While we are on the topic of HDR.............

2

Replies

  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    Hdr's don't have to be "realistic", personally that way kinda bores me and I'd rather just "see what happens" with each image but then again I find most people like very vibrant over the top stuff so I do that more.

    Photomatix is absolutely essential
    Topaz labs has good stuff and I own just about all of them and all my images start out with their denoise
    nik has some good stuff.. viviza is great
    but the onone suite is better.

    i have a lot of HDR stuff on Facebook which is public, the purists won't like my stuff but that's fine with me ;)

    A few random ones
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    2,3,4,5, are just within my personal taste for hdr....
    however, that's just my personal opinion....and we all know about opinions....

    i have seem too many images by good photogs that use hdr to make an image "pop" without ruining the original image....
    however, it's a matter of taste and may be one that requires an acquired taste....

    don't take offense because none was intented.just personal opinion.....

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    I have to agree with Tim to an extent. I think HDR is fine as something within its own realm. I think it is often used as an excuse for a good photograph though. You see a lot of over the top HDR where the original image was ho hum boring. Put it in an editor, punch it all up, use a preset and bang, you suddenly call it art. I don't know. I'm not sure that's art. If it is, it might be the art of whoever created the preset, not who clicked on it.

    Again, though, I'm going to try it some more and see if I an strike a happy medium where it was a good image to begin with where I need more dynamic range. Let me see if I like that. I don't think I wish to use it willy nilly to get some shock value or psychodelic value like rolling the dice on a failed image.

    I can't remember where I found this, but thought it was cute. Notice the HDR hole. ;)

    stages_of.jpg
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    Craig....
    love the graph....
    i think you posted it before during one of the many changes in software...
    i love the fact that "death" is part of the equation...lol....

    i'm agree with your assesment of hdr and how most of it is over cooked....

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • FlashFlash Posts: 11,185 AG
    Is this possibly an HDR Photo?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Never seem more learned than the people you are with. Wear your learning like a pocket watch and keep it hidden. Do not pull it out to count the hours, but give the time when you are asked. --- Lord Chesterfield
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    tim... no offense taken

    To me I just don't want to take the same ole boring photos as everyone else, while I agree that some people just take better photos technically it doesn't mean they are "better" as it's all in what the photographer wants to create. If all the "regular" photographers could go out and take pics and post them and people looking would have no idea who took which photos and to me that's boring... no offense ;)

    I do photos as a hobby for myself and to sell and I don't generally sell them to other photographers I sell them to reg people and those reg people will buy an over the top, over saturated more "unique" photo over a reg one 8 out of 10 times.

    While most HDR photographers just use presets and only things like photomatix I dig in with photoshop. I will use some presets but most are done the old fashion way. I'd rather make something someone would buy over satisfying another photographer. It's like most things you can get out and do it and enjoy how you do it or spend all your time worrying about critics.
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    Gents:

    This has been an interesting thread. If everyone were to stand back and look at the forest, so to say, I believe we are talking about photography versus digital art.

    My lady, Jennifer, who some of you know through her street painting, is a life long artist. She has a wide, deep, long background in defining art and in providing art services (helping select art for those with money, corporations, museums, etc.) Also, she worked for many years as a graphic designer.

    Anyway, she and I have had an ongoing discussion (for years) about the line between photography and digital art. This discussion started a few years ago when I finally moved to digital from film. Something I did comparatively late.

    The reason I starting this discussion with Jennifer is because I could see the line becoming blurred and I wanted (for me and only me) to decide where a photo stopped and digital art starts.

    For me (and again only for me) I consider a digital photo anything I could do in the wet darkroom, i.e., burn and dodge, exposure compensation, etc.

    Once I start playing with layers in Photoshop, enter Photomatix and push the button too hard, build a composite image, etc., I consider it digital art.

    More simply, if I look at an image and it no longer looks like a photo that couple have possibly come off an emulsion, it is no longer a photo.

    Stormy, I will respectfully, disagree with you about what is a 'boring" photo and what is a good to great photo.

    Every individual will need to decide for themselves what is a photo versus digital art. As Jennifer would say, "There is no accounting for taste in art, everyone tastes differently." In my experience, that statement is true and I am glad it is. Wouldn't it be a boring place if we all liked the same thing?
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    Craig, very good and think well said reasoning we might all agree with.

