image post processing

[VVFF]

I actually agree with all of Groucho's points. I don't like this HDR unless the goal was to make it look like Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween party.

 

[jann1033]

i like it as a special effect. to me it's not any different than doing some other adjustments to create a different ie not natural effect , like lomo processing which i love sometimes. but i don't think it's good for all photos all the time just like fisheye or different filters or other things to create something other than a "normal" photo
i think the photos bobq has posted on his trip report are some of the most natural looking i've seen. some i didn't know if they were hdr or some other technique which to me is kind of nice, a "how'd he do that? that looks cool" type of reaction . some others i've seen are just freakish looking which is fine if that is the effect they were going for but not if they were trying to get a realistic look

 

[wenrob]

FWIW, my inclination would be to take the original photo, bump up the contrast a bit, give it some fill light or curves adjustment to bring out some detail in the lower area, and maybe even bring back the saturation/vibrance a little (as I think that's what's making it look a bit unnatural.)

These were my exact thoughts. IMHO the first pic just needs to be "popped" a little bit.

I don't have a real opinion on HDR. I think they're really cool to look at but at the end of the day I almost always prefer the original shot. That doesn't mean I have anything against them, just personal preference.

 

[annnewjerz]

I like it! I agree that I probably wouldn't do all of my photos as HDRs, but I think they are really neat and have a surreal quality about them that makes them an interesting change...something different to look out, something out of the norm.

One thing I really like about your HDR shots are the clouds, they do have this sort of "spooky" quality to them that seems to provide a stark constrast against the cheery Main St. USA, etc.

I do admit though, the demon-eyes of the flower bed Mickey is a little weird, now that someone pointed it out. I'd be scared if that's how it looked in real life.

 

[klmall]

I'm often sitting on the fence so to speak about HDR. I truly like some pictures I see that are "accentuated" or whatever with HDR while other times I look at a picture and shudder in horror (NOT yours, boBQuincy!).

There's another board I post frequently on where someone consistently posts extreme HDR pictures of mountain scenes. Registered users can vote on his posted pics and some people always do! I love his locations but only vote on those pics that show grass that's close to it's natural color and sand that's not bright orange and so on......

I like your HDR, boBQuincy; just see a little too much orange there; the sky is great and the rest of the picture is nice and moody which appeals to me.

When I've been experimenting with HDR lately I find myself either instantly liking the result or hating it. If I hate it; it's never saved. Tinkering and adjusting just doesn't seem to help but that's just me and my inexperience.

Thanks for showing us the bracketed pics - it helps!

 

[Zoesmama03]

I'm blown away by some of them(if not overdone and I've seen a lot, not you, that have been) but its way too much work for me. Call me lazy. Seeing them done tastefully like yours I really can get a lot stronger will to try.

It sure makes a difference here. I guess maybe someday when I get the basics, WB, color balance, and of course exposure(decent general purpose lens would be helpful not pleased with results on the kit for landscapes) down then I might play with HDR.

 

[Quicklabs]

I like the HDR. I think it makes for an interesting photo. I especially like the way "Magic Kingdom" pops in that one against the contrast of the sky. Looks, well, kinda magical@ I wouldn't want to see them all done that way, but to my taste, it doesn't seem too heavy handed at all. I also like the +2 exposure shot.

 

[boBQuincy]

Here is how I see it: the software is still relatively new and can do some strange and unexpected things. An occasional over-saturated area is one of the common glitches, especially red. The over-the-top look is fun (and works for some images) but I prefer a more restrained approach for most images. This sometimes means going back to the composite image and overlaying some pieces from one of the original exposures to get things to be more harmonious. I started doing some of that and feel it definitely improves the overall image in some cases.

HDR enhances more scenes than I expected. Even though our sensors may capture the full range of a flatly lit scene it is still not the same due to noise averaging, curves, and such. I think it is more the "HDR look" that some of us do not like and that a carefully processed HDR image can appear as a single exposure where the lighting was exactly what we wanted. After all, by fiddling with exposure, curves, white balance, burning and dodging, isn't that our intent?

