dilemma

[gnwatts]

I have just recently started playing with HDR in PS CS2. Mainly I started considering HDR as a way of getting more detail in shadows and highlights in my commercial work photographing architecture. I have found, with the right combination of images, I can greatly expand the tonal range in my work, giving me more flexibility in how and when I can photograph a certain subject. I have a lot to learn about this process. My latest attempt:

41061

My personal work is another matter. I have always been satisfied working within the confines of the media I choose to work in. When I used a 4X5 view camera I chose to work with in the tonal limits of film and silver based papers. If the image was a color transparency, then I got what I got. Which is why I like B&W.

I have always found Photo Shop, and Aperture to be a lot like the process I went through with film. I could manipulate the final image much the same way as with film. (I have to be careful with saturation control, it's like candy). And I was satisfied working with in the limits of these programs using a single RAW image, processing and hopefully creating a beautiful print. I realize that I am not going to get complete detail, like you can do to a much greater extent with HDR. I guess I like the limits imposed on a single RAW file, much like a single negative. Call me old fashioned.
Is it the subject matter in an HDR image that attracts me, or is it the trippy visuals?
I am not dissing the HDR process. Trippy can be good. I have been amazed at some of the images on this web site.
It has been said that HDR is more like what you really "see". I don't think so. I have horrible eyesight.
By combining any number of images into 1 HDR image, should that image be labeled as HDR?

[dioscuriII]

I always thought HDR would be great for architectural photography. Good to see someone doing it. I use it as a tool to get great tones in my black and whites. I just don't like when people go overboard. It is a great tool for Utah's canyons where you get the light and shadow in the shots.

Good work.

[gnwatts]

Thanks dioscuriII
I have tried some B&W shots using HDR, I like what it does. It is a lot different from color HDR. A little more subtle.

[goofball]

I have always been satisfied working within the confines of the media I choose to work in. When I used a 4X5 view camera I chose to work with in the tonal limits of film and silver based papers. If the image was a color transparency, then I got what I got. Which is why I like B&W.

I have always found Photo Shop, and Aperture to be a lot like the process I went through with film. I could manipulate the final image much the same way as with film. (I have to be careful with saturation control, it's like candy). And I was satisfied working with in the limits of these programs using a single RAW image, processing and hopefully creating a beautiful print. I realize that I am not going to get complete detail, like you can do to a much greater extent with HDR. I guess I like the limits imposed on a single RAW file, much like a single negative. Call me old fashioned.
Is it the subject matter in an HDR image that attracts me, or is it the trippy visuals?
I am not dissing the HDR process. Trippy can be good. I have been amazed at some of the images on this web site.
It has been said that HDR is more like what you really "see". I don't think so. I have horrible eyesight.
By combining any number of images into 1 HDR image, should that image be labeled as HDR?

101%.

i really miss a wet dark room (except for hacking blood all one summer. hello respirator !), and was always VERY satisfied w/ my results. there is a lot one can do to expand/alter tonal range anyway w/ film, esp. b&w - pre-exposure, custom developers, gels, flashing, split contrast, bleaching, toners. i always tested each batch of film as well and ran densitometer tests so i knew exactly what i was getting each and every time, even when i'd push or pull there was no surprise in my tonal range. i think digital has really, really, really dumbed down photography a great deal. you don't need to have any knowledge of the properties of light and its effect on film teh way it was needed for color or b/w film. which is one of its appeals, but also a huge bane in my opinion. the novelty or capability of the digital process often replaces a good composition or a deeper understanding of tonal relations w/in a final image. most HDR i find very trite and/or annoying as it is sooooooo obviously overdone, the point seeming to be the process and not the final product. it just reeks of a lack of understanding when used injudiciously. but as you illustrated, for architectural purposes it can really shine !

[gnwatts]

Thanks for your comments. HDR does work really great at sunset, and getting a quick view done so I can move on to another during the short amount of time you have at that time of day is great.

I agree, and I disagree with your point.
I too feel that It might be too easy to manipulate an image, where anybody can set up the camera, fire off a half dozen bracketed shots, stuff it into a computer and have a beautiful image. I too feel that the saturation controls are overused, and some people might substitute color saturation and amazing visuals for content and form. But there were/are plenty of "photographers" that worked in film that could produce stunning photographs of nothing.