    I'm not sure whether or not purchasing is a good touchstone in determining good art. For example, some over the top HDR just adds so much object glow as to no longer represent the subject matter. It reminds me of those Elvis paintings on black velvet you see selling on the side of the road. Instead of Elvis, it was often mountain scenes done in over vivid colors on a black velvet backgrond. Those paintings sold and must have sold well enough that you occasionally still see them. That mountain scene behind the sofa in your double-wide. ;-)

    Don't get me wrong. They also appeal to me sometimes, both the black velvet mountains and the over the top HDR. I'm going to make some too, when I get around to figuring it all out.

    Flash, I'm not sure that looks like HDR. I would guess that's a strobe on the cross. The sunset looks pushed though.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    Guidenet wrote: »
    I'm not sure whether or not purchasing is a good touchstone in determining good art.

    Good point. Words from Jennifer, the forty year artist, who said this about collecting art, "Just because it is for sale doesn't mean it is good and doesn't make it good. A lot of people own crap art."
  • Cane PoleCane Pole Stuart, FLAPosts: 9,841 Admiral
    Every individual will need to decide for themselves what is a photo versus digital art. As Jennifer would say, "There is no accounting for taste in art, everyone tastes differently." In my experience, that statement is true and I am glad it is. Wouldn't it be a boring place if we all liked the same thing?

    Actually, nobody needs to decide. It is what it is.

    I agree that digitally manipulating photos is way different than old-school film....but it just dont matter.

    As always, it's all in the eye!
    Live music 7 nights a week: http://www.terrafermata.com/_events
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    Flash wrote: »

    Is this possibly an HDR Photo?

    yes it is....and i like it....
    but it's not over the top....
    i have shot sunsets in cedar key, then pushed the saturation and a few other tweaks, and ended up with something similar...

    there have been several very good points made by both Craigs and Stormy about the "philosophy" of using hdr...

    i understand what art is all about very well...
    my wife is an out standing artist (and photographer) in her own right along with the rest of her family that are nationally known...
    however, their media is clay and water colors....

    i can also say that when someone decorates a piece of pottery, and it's a little "over the top", it will sit in the business show room longer than those pieces that aren't...
    art is subjective, whether it be a photo, or any other media...and as such, a matter of personal taste...

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    Much earlier in this thread someone (Flash, I think) suggested before/after.

    RFoiY.jpg
    V1fIv.jpg
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    Craig...
    the second one has a little more "pop" to it....
    a much better image for sure...

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    yes it is....and i like it....
    but it's not over the top....
    i have shot sunsets in cedar key, then pushed the saturation and a few other tweaks, and ended up with something similar...

    there have been several very good points made by both Craigs and Stormy about the "philosophy" of using hdr...

    i understand what art is all about very well...
    my wife is an out standing artist (and photographer) in her own right along with the rest of her family that are nationally known...
    however, their media is clay and water colors....

    i can also say that when someone decorates a piece of pottery, and it's a little "over the top", it will sit in the business show room longer than those pieces that aren't...
    art is subjective, whether it be a photo, or any other media...and as such, a matter of personal taste...

    tim

    Really it's not limited to being HDR it's any photo that's had any "enhancements" done to it. So really you can say that if you take a photo with a 35mm and you have special ways to process it in your dark room to get different looks then you have changed the original photo and could be considered "art" since it was modified...
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    Cane Pole wrote: »
    Actually, nobody needs to decide. It is what it is.

    I agree that digitally manipulating photos is way different than old-school film....but it just dont matter.

    As always, it's all in the eye!

    why? the ark room was really the very first version of photoshop.
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    stormy wrote: »
    Really it's not limited to being HDR it's any photo that's had any "enhancements" done to it. So really you can say that if you take a photo with a 35mm and you have special ways to process it in your dark room to get different looks then you have changed the original photo and could be considered "art" since it was modified...

    Well, I for one think HDR methods are certainly "art." There's no doubt about that in my mind, but I like Craig's description of it as digital art, not photography. I think the lines are blurred though. Where does it stop being a photograph and begin being digital art? The answer might be; it doesn't matter. It might be one of those things that is hard to define, but "I know it when I see it."

