[HDR-photo] RE: Stanford's Memorial Church in deep HDR

[MK]

Well said, Kirt!

Not that there is anything wrong w/Rodrigo's HDR image. It's almost
impossible not to fall in love with it when you first see it. However, we
look at art not for a few seconds or minutes or days. It's there for us and
our kids and their kids and so on... Please please do not get me wrong. I am
not trying to say that what we are all doing here is wrong. No, it's
absolutely beautiful but after a while they all look the same to me.  I am
very very new on this subject. I read like there is no tomorrow just to be
able to catch up with photography. So, this "review" is coming from an
ordinary Joe with some basic knowledge of photography and its endless
sub-divisions. What I will say now is true for almost all the HDR images
that have been exaggerated just to create an HDR image; they are
interesting, refreshing, mesmerizing at first but in a short while they
start blending in with each other and little longer I look at these pictures
I don't even recall who the artists were. They all blend in just like the
way we blend in different exposures to create a single HDR image. You all
may disregard my comments as a photographer but then please consider
these words coming from an art lover. Remember 80s', we all looked the same
ridiculous way :)) So as an art lover these images are still interesting to
me for a short while however as a new photographer I truly do not want to
create same effects just like 1000s of others do. So, I guess the question
here is (at least I speak for myself) not how to create the best HDR image
but how to keep the original images the way they originally looked and then
improve some. We all have been experiencing amazing Hollywood movies that
contain mostly computer imagery and effects. We all drool when we first see
them even 2nd and 3rd but how many of us truly watch these movies with the
same excitement as we were having for the first time? Can we say the same
thing about a true black & white classic? Is it possible to create a true
"classic", "ageless" HDR image? Is it possible for people to say ohhh yes
this HDR work is Mike's and that's John's and the other three Rodrigo's like
the way we distinguish Da Vinci from Michelangelo?

Please forgive this silly beginner for being so pessimistic and/or critical
about HDR. I just wrote of my feelings about HDR. I think HDR should be used
as a tool to improve our original images not to turn them into the
same-looking HDRs.

Once again, please forgive me if I sounded like an inexperienced amateur,
because I am and I just wanted to express my feelings on this subject.

Rodrigo, this has absolutely nothing to do with your art. I know everyone is
spending endless effort, time and capital to create these images and I have
infinite respect to those individuals.

Regards,
Mike

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Kirt B. Witte <kwitte at scad.edu> wrote:

> Rodrigo... Hi.
>
> I'd say this is a nicely done HDRI image... and I agree with the other
> person's comments that 5 year ago it would be a show stopper....
>
> However, the problem I see with this shot.. and many others on the net
> (especially Flickr) is that it is overly tonemapped in my opinion. It looks
> very heavily toned... which means it looks unnaturally correct.
>
> Yes, tonemapping is a VERY subjective thing... and there is no right or
> wrong way....
>
> But, in general, I think too many people are tonemapping, not because they
> should,  but because they can!   There still needs to be (in some cases like
> this) some highlights or shadows that are blown out... even if just a
> little. The human eye recognizes and adjusts for this contrast range and
> expects it... so when it sees an image that should have high contrast, it
> makes it seem a bit flat...or unnatural.
>
> You all may not agree, but I think the best tonemapping is like the best
> Visual Effects.... the VSFX that you don't notice! If the effects (or
> tonemapping) help tell the visual story... then I think you have
> succeeded... otherwise, its just.. or can come across as some heavy-handed
> photoshop work.
>
> Who wants someone to look at their photos and the first thing they think is
> "Well, they seem to know photoshop very well!".
>
> That's not what I want people to think of when viewing my work!
>
> Anyway, my point is (for everyone in general...) not to overuse
> tonemapping.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Kirt Witte
> SCAD Visual Effects Dept.
>
>
> >Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:40:55 -0700
> >From: Rodrigo Alvarez <rodrigo.alvarez.i at gmail.com>
> >Subject: [HDR-photo] Stanford's Memorial Church in deep HDR
> >To: hdr-photo at hdr-photography.com
> >Cc: HDR_Software at yahoogroups.com
> >Message-ID: <51293F6C-2BD7-4FE0-AFC0-1DBC98F85F1B at gmail.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>  >This is my first HDR to ever come out looking with that punch I see
> a>ll around.
>  >  http://www.flickr.com/photos/countingphotons/3696363202/
> >I think the trick is getting more exposures ( in this case 9).
> >Comments and critiques are very appreciated.
> >-R
>
>
> Kirt Witte
> Professor of Visual Effects
> School of Film and Digital Media
> Savannah College of Art and Design
>
> SCAD Visual Effects Department:
> http://scad.edu/visual-effects/
>
> SCAD Visual Effects BLOG:
> http://blog.scad.edu/vsfx/
>
> Student "Hall of Fame"
> http://employeepages.scad.edu/~kwitte/html/Hall_of_Fame.html
>
> The Other Savannah
> http://theothersavannah.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HDR-photo mailing list
> HDR-photo at hdr-photography.com
> http://www.hdr-photography.com/mailman/listinfo/hdr-photo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.hdr-photography.com/pipermail/hdr-photo/attachments/20090707/cb13f813/attachment.html