Photography Thread Mk. New Board

[Robo-Chachi]

Since I am trying to learn about photography, I spend a lot of time browsing on Flickr and 500px.

Why do people do use HDR? WHY?! It makes normal looking photos look as if someone ran them through one of the artistic filters on my copy of Photoshop Elements 4.0.

[wolfie]

it's one of those things where if applied effectively it can be beneficial but most people shit all over it.

as if it's a bad thing to have ANY true black or white in an image

it's pretty retarded about 90% of the time

[wolfie]

basically if you can tell its an HDR image, it's shit

[ghostguts]

[ghostguts]

The Besnard Lakes.

depth on this and other shots is sick

[viachicago]

Thanks GG. I was shooting wide open all night between the 85mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8. Even with the that and the ISO cranked it was still pretty tough getting a good exposure. It was the first time I've played around at a show so im pretty happy i got a few decent ones.

[Robo-Chachi]

Really hoping between Father's Day and my birthday next month, I can pick up a 50mm 1.8. That's an awesome shot.

Really like ghostguts shot as well.

[Damien Amadeus MetalWind]

Really hoping between Father's Day and my birthday next month, I can pick up a 50mm 1.8. That's an awesome shot.

Really like ghostguts shot as well.

do this

i have a wide angle and a couple zooms and i've used my 50mm for 99.9% of my shots over 10+ years.

[jewels]

Since I am trying to learn about photography, I spend a lot of time browsing on Flickr and 500px.

Why do people do use HDR? WHY?! It makes normal looking photos look as if someone ran them through one of the artistic filters on my copy of Photoshop Elements 4.0.

never heard of HDR until you complained about it, looked up some images tagged with HDR and they all looked awesome to me. So is this just a trick that makes everything look cool for a month or two until you are sick of it . . like a Polaroid transfer or that tilt that that makes stuff look like a model miniature?

[viachicago]

Since I am trying to learn about photography, I spend a lot of time browsing on Flickr and 500px.

Why do people do use HDR? WHY?! It makes normal looking photos look as if someone ran them through one of the artistic filters on my copy of Photoshop Elements 4.0.

never heard of HDR until you complained about it, looked up some images tagged with HDR and they all looked awesome to me. So is this just a trick that makes everything look cool for a month or two until you are sick of it . . like a Polaroid transfer or that tilt that that makes stuff look like a model miniature?

id be curious to see what images you looked at and which you considered good.

basically HDR just means that you take a whole bunch of pictures of the same scene, only with slightly different exposures. then you can go into Photoshop and stitch them together, so that you are able to get both the extreme highlights and shadows properly exposed. some people think it helps make a scene appear more lifelike, since most modern day DSLRs are still not even close to being as sensitive as the human eye.

most people just dont have any clue how to use the tool.

[jewels]

they looked considerably less lifelike, like a photo realistic painting that is impressive but clearly a painting

I was just flipping through this group http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapino/7322513824/in/pool-89888984@N00/

[viachicago]

yea theres some good and bad in there

[Buddy Glass]

To me a lot of the art of photography comes from how you expose (i.e. how you decide what to keep and what to 'throw away'), and HDR kind of negates that in the sense that you're exposing everything, so nothing falls completely into shadow or highlight. It's a certain remove from reality, where your eyes do a better job of compensating for extreme differences in light. Overt HDR feels a lot more cartoony or painterly (like a tacky Kinkade) than traditional photography in a way I don't like most of the time.

With restraint it can look pretty good though... like this one from the 'Realistic HDR' group on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncansmith/402281735/

And the softness/haziness of this one is interesting: http://www.flickr.com/photos/webfraggle ... 37592@N00/

[ITS-A-MEE]

(like a tacky Kinkade)

Thank you, was trying to figure out a way to say it and this is it. Bad HDR turns life into a Kinkade.

[jewels]

And the softness/haziness of this one is interesting: http://www.flickr.com/photos/webfraggle ... 37592@N00/

this one reminds me of a pixar background

[lettuce]

With any photographic technique I think we should also look at the subject matter/content it's being applied to. I mean, Gregory Crewdson is using a similar process, making multiple exposures of the same scene and piecing the negatives together, and is generally considered to be an important figure of contemporary photography. At its core his subject matter banal: neighborhood streets, suburban houses, empty main streets - all topics favored by a great deal of the medium's icons, but it's the small details, the glow from inside a parked car or the mist caused by a puddle evaporating or the smoke of a distant woman's cigarette that cause us to get lost in the pictures. One would imagine if we were staring out from the same spot as the camera we might only notice a fraction of the details which Crewdson has highlighted for us. His technique is used to compliment this mission. His pictures are "manipulated" only enough to get us to take notice that something peculiar is happening here, and after that we easily transition into a world of heightened clarity but one that is very possibly the world we observe around us - it's just a matter of wanting to look at it.

What I'm saying is photography as a medium has always been driven by technology and technology has always determined what kind of pictures we could make. Often times what has happened is the technology has moved faster than the ideas, so there are periods where the potential for great and thought-provoking images is there but we haven't reached that point in the analytical or conceptual realm of the medium. Obviously it's a chicken and the egg situation, as far as technology/technique and subject matter go (and it greatly depends on what subject, which technique/style/ect) and sometimes the subject comes first and the technology must "catch up" to meet it.

So HDR? In the end it's a technique that has probably not been completely expanded on or explored, and while it has been a part of some important work, it is still unknown if there will be more instances of technique and subject happily coexisting, as in Crewdsons pictures, or if it is doomed to become over saturated and deemed a blip on the radar in the eyes of the medium's historians.

[wolfie]

oh man

http://www.flickr.com/photos/juanluisno ... /lightbox/

[fraew]

I propose a contest for who can find the WORST HDR photo on flickr

[AdamThomas]

I propose a contest for who can find the WORST HDR photo on flickr

wolfie kinda nailed it

[Buddy Glass]

Anything with people is particularly egregious

I agree with lettuce's post though, I'm sure someone out there has or will put it to interesting use, I just hate the way it's typically done

[fraew]

I don't understand these HDR shots where they've effectively killed the contrast in the photo:



who finds this visually appealing?

[ITS-A-MEE]

The people who turned Kinkade into a rich man.

[ghostguts]

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont- ... -accident/

[viachicago]

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont- ... -accident/

flattering pictures make people look attractive? Who knew.

[Turner_Brown]

Tomorrow is my first big day out with the 5dmk3. Also happens to be the most challenging venue ever and a wedding no less.

Spent the last couple weeks getting used to it and setting up the custom features to my liking. So stoked about the iso performance. 3200 all day. 6400 is okay with a little work.

Some 3200 samples:

[fraew]

man thats awesome. new gen slr's are the bomb. not that my d700 isn't incred too, but maaaaann...

[fraew]

thinking im gonna sell that 24mm f2 manual focus lens i picked up, the 30mm f1.4 does the same job better in low light, even if it isn't FX. here's a couple recent live gig shots:


Goodshirt (D700 + Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC at around 800 ISO)


Sleepy Age (D700 + Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC at around 800 ISO)


Smoke. Outside Dux Live (D700 + Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC at around 800 ISO)

[Ferrous Bueller]

[Buddy Glass]

Nice. Gotta love fog.

[lost_blues]

ferrous bueller i fucking love you