    In my somewhat humble opinion, a good photograph is one where the artist previsualizes what he/she want to create. He then makes the photograph. That making includes what is done in the darkroom or digital darkroom. My problem with over the top HDR is that I find it hard to believe that the final image was one where the photographer previsualized that rendition. He would have had to previsualized an over the top look, but I don't think he saw the very output he comes up with. I think he uses Photomatix presets then tweaks until he likes it, not really considering any pre planned rendition. That would be digital art where the initial starting photograph wasn't so important. The creation is much more in the digital darkroom and very little in the success of the original image. It's much more than a digital enhancement. The HDR part is the creation in and of itself.

    I look at much of it and try to decide how the original might have looked. I see what might not be a very interesting image. So what makes it compelling and it really might be compelling? I think that part is what was done after the image. So the Art is the digital manipulation, not the photography. It is still art and can still be good and compelling art, just not photography. This is just purely my opinion today. ;)

    One more thing. Much of what I'm saying applies in a general way, and not focused on the work in this thread, though it still might apply. In reality, I've enjoyed most of the HDR images in this thread and a little envious about knowing and understanding how to create it. My personal taste might be closer towards a more natural rendering, but that's just taste.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    From the mouth of Miss Jennifer who claims this was the working definition of one of her art professors at UCLA and what she continues to use today, many moons later.

    "Art: a preconceived construct designed and executed specifically to garner an emotion or reaction."

    As an aside: when we are in a gallery or museum and she is viewing a piece she believes is particularly bad, she utters the statement, above, half under her breath. It is her half sarcastic way of telling me the piece sucks really badly.
  • Cane PoleCane Pole Stuart, FLAPosts: 9,841 Admiral
    Guidenet wrote: »
    Well, I for one think HDR methods are certainly "art." There's no doubt about that in my mind, but I like Craig's description of it as digital art, not photography. I think the lines are blurred though. Where does it stop being a photograph and begin being digital art? The answer might be; it doesn't matter. It might be one of those things that is hard to define, but "I know it when I see it."

    In my somewhat humble opinion, a good photograph is one where the artist previsualizes what he/she want to create. He then makes the photograph. That making includes what is done in the darkroom or digital darkroom. My problem with over the top HDR is that I find it hard to believe that the final image was one where the photographer previsualized that rendition. He would have had to previsualized an over the top look, but I don't think he saw the very output he comes up with. I think he uses Photomatix presets then tweaks until he likes it, not really considering any pre planned rendition. That would be digital art where the initial starting photograph wasn't so important. The creation is much more in the digital darkroom and very little in the success of the original image. It's much more than a digital enhancement. The HDR part is the creation in and of itself.

    I look at much of it and try to decide how the original might have looked. I see what might not be a very interesting image. So what makes it compelling and it really might be compelling? I think that part is what was done after the image. So the Art is the digital manipulation, not the photography. It is still art and can still be good and compelling art, just not photography. This is just purely my opinion today. ;)

    One more thing. Much of what I'm saying applies in a general way, and not focused on the work in this thread, though it still might apply. In reality, I've enjoyed most of the HDR images in this thread and a little envious about knowing and understanding how to create it. My personal taste might be closer towards a more natural rendering, but that's just taste.

    I just gotta call BS!

    Nobody should be trying to decide what elements of using a camera are art, not art, or whatever.

    And what does it matter if somebody pre-visualizes or not? Many of my best shots are purely accidental.

    I believe in the wow factor. Whatever makes me say wow, is what I shoot for. And there are many tools available to do such.

    These days, everything is digital manipulation...from the time you turn the camera on until the image is shown.

    It is what it is.
    Live music 7 nights a week: http://www.terrafermata.com/_events
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    Cane Pole wrote: »
    I just gotta call BS!

    Nobody should be trying to decide what elements of using a camera are art, not art, or whatever.

    And what does it matter if somebody pre-visualizes or not? Many of my best shots are purely accidental.

    I believe in the wow factor. Whatever makes me say wow, is what I shoot for. And there are many tools available to do such.

    These days, everything is digital manipulation...from the time you turn the camera on until the image is shown.

    It is what it is.

