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

Wed Jul 8 04:35:58 EDT 2009

I mostly agree with what Kirt wrote. 
One critical note is that 'uniqueness' is very difficult anyway because of the sheer number of photos being shown on the internet. Actually think that's what a lot of photographers use HDR for: to let an ordinary photo 'stand out from the crowd'.

A while back there was a thread about TTHDR: True Tone HDR, which is meant to be as natural as possible.
I just googled for it and the first few links pointed to some galleries in Flickr that were just as unnatural (and mostly horrible) as most other HDR photography on Flickr.
The funny thing is that I'm a enthousiastic user of HDR, but I have a hard time pointing people to good HDR photography on the internet.
IMHO the main reason for this is that in Photomatix - which I suspect most people use - it's all too easy and very tempting to come up with this kind of over-the-top photography (I don't mean Rodrigo's photo, that's fairly good, although still too easily recognizable as HDR) and it's quite bit harder to get natural results. 
Anyway, here's a link that has been posted before but that is appropiate for this thread, I think:
http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~reinhard/tm_comp/flickr_hdr/Flickr%20HDR.html

Personally I get good, and I like to think natural, results with the following technique:
-I tone-map the image in Photomatix
-I open the tone-mapped image in PS and overlay the original image (the '0' exposure) on a new layer and vary the opacity to 'restore' the relative brightness levels and 'naturalness'. The chosen opacity can vary from photo to photo, usually it's somewhere in the 25-50% range.
-After that I do the usual (I guess) levels and colors adjustments.
By 'relative brightness levels' I mean to say that in most tone-mapped images the sky is often way too dark relative to the landscape, overlaying the original layer makes the sky brighter again and the foreground darker.
Here is some of my photography:
http://www.rtjacobs.nl/Theo/galleries.html
All galleries dating 2007 or later are mostly HDR. Looking back at some of the earlier HDR work I would like to redo some of that now - also because HDR software has improved considerably over the last few years.

Theo Jacobs

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Williams 
  To: 'High Dynamic Range Photography' 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:02 AM
  Subject: RE: [HDR-photo] RE: Stanford's Memorial Church in deep HDR

  This is all very interesting, but I would love to see more people share their images the way Rodrigo has.  It might help make me a better photographer, or at least, help me to see how you put your philosophy into practice.  That would be even more interesting for me than the conversation itself.

  Thanks,

  Michael

  From: hdr-photo-bounces at hdr-photography.com [mailto:hdr-photo-bounces at hdr-photography.com] On Behalf Of MK
  Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:29 PM
  To: High Dynamic Range Photography
  Subject: Re: [HDR-photo] RE: Stanford's Memorial Church in deep HDR

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20090708/78069c38/attachment.html