I don't miss the darkroom. At all. I spent years in my own B&W darkroom, doing some Cibachromes also. I helped an art school in Telluride build a small darkroom. We nearly shut down the sewage treatment plant, clogging it with silver, and god knows what else. Respiratory problems as you mention are problems. The chemicals required for processing and film are not sustainable, and are toxic.
You are right, films can be pushed, agitated more for contrast. Silver based paper can be chosen according to contrast. With cibachromes you could (if my memory serves me) adjust the different color filters to saturate or adjust tone.

But, you can also do these same things in Photoshop or Aperture. Aperture especially, is geared toward an old film person. The only difference now is it is quicker, and more convenient, without the health and environmental concerns. I think people learning photography should learn how to use film. My son is taking a community college class in photography, and they are going to learn how to process and print B&W. These processes are outmoded and should be looked at, IMO, as a historic way.

In architecture, which I practiced with varying degrees of success for 35 years, they said the same thing when the computer came around. It will dumb down the next wave of designers. The opposite happened. Things that took weeks to do could be done in minutes or seconds, freeing you up to concentrate on other things. You still need to have good design sense to be a good architect.

I don't believe that any technology (and digital photography is certainly not a novelty) can replace a good eye.
I really appreciate your reply.

[ibenick]

i think digital has really, really, really dumbed down photography a great deal. you don't need to have any knowledge of the properties of light and its effect on film teh way it was needed for color or b/w film.

:moses:

Much like computers dumbed down typewriters and the automobile dumbed down the horse and carriage? Sure, digital has made it so that there are lots of idiots out there that put a "Joe Blow Photography" watermark on their photos and all of the sudden they're pro photogs, but it still takes that same understanding of light and its effects on the sensor to make good pictures, be it digital or film, HDR or single exposures.

[spinesnaper]

GNWatts

I love my 4X5 as well. Lets face it, using large format is poetic. I do landscape. There is nothing like those few minutes leading to sunrise or sunset, the hardship of assembling you and your gear at a particular place, standing next to your camera, anticipating, watching the light move over the land, remetering the scene, readjusting the exposure and then exposing the film just at the right moment. Then there is the reward of getting back those big beautiful transparencies that race you back to that instant with all the light and details that you took in but did not comprehend at the time. Geeze, who has time for that.:haha: Yes I love the process and the results. I pull out the Toyo periodically but now I carry a leica M9 in the field and a plastic Joby tripod. It is a new process having so much data in a digital image.

My opinion on your question about labeling the images as HDR-forget about it. All photographic images are manipulated. That is what the media has always been about-your vision realized on paper. We are only working with a representation of reality. Labeling would just be an excuse if the image is somehow discordant. Make the image you see in your mind.

Ken

[gnwatts]

I wonder how many people actually intend to print their digital image. These days it seems that most people share on line. So that is where the media is today IMO, @ 72 DPI. Not on paper, unfortunately.

[goofball]

:moses:

Much like computers dumbed down typewriters and the automobile dumbed down the horse and carriage? Sure, digital has made it so that there are lots of idiots out there that put a "Joe Blow Photography" watermark on their photos and all of the sudden they're pro photogs, but it still takes that same understanding of light and its effects on the sensor to make good pictures, be it digital or film, HDR or single exposures.

101%

i think digital has really, really, really dumbed down photography a great deal. you don't need to have any knowledge of the properties of light and its effect on film teh way it was needed for color or b/w film.

my experience w/ film demanded hand metering. ttl systems on the canon A1 and nikon F's i used sucked. ttl systems on a dslr seem very good in my experience. all one has to do is choose their program and point n shoot. that is what i mean by dumbed down. you do not need to have any deeper knowledge than lettign the camera tell you what you get, whereas by takign the time to learn photographic principles and telling the camera what to do much better results can be obtained. digital is not any type of advance in photographic principle, it is merely a much more convenient delivery system that is much more forgiving of errors. i was taught to get it right teh first time, if i had to make post capture alterations it was because i was sloppy. i can be very sloppy w/ digital and still get good results.

[oldno7]

I wonder how many people actually intend to print their digital image. These days it seems that most people share on line. So that is where the media is today IMO, @ 72 DPI. Not on paper, unfortunately.