    Where did you read anywhere that I said something was or wasn't art that was created with a camera? I was distinguishing what might and might not be photography, not art. The last statement is purely semantics and I can't answer. Who said anything about digital manipulation. I keep going back to what I typed so see what you read into it to see why you said what you said.

    I did say the difference between what might be photography and what might be digital art was blurred but for me I see a difference. I'm also not sure what you mean by manipulation. Is that a bad thing or good thing? Just because one might record and display something digitally and just because one might also enhance digitally does not mean that all the possible manipulations of that data produces a photograph. That's a bit silly. Of course you're working in a digital environment when you turn on your camera. And you can call that manipulation. That does not mean all manipulation is photography.

    That's what happens in these discussions. People start doing this if A=B and C=D, then A=D. What?

    As far as previsualizing is concerned, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I take some shots by accident as well. I don't consider that I did much in the realm of creation though. I lucked out. As Craig's friend said, I think art is planned. Ansel Adams said, "You don't take a Picture. You make a Picture." He spend a lot of time pre-visualizing and preplanning his art. I wish I had that ability all the time. Did you watch the video by Adam's son that Craig put up the link to? Previsualization is not something I made up. It's a long standing concept going back to painting, drawing, sculpture, photography and most all forms of art. It has long been one of the defining concepts of art. Dear me, it isn't something I made up. However, it is something I believe to the core.

    Ansel Adam's spent his lifetime creating something called The Zone System of Photography which is the heart of the idea of previsualizing the scene. Google it. Just because the color matix metering system in your camera does a lot of previsualizing for you, doesn't mean it isn't done. If you shoot P, S, A but rarely M, you're letting the camera do the previsualization as far as exposure is concerned. Then if your composition is just luck, I'm not sure how that is Art created by you at all. If you get that Wow from the neighbor, good for you. I'm just not sure how deserved it is on a personal level. They obviously think you created the image.

    Anyway, why not Google The Zone System. Look up what Color Matrix system actually does. Canon calls it Evaluative Metering. Same thing but black and white only. You might consider reading The Negative or other books on previsualization photography.

    Again, we can just agree to disagree on this, but it looks bad to just call "BS" without a little thought.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    Guidenet wrote: »
    Where did you read anywhere that I said something was or wasn't art that was created with a camera? I was distinguishing what might and might not be photography, not art. The last statement is purely semantics and I can't answer. Who said anything about digital manipulation. I keep going back to what I typed so see what you read into it to see why you said what you said.

    I did say the difference between what might be photography and what might be digital art was blurred but for me I see a difference. I'm also not sure what you mean by manipulation. Is that a bad thing or good thing? Just because one might record and display something digitally and just because one might also enhance digitally does not mean that all the possible manipulations of that data produces a photograph. That's a bit silly. Of course you're working in a digital environment when you turn on your camera. And you can call that manipulation. That does not mean all manipulation is photography.

    That's what happens in these discussions. People start doing this if A=B and C=D, then A=D. What?

    As far as previsualizing is concerned, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I take some shots by accident as well. I don't consider that I did much in the realm of creation though. I lucked out. As Craig's friend said, I think art is planned. Ansel Adams said, "You don't take a Picture. You make a Picture." He spend a lot of time pre-visualizing and preplanning his art. I wish I had that ability all the time. Did you watch the video by Adam's son that Craig put up the link to? Previsualization is not something I made up. It's a long standing concept going back to painting, drawing, sculpture, photography and most all forms of art. It has long been one of the defining concepts of art. Dear me, it isn't something I made up. However, it is something I believe to the core.

    Ansel Adam's spent his lifetime creating something called The Zone System of Photography which is the heart of the idea of previsualizing the scene. Google it. Just because the color matix metering system in your camera does a lot of previsualizing for you, doesn't mean it isn't done. If you shoot P, S, A but rarely M, you're letting the camera do the previsualization as far as exposure is concerned. Then if your composition is just luck, I'm not sure how that is Art created by you at all. If you get that Wow from the neighbor, good for you. I'm just not sure how deserved it is on a personal level. They obviously think you created the image.

    Anyway, why not Google The Zone System. Look up what Color Matrix system actually does. Canon calls it Evaluative Metering. Same thing but black and white only. You might consider reading The Negative or other books on previsualization photography.

