On 12/1/2010 5:31 AM, SwissPace wrote:
> There are some training videos here, but I think your choice may be right, I
> hadn't tried lightzone but I see it also has a HDR feature, mind you aperture
> (and lightroom no doubt) must handle about 98 percent of required edits in
> their current form.
IM (probably not so) HO -
HDR is way oversold. (BTW, PS has it too.) Looking only at it's use to capture
natural looking scenes with high DR, I
suspect that something over 90% of the time it's used, as good or better a
result was possible with less trouble from a
proper single exposure.
It just amazes me how many people seem deathly afraid of "underexposing" with
exposure compensation. At the low ISOs
used for so many outdoor shots with high DR, most recent DSLRs and high end
compacts have quite low noise in the
shadows. Their images respond really well to pulling up the midtones in images
"shot to the right" to avoid blowing out
sky and such.
In the majority of cases where I bracket exposures, intending to later combine
them, I simply end up using (one of) the
darker one(s), and not using the bright one(s) at all. This was one of a pair
intended for HDR combination. After all, I
was using a small sensor camera that only puts out 8 bit JPEGs. The original,
which you can see in a rollover, doesn't
even come close to hitting the top of the histogram. Yet there was plenty of
data to create a balanced image, from the
deep darks to the white vent in direct sunlight.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1140a.htm>
Same thing here. If you shoot for the average brightness, the pink roses are
going to blow out.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1191as.htm>
When it comes to a large sensor DLSR, holy HDR, Batman! You can capture it all,
sky to deep shade, in one shot.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/NorthEast_2010/Southern_Maine/One_Day/3_Placid_Waters&image=_MG_2386ptlia40.jpg>
The other problem with HDR is that it's so easy to end up with something
unnatural looking. I can even do that in
bringing up the midtones and shadows without the help of HDR. I think the
problem is that our minds have strong visual
memories of what all sorts of subjects look like. When those tonal
relationships are changed too much, we know the image
looks "wrong" even if we can't say why.
Nathan's recent image of a palm on a beach and the moon may make what I'm
saying clearer. From the tonality of the palm
trunk, we immediately assume, as turns out to be the case, that is is lit not
by the moon, but by light from behind the
camera. If the same shot were taken without the extra illumination and HDRed to
make all the shadow detail visible, it
would still look like there was another source of illumination.
When working with images with high DR, I often find that the limitation is not
what I can do technically, but the limits
of what looks natural. Bring up that face in the shadows, give it realistic
contrast, etc.? Sure, but where did that
light on it come from?
As to HDR for artistic, unnatural looks, its like any other tool, some results
are great, others terrible, with lots in
between.
Really, next time you take a shot like this one, grit your teeth, dial in -1
1/3 EV and take an extra shot. Put in in
PS, use the Levels tool, pull the middle arrow to the left and see what
happens. There is more sophisticated stuff you
can do, but that may give you an idea how much tonality is hidden in the
darkish.
Opinionated HDR Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