I make large prints often. I enjoy the framing and matting also.
I just got one back of False Kiva 24"X36" on metalic paper.
I have many in the 20"X30" range in my house.
I'm not even close to pro caliber, but I enjoy looking at the memories that are re-created through these images.
I think that is most likely the position most are in who use digital now.
The last thing I developed was probably in 1975 in high school.

[ibenick]

I make large prints often. I enjoy the framing and matting also.
I just got one back of False Kiva 24"X36" on metalic paper.
I have many in the 20"X30" range in my house.
I'm not even close to pro caliber, but I enjoy looking at the memories that are re-created through these images.
I think that is most likely the position most are in who use digital now.
The last thing I developed was probably in 1975 in high school.

Hate to derail this but what are you doing for frames, Kurt? I've been wanting to get some big ones framed but they're sooooo expensive.

[dioscuriII]

I wonder how many people actually intend to print their digital image. These days it seems that most people share on line. So that is where the media is today IMO, @ 72 DPI. Not on paper, unfortunately.

Agreed. I would love to see some of these "photographers" get a good print out of there work. I have seen pics win contests that would not make an 8x10. Small and low res hides so many flaws. Funny.

Kevin

[dioscuriII]

Hate to derail this but what are you doing for frames, Kurt? I've been wanting to get some big ones framed but they're sooooo expensive.

Pixels in Salt Lake does good work. Pricey but good. I too would love ANY input on this since I am going to start printing for next X-Mas. Anyone interested in a gallery partnership during the holidays?

Kevin

[gnwatts]

20x30, that is huge. My Canon 1DS MarkII spits out a native 11x17, I have not tried anything over 13x19 as that is the largest my printer will handle. My goal is always to get an image I can print also. In my experience, when images are corrected past a certain point, noise and lack of detail becomes apparent in a print, but will still look great on a screen. The HDR shot at the top of the post does not look as "vibrant" in a print as it does on a screen. A screen image is very difficult to emulate in print, if not impossible IMO.

[oldno7]

Hate to derail this but what are you doing for frames, Kurt? I've been wanting to get some big ones framed but they're sooooo expensive.

Been using barnwood but I need a new supply.

[oldno7]

20x30, that is huge. My Canon 1DS MarkII spits out a native 11x17, I have not tried anything over 13x19 as that is the largest my printer will handle. My goal is always to get an image I can print also. In my experience, when images are corrected past a certain point, noise and lack of detail becomes apparent in a print, but will still look great on a screen. The HDR shot at the top of the post does not look as "vibrant" in a print as it does on a screen. A screen image is very difficult to emulate in print, if not impossible IMO.

Not as huge as 24"X36":mrgreen:
With 18 megapixels to play with, the larger prints don't suffer from any serious lack of detail. At least for my old worn out eyes.
Your mark 2 should be even better I would think, even with a couple less MP.

[gnwatts]

2 shots taken @ sunrise & sunset on the same day. Sunrise @ Del Mar Jetties on the Camp Pendleton Marine Base, sunset at south Oceanside, all near San Diego.

I am trying to print these, and am having a difficult time.


41281


41280

[gnwatts]

Scanned B&W negative
Our house in Ophir, Co 1990

41282


Scanned transparency
Split Level Ruin, 1985


41283

These print much better.

[asdf]

i think digital has really, really, really dumbed down photography a great deal.

Disagree. I think the digital has raise the bar significantly. Just because it was shot on film and developed in dark room does not automatically make an image great.

Crap is Crap regardless of how its produced.

[ibenick]

Been using barnwood but I need a new supply.

By that do you mean you make your own frames using wood from a barn?

[oldno7]

By that do you mean you make your own frames using wood from a barn?

Yup

[Win]

I've seen Kurt's framing and it's really good.:2thumbs: For those of us less talented I found this site:

http://www.allbarnwood.com/

And they're in Utah!! Haven't tried them yet.

Win


Win

[dioscuriII]

I've seen some beautiful barn wood frames. I think they could look really good around a print that has been wrapped.

[Deadeye008]

Bev's Imports in Ogden sells a variety of barn wood frames. That is where we get all our personal frames and where we send all of our clients as well.