    Again, we can just agree to disagree on this, but it looks bad to just call "BS" without a little thought.

    ahmen brother.....
    you nailed it...

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    stormy wrote: »

    Photomatix is absolutely essential.


    attachment.php?attachmentid=14274

    I absolutely love this HDR. Before the thread ended, I wanted to ask how you did it. See, it seems to me this works, HDR, Black and White, Film or color digital. It doesn't matter. Where did you shoot it?

    Secondly, have you tried Nik HDR Efex Pro? Can you compare the two? That's my problem. I want either Photomatix or Nik HDR Efex Pro. They both cost the same except the Nik is a CS5 plugin and requires 64 bit. That's a plus to me because I figure it must be good to need that requirement. I thought about the trial versions, but it takes me 6 months to a year to really evaluate good software. I like the fact that Photomatix is stand alone and includes Fusion. I like the U-Point control of Nik HDR Efex Pro.

    The one I want will be to do real HDR, not single shot tone mapping. I will take the 3-5 images properly bracketed from a tripod and cable release.

    I'm so on the fence, I might have purchased one by the time it takes you to answer, but so what. Thanks in advance.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    Guidenet wrote: »
    I absolutely love this HDR. Before the thread ended, I wanted to ask how you did it.

    Thanks :)
    This is where HDR can shine because you can't get this with a normal shot. This was shot at my moms house in kentucky about 10 minutes after sunset and was relatively dark out which is why you get the deeper colors. I also shoot hdr's with -1.0 exposure comp and bump my in-camera settings saturation up 1 notch which deepens the colors but doesn't over saturate like the vivid setting (which is 3 bumps).

    I have tried the NIK HDR plugin and it was ok but there is nothing in Photomatix league... nothing. Matter of fact I think this image had very little photoshopping done to it after photomatix but I did add the lens flare sun. I can't say it enough, you need photomatix... I've tried them all and none are close. Once you learn it you can breeze thru it and I recently discovered the ghosting tool which is a god send in HDR.

    I've definitely learned a few tricks along the way for hdr's. One is shoot during and after the golden hour, it can be completely dark but if there is moisture in the air the colors that we can't see in the dark the camera will on a long exposure and they are amazing. I will either shoot a 3 bracketed shot on aperture mode or if I want it really done right I will go into manual mode and set aperture then speed up shutter until almost all black then take a shoot then move shutter 5 clicks slower and take another and another until either its blown out or 30 seconds. I'll usually start with aperture around 22 but if a 30 second exposure isn't bright enough I will start moving aperture down until I get it. But it's essential that the aperture and focal point remain the same in each shot.

    Then I drop them from disk into lightroom (adobe) and for hdr's I really don't do much except sometimes correct wb and zero out the blacks and zero sharpening and noise reduction. There will be lots of noise of course even tho I shoot at 200 but I'll deal with that later. I then export them out into a folder and separate the shots out. I export as tiff's and reduce size to 3500. Then I open each tiff in ps and run topaz labs de-noise on each one and if you learn the tricks of denoise it will take out the noise, correct the blacks and sharpen (yes I said sharpen even tho denoising makes it softer) each image and then save them back as tiffs.

    Then I grab all the tiffs and drag them into photomatix and reset it to default and edit until happy then save as a 8 bit tiff. You can save a 16bit tiff but a lot of plugins won't work with 16bit. Then I take that tiff into photoshop and run denoise again. Then I flatten and dup layer and fix any artifacts or whatever then I make a curves adjustment layer until I'm happy, then go from there depending on the image.

    Hope that answers your ?

    dave
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    Guidenet wrote: »
    In my somewhat humble opinion, a good photograph is one where the artist previsualizes what he/she want to create.

    I understand that completely just like what was said about ansel adams and can totally respect that and i'll do that more with people shots.
    With my hdr's I don't do that because I usually shoot at night and you never know what the camera will capture during a long exposure or what colors are going to be present. It's usually always a surprise in what you get and I kinda like that. I shoot in raw and then create based on that. I'm a programmer so it's more natural for me to "make" something with what I have to work with opposed to pre-visualizing something then making it... if that makes sense.
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    stormy wrote: »
    Thanks :)
    Hope that answers your ?

    dave

    Dave, thank you so much. All that info was just cut and pasted into my "how to" folder for later use. So valuable and so helpful. I appreciate you sharing it.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • Cane PoleCane Pole Stuart, FLAPosts: 9,841 Admiral
    Guidenet wrote: »
    Where did you read anywhere that I said something was or wasn't art that was created with a camera? I was distinguishing what might and might not be photography, not art. The last statement is purely semantics and I can't answer. Who said anything about digital manipulation. I keep going back to what I typed so see what you read into it to see why you said what you said.

