stu-truman.. are my pics getting better??
- Thread starter Beedub
- Start date
Im actually a Creative Director; which means I don't really do any proper work and get my designers to do it these days - hence the rustiness in practice :lol: Dad is a photographer though so grew up with cameras all my life. Usually older, large format units. Was probably the only 12 year old in my county that owned and used a twin lens reflex back in the daytomscott said:
1066 Country
Byron, I started photography in 1972 with a "Zenit B" SLR camera, a handheld "Leningrad" light meter and B&W film which I used to develop and print myself. In those days, you had to understand the principles of photography to get a decent exposure and image and you couldn't afford to make too many mistakes because the materials were costly, so you had to learn fast! I got fed up of carrying the kit around so I stopped doing it for quite a while. I got a cheap (£80) Minolta Dimage Xg (3MP) about 8 years ago and started taking it everywhere with me. It rekindled my love of taking photos and so I wanted something better but it still had to be a pocket camera, so I bought a Canon G9 (12.1MP) for £250 which I took everywhere. It broke last year so I've replaced it with a Canon G1X (14.3MP) for £430, another pocket-sized camera, which goes everywhere with me.Beedub said:
I took this with the Dimage in the Mojave Desert:
The rest were taken with the Canon G9
This is mine (Silver) and friend's M Coupes
I spotted this unloved Volvo in Riga and liked the shot.
This was taken at The Ring from the viewing point at Pflantzgarten
Jembo said:
March 2014
Feb 2014
Sept 2013
Aug 2013
May 2013
March 2012
Jan 2012
Nov 2011
These are just a few though... and there are examples where the rule has been turned on it's head and it still works, but it's more of a general rule to keep in mind, once you get the hang of it you can learn what circumstances you can get away with breaking the rules.
exdos said:Byron, I started photography in 1972 with a "Zenit B" SLR camera, a handheld "Leningrad" light meter and B&W film which I used to develop and print myself. In those days, you had to understand the principles of photography to get a decent exposure and image and you couldn't afford to make too many mistakes because the materials were costly, so you had to learn fast! I got fed up of carrying the kit around so I stopped doing it for quite a while. I got a cheap (£80) Minolta Dimage Xg (3MP) about 8 years ago and started taking it everywhere with me. It rekindled my love of taking photos and so I wanted something better but it still had to be a pocket camera, so I bought a Canon G9 (12.1MP) for £250 which I took everywhere. It broke last year so I've replaced it with a Canon G1X (14.3MP) for £430, another pocket-sized camera, which goes everywhere with me.Beedub said:
I took this with the Dimage in the Mojave Desert:
The rest were taken with the Canon G9
This is mine (Silver) and friend's M Coupes
I spotted this unloved Volvo in Riga and liked the shot.
This was taken at The Ring from the viewing point at Pflantzgarten
holy s**t jon... had no idea you had photo skills like this..... the beat up volvo pic is epic.
Thanks. But to be honest it's the use of the "HDR" technique which flatters the picture. The original photo is below and as you can see it's "nothing" of a photo "as shot". Personally I love the use of HDR on some photos but IMO the technique doesn't work on every photo and the trick is knowing which ones it will work on.Beedub said:
inkey$ said:This is very quick mockup, but more the reasoning behind my composition and it's continued usage beyond a straight shot…
I think your photo with all the writing works perfectly because the photo composition is now essentially the same as the way that I edited it down.
exdos said:Thanks. But to be honest it's the use of the "HDR" technique which flatters the picture. The original photo is below and as you can see it's "nothing" of a photo "as shot". Personally I love the use of HDR on some photos but IMO the technique doesn't work on every photo and the trick is knowing which ones it will work on.Beedub said:
I actually really like this shot
The photo shouldn't become governed by the effect you use. The subject interest itself should stand strong compositionally before adding any sort of effect.
HDR stands for high dynamic range and is a cheat, as no image sensor can capture the estimated 20 stops of light the human eye can the best can get to about 12 stops like the Nikon D800. It was designed to be used in situations where the camera doesn't have enough range to cover black to white or highlight to shadow.
There is no reason why you can't use HDR on any image, but that doesn't mean that you should. Also by trying to pull HDR out of single images you usually get the standard with grey highlights and noisy shadow areas, which most HDR images are famed for.
People use HDR to get a certain look and IMO it looks a bit :? when done badly and is obvious. The whole point of editing is to get to a point where if you look at an image you would think it was natural. By the way I'm not saying any of the images posted are bad, intact I find a lot of them compelling just explaining the difference between HDR that is done for a specific situation and one that is done purely because you can.
This image is made up of 8 shots
The Lounge, Hotel & Bar, New Menu and room refurbishment, Penrith Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
Foundry-34 spring/summer new menu dessert, Penrith Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
But has non of the HDR look to it, and thats where the image should be aimed, should look natural.
