[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, HDR is just that - high dynamic range, trying to capture what the human eye can see, what consumer camera sensors and film can't do (yet). It's a perfectly valid technology, and makes a lot of sense, IMO. It can add more realism to a photo, but due to technological limitations we're accustomed to see less dynamic range in a photo - thus HDR might look unreal, even if the technology is used properly. Seems we're trained that "more real" looks "less real" on paper or monitors. On the other hand, it's the tone mapping with Photomatix, DP-HDR4 and such that seems to get people overly "creative", resulting in those overblown candy-colored halo-ridden photos that have a marginal wow-factor for a second or two, but get really old really fast. Those are really too much, I can't say I like those kinds of photos. It's a young technology in the history of photography, and it has to grow up - use HDR/tone mapping responsibly. Rant over.

However you try and cheat a certain photo into making it seem like it has a higher (or lower) dynamic range, it can be done a 'life like' way, and it can be done the fake looking way.

Increasing the dynamic range itself does not make the photo look fake. It's making the photo look fake that makes the photo look fake. Heck, there are even times when a photo that looks so obviously fake, still is nice.
SO I guess I need to add a disclaimer, if the photo looks fake AND cheesy, that's when people get bored.

For example: This photo looks so fake, it's what I would call cheesy:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/69/18...37107963_b.jpg

This photo also looks fake, but it's ok for me, I still enjoy it:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/...c89ee3b5_b.jpg


If you like the fake cheesy look, that's perfectly fine. But You just have to understand that some people find it boring, overdone, and without talent. (Not saying I'm one who feels this way).

If on the other hand, you are able to push the dynamic range, without the viewer even questioning it (as if the photo just came out of the camera that way), then you have worked your magic and cheated the limited dynamic range of the camera! I try this a fair amount, and I'll be the first to admit that it's VERY hard to do right (I've had so many attempts end up looking fake).

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, HDR is just that - high dynamic range, trying to capture what the human eye can see, what consumer camera sensors and film can't do (yet). It's a perfectly valid technology, and makes a lot of sense, IMO. It can add more realism to a photo, but due to technological limitations we're accustomed to see less dynamic range in a photo - thus HDR might look unreal, even if the technology is used properly. Seems we're trained that "more real" looks "less real" on paper or monitors. On the other hand, it's the tone mapping with Photomatix, DP-HDR4 and such that seems to get people overly "creative", resulting in those overblown candy-colored halo-ridden photos that have a marginal wow-factor for a second or two, but get really old really fast. Those are really too much, I can't say I like those kinds of photos. It's a young technology in the history of photography, and it has to grow up - use HDR/tone mapping responsibly. Rant over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif However you try and cheat a certain photo into making it seem like it has a higher (or lower) dynamic range, it can be done a 'life like' way, and it can be done the fake looking way. Increasing the dynamic range itself does not make the photo look fake. It's making the photo look fake that makes the photo look fake. Heck, there are even times when a photo that looks so obviously fake, still is nice. SO I guess I need to add a disclaimer, if the photo looks fake AND cheesy, that's when people get bored. For example: This photo looks so fake, it's what I would call cheesy: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/69/18...37107963_b.jpg This photo also looks fake, but it's ok for me, I still enjoy it: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/...c89ee3b5_b.jpg If you like the fake cheesy look, that's perfectly fine. But You just have to understand that some people find it boring, overdone, and without talent. (Not saying I'm one who feels this way). If on the other hand, you are able to push the dynamic range, without the viewer even questioning it (as if the photo just came out of the camera that way), then you have worked your magic and cheated the limited dynamic range of the camera! I try this a fair amount, and I'll be the first to admit that it's VERY hard to do right (I've had so many attempts end up looking fake).

Yeah, I'm really tired of the over-baked, completely fake HDR imagery around today. I know a few people who shoot everything in HDR, for whatever reason. (Pathological fear of shadows?) Most of the HDR shots of this nature are poor photos to start, mostly because they were shot at the wrong time of day, in bad light.

 

[dj_mocok]

The other type of style that I really loathe is the one (I don't know what it's called) they (I think) suck out the saturation and then add different saturation with extra sharpening.
It makes the picture looks very dry and it's like all the life has been absorbed out of the picture. I know it's a skill but I really can't stand looking at it. I can't quite put my finger on it, but maybe some members know what I'm talking about...

 

[dfkt]

You mean color grading/color timing?

 

[dj_mocok]

Not really color grading as in enhancing the colours but more like a reverse effect and it usually makes the picture so dry and lifeless but very poppy sharp with a hint of monochrome-ish style. All I know is I can't stand that and it makes me want to puke.

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not really color grading as in enhancing the colours but more like a reverse effect and it usually makes the picture so dry and lifeless but very poppy sharp with a hint of monochrome-ish style. All I know is I can't stand that and it makes me want to puke.

I'm guessing this is what you are referring too: Creating That Dave Hill Look | DIYPhotography.net

What's interesting is that when done properly, rather than faked like you usually see it, it can be done almost entirely with lighting rather than photoshop. Now that is a skill.

It's really popular in print advertising lately, and like HDR, there's a fine line (that varies from person to person) between proper use and overdoing it.

Edit: An interesting use of this style I saw yesterday. Even if you don't like the style, the subject matter is fascinating

Portraits of Power

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not really color grading as in enhancing the colours but more like a reverse effect and it usually makes the picture so dry and lifeless but very poppy sharp with a hint of monochrome-ish style. All I know is I can't stand that and it makes me want to puke.

You don't mean mono-color, do you?:

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by devwild /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm guessing this is what you are referring too: Creating That Dave Hill Look | DIYPhotography.net What's interesting is that when done properly, rather than faked like you usually see it, it can be done almost entirely with lighting rather than photoshop. Now that is a skill. It's really popular in print advertising lately, and like HDR, there's a fine line (that varies from person to person) between proper use and overdoing it. Edit: An interesting use of this style I saw yesterday. Even if you don't like the style, the subject matter is fascinating Portraits of Power

Yeah that's the one. Ugh...

 

[dfkt]

Hahah, I've never heard of that Dave Hill before, and seems I didn't miss much. Tried that tutorial, and it's really quite a bit too much.

Original photo
My usual way of processing
From that tutorial

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hahah, I've never heard of that Dave Hill before, and seems I didn't miss much. Tried that tutorial, and it's really quite a bit too much. From that tutorial

Ouch

I've had a few photos end up like that, but instead of showing it of as the new big thing, I reset and have another go

 

[dfkt]

Time to post fake photos again, instead of discussing them.

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hahah, I've never heard of that Dave Hill before, and seems I didn't miss much. Tried that tutorial, and it's really quite a bit too much.

Be sure to note that what Dave Hill actually does and that tutorial are two different things, it's just a tip on how to imitate the appearance he goes for (personally I don't think it works very well, kinda like the earlier discussion on faking a lensbaby). I have mixed feelings about the appearance of his actual work, but there's no doubting it takes a lot more skill both in lighting and post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif From that tutorial

Yeah, that didn't work well at all

 

[GTRacer]

Here are two from tonight:

 

[unl3a5h3d]

How do you guys get the street photography shots like that? Do people not realize it or what? Thanks.

 

[GTRacer]

It's literally point and shoot. People are often too busy with their own lives. As long as you're not all creepy and secretive about it, people won't mind if you walk around with an SLR taking photos.