On 3/29/2013 9:54 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
> Here is the original middle exposure. As to what is wrong with the
> original exposure, the sun was bright and the shadows were harsh. I think
> in cases of extremes in exposure, an image which combines the best of the
> shadows and the best of the highlights beats one that is in the middle:
> http://www.pbase.com/image/149421907
I agree. I'm just not convinced that HDR is necessary to do that. The thing
with high DR digital is that one needs to
expose for the highlights, to avoid clipping. This, of necessity, pushes the
mid tones down, and looks blah out of the
camera, like this.
However, all the data needed is still there, it just needs to be put back to
rights. Even using this small, 8 bit file,
there is plenty of data to make a balanced looking scene.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Carmona_Spain.htm>
With this particular image, with the church facade in shadow, a fully balanced
form still leaves it very dark. My choice
was to bring it up to make the overall image look good. Clearly, it's not
realistic, unless the building the camera is
on has a bright white or silver wall that is reflecting light on the church. ;-)
I think it is still much more realistic looking than either of the HDR images.
Imagine what could be done with the Raw file!
NOTE: The first alteration shows what gentle re-sharpening does for visual
sharpness.
> HDR is not much different from exposing for the shadows and developing for
> the highlights!!
Well, I never did that. It seems to me, though, that the sort of HDR you have
done goes much farther. Both are artistic
interpretations, rather than just bringing "an image which combines the best of
the shadows and the best of the
highlights [and] beats one that is in the middle ".
They move the tone curve around and change colors far beyond anything that
might seem natural. Blue walls? Sepia walls?
One may like them or not, but they aren't straight.
I have seen HDR done subtly to accomplish what you suggest. OTOH, I don't see
why it is necessary in any but more
extreme cases than this. At base ISO, most contemporary higher end cameras have
enough DR to do the job in one exposure.
The primary use of HDR that I've seen is to make images look unnatural in an
interesting, hopefully appealing way. That
appears to me to be what you have done. Why not just call it what it is?
BTW, I like the PhotoMatix version the better of the two.
D.R. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|