    I did say the difference between what might be photography and what might be digital art was blurred but for me I see a difference. I'm also not sure what you mean by manipulation. Is that a bad thing or good thing? Just because one might record and display something digitally and just because one might also enhance digitally does not mean that all the possible manipulations of that data produces a photograph. That's a bit silly. Of course you're working in a digital environment when you turn on your camera. And you can call that manipulation. That does not mean all manipulation is photography.

    That's what happens in these discussions. People start doing this if A=B and C=D, then A=D. What?

    As far as previsualizing is concerned, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I take some shots by accident as well. I don't consider that I did much in the realm of creation though. I lucked out. As Craig's friend said, I think art is planned. Ansel Adams said, "You don't take a Picture. You make a Picture." He spend a lot of time pre-visualizing and preplanning his art. I wish I had that ability all the time. Did you watch the video by Adam's son that Craig put up the link to? Previsualization is not something I made up. It's a long standing concept going back to painting, drawing, sculpture, photography and most all forms of art. It has long been one of the defining concepts of art. Dear me, it isn't something I made up. However, it is something I believe to the core.

    Ansel Adam's spent his lifetime creating something called The Zone System of Photography which is the heart of the idea of previsualizing the scene. Google it. Just because the color matix metering system in your camera does a lot of previsualizing for you, doesn't mean it isn't done. If you shoot P, S, A but rarely M, you're letting the camera do the previsualization as far as exposure is concerned. Then if your composition is just luck, I'm not sure how that is Art created by you at all. If you get that Wow from the neighbor, good for you. I'm just not sure how deserved it is on a personal level. They obviously think you created the image.

    Anyway, why not Google The Zone System. Look up what Color Matrix system actually does. Canon calls it Evaluative Metering. Same thing but black and white only. You might consider reading The Negative or other books on previsualization photography.

    Again, we can just agree to disagree on this, but it looks bad to just call "BS" without a little thought.

    Sorry! I'm sure saying "BS" was a bit harsh, and not really what I meant to convey anyway.

    Yes, I'm guilty of using "little thought" as well.

    I'm just always in a rush to get everything done in life that I need to.

    I dont have the patience to read a lot, or test a lot, or learn from the masters.

    I've always been self taught, and mostly use auto settings.

    I do visualize shots as I'm taking them..quite a bit..but I don't plan shots out..usually not...I grab my gear, go out, and shoot what I find. Mostly I shoot people, so you never know what's coming up.

    Personally, I consider myself a journalist first, I'm always looking to tell a stoty with a photo. I'm a photographer second, and an artist third. But I really never bother to try and categorize any given piece as one or the other.

    I just shoot, run, shoot, run, shoot. And, edit.
    Live music 7 nights a week: http://www.terrafermata.com/_events
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    Guidenet wrote: »
    Dave, thank you so much. All that info was just cut and pasted into my "how to" folder for later use. So valuable and so helpful. I appreciate you sharing it.

    Sure :)
    Can always pm me with any ?'s. I don't divulge "everything" but that was a lot more than normal.
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    Here are some kinda "before/after" things I had done before to show process.

    The ones with 2 images contain the before image straight out of photomatix and the after one after photoshop.

    The ones with 4 images are the 3 bracketed shots straight off camera and final version

    These were all done at ft desoto AFTER the other 50 photographers had already left (except for stairs)
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    Again, thank you so much. I noticed a sign under the pier. It seems the same sign in the Kentucky image. I tried to read it but could not. In the Kentucky image, it helped the image as a tertiary subject, pulling your eye as it does under the pier. I really like that, but wanted to know what it said. LOL
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • stormystormy Posts: 364 Officer
    oh thats just a watermark for my yet to be finish photo site
Sign In or Register to comment.