From comments made on this and other boards I am seeing that many people think only one or two of my recent images are HDR, when in fact almost all of them are. This is really the direction I want to take, where the image is what we see, not the process by which it was created. Like most other photographic processes, when it is done well this is usually the case. When it is not done well the process takes center stage and although it may be novel the effect wears off after awhile.

HDR is the final push that allows digital to surpass film in every regard. Finally, we can capture the entire range of light of a scene, after over 150 years of photography and numerous methods designed to work around this limitation. The implications of HDR are enormous. No more blank white skies, no more blocked up shadows, greatly reduced shadow noise. By playing with a few settings I can expand the range of my Xsi by 4 or even 8 stops! By comparison the best range of *any* dSLR is 13.7 stops, not quite 3 more stops than entry level dSLRs, yet at over ten times the price! This is perhaps the biggest advance in photography since digital, and it is only going to get better.

"Primary Colors"

 

[°O°Joe]

Here is how I see it: the software is still relatively new and can do some strange and unexpected things. An occasional over-saturated area is one of the common glitches, especially red. The over-the-top look is fun (and works for some images) but I prefer a more restrained approach for most images. This sometimes means going back to the composite image and overlaying some pieces from one of the original exposures to get things to be more harmonious. I started doing some of that and feel it definitely improves the overall image in some cases.

HDR enhances more scenes than I expected. Even though our sensors may capture the full range of a flatly lit scene it is still not the same due to noise averaging, curves, and such. I think it is more the "HDR look" that some of us do not like and that a carefully processed HDR image can appear as a single exposure where the lighting was exactly what we wanted. After all, by fiddling with exposure, curves, white balance, burning and dodging, isn't that our intent?

From comments made on this and other boards I am seeing that many people think only one or two of my recent images are HDR, when in fact almost all of them are. This is really the direction I want to take, where the image is what we see, not the process by which it was created. Like most other photographic processes, when it is done well this is usually the case. When it is not done well the process takes center stage and although it may be novel the effect wears off after awhile.

HDR is the final push that allows digital to surpass film in every regard. Finally, we can capture the entire range of light of a scene, after over 150 years of photography and numerous methods designed to work around this limitation. The implications of HDR are enormous. No more blank white skies, no more blocked up shadows, greatly reduced shadow noise. By playing with a few settings I can expand the range of my Xsi by 4 or even 8 stops! By comparison the best range of *any* dSLR is 13.7 stops, not quite 3 more stops than entry level dSLRs, yet at over ten times the price! This is perhaps the biggest advance in photography since digital, and it is only going to get better.

I agree... I use HDR for the same reason, although if you look at some of my older stuff most would probably wonder what the heck I was thinking (I know that's what I think when I look at it) but I'm learning, and honing my skills. I'm not entirely where I want to be, but this shot is close:

I think the saturation on the top of the building is a little on the high side, but other than that and the wide angle distortion, this shot to me looks pretty close to how it would look if I was standing there looking at it with my own eyes...

 

[boBQuincy]

I really like that photo, Joe! I agree, it appears like what our eyes would see in the scene. Nice work!

 

[Code]

While I agree that HDR is amazing to expand dynamic range when used on a scene that actually needs it, and when used in moderation. What bothers me is the extreme local contrast and ridiculous oversaturation that has become associated with the "HDR look".

One thing that particularly bothers me is sky with clouds. Sorry but the sky in your MK train station photo has far too much contrast. And it only gets worse when you're talking about a bright sunny day. It drives me nuts to see light fluffy clouds that are made to look like ominous storm clouds by the local contrast enhancement. But that's just the nature of the local contrast filter that is being used. HDR requires a lot more "by-hand" masking and tone mapping than is done by most people.

Joe, one big problem besides the roof I see with your GMR shot is the high saturation turning the light beams blue. I know they have a light blue hue in real life, but they are far too blue to my eyes.