You can do wonders with single images RAWs most of my fleeting images are taken with single exposures like below, but when shooting like I did above commercially I always bracket between 5-7 exposures if the location has a high dynamic range that I know the camera will struggle with. You can also combat having to use HDR by adding light or taking it away by using flashes and diffusers.
Silhouette Sunset, Ullswater, Park Foot, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
BMW Z4M Coupe CSL wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
HDR stands for high dynamic range and is a cheat, as no image sensor can capture the estimated 20 stops of light the human eye can the best can get to about 12 stops like the Nikon D800. It was designed to be used in situations where the camera doesn't have enough range to cover black to white or highlight to shadow.
There is no reason why you can't use HDR on any image, but that doesn't mean that you should. Also by trying to pull HDR out of single images you usually get the standard with grey highlights and noisy shadow areas, which most HDR images are famed for.
People use HDR to get a certain look and IMO it looks a bit :? when done badly and is obvious. The whole point of editing is to get to a point where if you look at an image you would think it was natural. By the way I'm not saying any of the images posted are bad, intact I find a lot of them compelling just explaining the difference between HDR that is done for a specific situation and one that is done purely because you can.
This image is made up of 8 shots
The Lounge, Hotel & Bar, New Menu and room refurbishment, Penrith Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on FlickrFoundry-34 spring/summer new menu dessert, Penrith Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on FlickrBut has non of the HDR look to it, and thats where the image should be aimed, should look natural.
You can do wonders with single images RAWs most of my fleeting images are taken with single exposures like below, but when shooting like I did above commercially I always bracket between 5-7 exposures if the location has a high dynamic range that I know the camera will struggle with. You can also combat having to use HDR by adding light or taking it away by using flashes and diffusers.
Silhouette Sunset, Ullswater, Park Foot, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on FlickrBMW Z4M Coupe CSL wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickrtomscott said:
Tom, I totally agree. Composition is paramount: just ask any painter of pictures. If you get the position of the subject matter wrong within a frame then the time and effort spent on the painting is completely wasted. However, in the case of a photograph, you can take several versions and use printing techniques for film, or, Photoshop etc. for digital to crop and adjust the final image to produce a decent image, but you make life a lot easier by being able to visualise the final image before you take any photo.
Again, I agree, but I don't agree that the technique should never be so discrete it should not be obvious that the photo has been produced by HDR. In the case of your 2 photos of the hotel room and the food, it wouldn't be appropriate to use HDR to stylise the image, because you are trying to portray the room and the food in "the best light" (pun intended) and you've needed to merge multiple shots to do that.tomscott said:
However, in the case of a photo taken for "art sake" I can't see what's wrong with the image shouting the fact that it has been produced by HDR provided that the image is in someway enhanced by the effect, in the same way that in the days of B&W film, a high contrast and/or grainy image is obviously "unrealistic" but highly effective as an image worth looking at with the right composition.
HDR isn't used for best light either, it is used so you have detail in the highlights and the shadows where the sensor cannot produce quality results, so by bracketing and producing numerous images you can create an image without clipping the highlights and having no information in the shadows, also increasing the quality of the image by having more tonal range by producing 32bit colour and no noise.
In the case of the interior image, the time of day was not perfect it was noon and the sun was high, the bay window was a large light source and difficult to control casting sharp shadows. So there were extreme highlights and very dark shadows, something the camera wouldn't deal with well, so by bracketing you can pull back the quality in those areas and in effect solve the limitations of the camera.
The difference in the film days is that the effect is inherent in the medium and these films were often used for specific use. HDR has become an effect almost like a photoshop filter. I don't disagree with its use but I think people can produce better images by understanding the intended use instead of emphasising the poor reputation it has.
I like the images as they haven't been pushed too far and love that pic of Inkeys Coupe!
but its images like this that give HDR a bad reputation
This is about as far as I go with a single image HDR, of Stu's car
BMW E85 Z4M Roadster, Z-fest, Z4-forum, Silverstone Classics 2013 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
There are others like breaker who make great images in a HDR style which looks unique but at the same time believable.
Im up for the photography thread
In the case of the interior image, the time of day was not perfect it was noon and the sun was high, the bay window was a large light source and difficult to control casting sharp shadows. So there were extreme highlights and very dark shadows, something the camera wouldn't deal with well, so by bracketing you can pull back the quality in those areas and in effect solve the limitations of the camera.
The difference in the film days is that the effect is inherent in the medium and these films were often used for specific use. HDR has become an effect almost like a photoshop filter. I don't disagree with its use but I think people can produce better images by understanding the intended use instead of emphasising the poor reputation it has.
I like the images as they haven't been pushed too far and love that pic of Inkeys Coupe!
but its images like this that give HDR a bad reputation
This is about as far as I go with a single image HDR, of Stu's car
BMW E85 Z4M Roadster, Z-fest, Z4-forum, Silverstone Classics 2013 by TomScottPhoto, on FlickrThere are others like breaker who make great images in a HDR style which looks unique but at the same time believable.
Im up for the photography thread