3 ms·

You made my postmodern sense tingle! I have noticed more and more cameras implementing automatic color correction resulting in orange people and color changes

You made my postmodern sense tingle! I have noticed more and more cameras implementing automatic color correction resulting in orange people and color changes while filming the same scene. I think HDR looks unnatural.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ricardobeat 14y ago
HDR can look as natural as you want. You're probably thinking of burnt-out crazy over-saturated flickr shots like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yury-prokopenko/3561920871/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/yury-prokopenko/3561920871/ligh... Or this (beyond terrible): http://www.flickr.com/photos/nik-on/4624961812/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nik-on/4624961812/ But that's the photographer's fault. HDR is just a way of compensating for lack of dynamic range in a sensor. Used correctly it should make the image more real, not less, by bringing it closer to the human eye's full dynamic range. Examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/margall69/7496881548/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/margall69/7496881548/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankspecht/4954970921/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankspecht/4954970921/lightbox... (snow and sky would be completely blown out without HDR) http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgcumming/4525129653/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgcumming/4525129653/ligh...
- PieSquared 14y ago
  Although I completely agree with your point - that HDR is a tool, and can be used for both high and low quality shots - I actually really like the second example you gave for what "bad" HDR looks like. It seemed like an artistic use with a rather gorgeous result to me. Your main point stands, though. (Disclaimer: I'm not a photographer, and the only thing I know about photography is what I learned in college computer vision courses and overheard from friends.)
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  I'm actually a photographer and I like the over-the-top HDR shots (even the example linked). It really depends on personal taste, and what it is you're after. A lot of people dismiss them because they're "unrealistic" (which they obviously are) but I ask you is an oil painting unrealistic? For example this: http://snapzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Oil-Painting5.jpg http://snapzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Oil-Painting... Clearly that is a painting, but if exactly the same picture was acquired using HDR everyone would dismiss it as being terrible? My point is that you can use HDR to get realistic looking pictures, but you can also use HDR for "artistic" reasons, like painting using your camera. A lot of photographers are dismissive of the latter because they want to pretend photography is a practical rather than artistic endeavour.
  - andrewcooke 14y ago
    wouldn't most people also think that was a pretty bad painting?
    - jjkmk 14y ago
      Not if you live in Wisconsin.
- lmm 14y ago
  HDR can look natural when used correctly, but if the camera's doing it automatically I bet we'll start to see lots of casual photographs abusing it.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ricardobeat 14y ago

HDR can look as natural as you want. You're probably thinking of burnt-out crazy over-saturated flickr shots like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yury-prokopenko/3561920871/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/yury-prokopenko/3561920871/ligh... Or this (beyond terrible): http://www.flickr.com/photos/nik-on/4624961812/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nik-on/4624961812/ But that's the photographer's fault. HDR is just a way of compensating for lack of dynamic range in a sensor. Used correctly it should make the image more real, not less, by bringing it closer to the human eye's full dynamic range. Examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/margall69/7496881548/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/margall69/7496881548/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankspecht/4954970921/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankspecht/4954970921/lightbox... (snow and sky would be completely blown out without HDR) http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgcumming/4525129653/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgcumming/4525129653/ligh...

PieSquared 14y ago
Although I completely agree with your point - that HDR is a tool, and can be used for both high and low quality shots - I actually really like the second example you gave for what "bad" HDR looks like. It seemed like an artistic use with a rather gorgeous result to me. Your main point stands, though. (Disclaimer: I'm not a photographer, and the only thing I know about photography is what I learned in college computer vision courses and overheard from friends.)
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
I'm actually a photographer and I like the over-the-top HDR shots (even the example linked). It really depends on personal taste, and what it is you're after. A lot of people dismiss them because they're "unrealistic" (which they obviously are) but I ask you is an oil painting unrealistic? For example this: http://snapzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Oil-Painting5.jpg http://snapzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Oil-Painting... Clearly that is a painting, but if exactly the same picture was acquired using HDR everyone would dismiss it as being terrible? My point is that you can use HDR to get realistic looking pictures, but you can also use HDR for "artistic" reasons, like painting using your camera. A lot of photographers are dismissive of the latter because they want to pretend photography is a practical rather than artistic endeavour.
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  wouldn't most people also think that was a pretty bad painting?
  - jjkmk 14y ago
    Not if you live in Wisconsin.
lmm 14y ago
HDR can look natural when used correctly, but if the camera's doing it automatically I bet we'll start to see lots of casual photographs abusing it.