All this said.. my Disney memories are extremely vivid and many of my shots end up being vivid to match my memories. But let's all keep ourselves in check

 

[°O°Joe]

That's interesting... you got me wondering, and I did a little searching on Flickr and find several Sorcerer's hat photos with the lights in the background and many of them have the blue light beams... which makes me wonder if it's a result of the long exposure. Kind of like how skies get a funny hue to them from really long - like 30 sec or longer - exposures.

I will say that in my opinion, it is better that they are visible, as in the "correct" exposure they aren't hardly visible at all, plus the neon "The Great Movie Ride" sign is really blown out. Yeah, I could have saved some of that in RAW to a certain degree, but I like this final result better.

The art of photography is largely a matter of personal taste, and as one can tell by browsing my photostream, I prefer my colors a little (or sometimes even a lot) on the vivid side. I guess I'm not always that great at keeping myself in check.

I better shut up now before I say something stupid and Mark makes fun of me.

 

[Code]

The art of photography is largely a matter of personal taste, and as one can tell by browsing my photostream, I prefer my colors a little (or sometimes even a lot) on the vivid side. I guess I'm not always that great at keeping myself in check.

Absolutely, and I'm definitely not bashing on your work, I love your photos and just because they aren't processed how I would certainly doesn't change that. My comment was more about the comparison of how it looks in real life vs the photo.

 

[jann1033]

That's interesting... you got me wondering, and I did a little searching on Flickr and find several Sorcerer's hat photos with the lights in the background and many of them have the blue light beams... which makes me wonder if it's a result of the long exposure. Kind of like how skies get a funny hue to them from really long - like 30 sec or longer - exposures.

I will say that in my opinion, it is better that they are visible, as in the "correct" exposure they aren't hardly visible at all, plus the neon "The Great Movie Ride" sign is really blown out. Yeah, I could have saved some of that in RAW to a certain degree, but I like this final result better.

The art of photography is largely a matter of personal taste, and as one can tell by browsing my photostream, I prefer my colors a little (or sometimes even a lot) on the vivid side. I guess I'm not always that great at keeping myself in check.

I better shut up now before I say something stupid and Mark makes fun of me.

ita here, sometimes i like stuff to really pop off the paper and sometimes i want it to be a whisper...but i do agree, it seems like an awful lot of work

 

[°O°Joe]

Absolutely, and I'm definitely not bashing on your work, I love your photos and just because they aren't processed how I would certainly doesn't change that. My comment was more about the comparison of how it looks in real life vs the photo.

No that's cool... I didn't think you were.

 

[Groucho]

Here's comes my critique, hope nobody gets offended.

IMHO... Joe's photo and Bob's last photo (of Imagination pavilion) are pretty understated HDR shots and not as immediately objectionable as the more extreme ones...

But I'm sorry, neither one (especially Joe's) is how my eye sees them in real life. Like Code said, the spotlights are much too vivid - they're pretty mild and diffused in real life, not laserbeams. The trees are not so vibrant green. And, if we're really going for "as the eye sees it" - it's dark there! Much of the details are pretty close to invisible to the eyes at night. I, for one, am generally not too concerned with getting things that accurate. The image certainly still yells out "HDR" to me... Bob's last shot, not quite as much until you see the detail inside the buildings.

Ultimately - I'm not interested in massive dynamic range. I wouldn't mind an extra stop or two in either direction - but I really don't care about much more than that.

The Fuji S5 Pro seemed to be one of the best solutions for limited dynamic range, with great-looking images that didn't look like overly "toned" HDR images.

 

[°O°Joe]

You're entitled to your opinion and its fine. But I respectfully disagree with two things, although I'm not standing there right now so I can't be entirely certain. 1. The trees are extremely green in real life, as you can see in the picture, they do shine green lights on them, which gives them a green glow. and 2. I remember that area being fairly well lit. At least to my eyes - if I remember right when composing the scene, I could easily see the CM at the front door of the theater (barely visible in the picture due to motion blur).

I'm not normally looking for extreme dynamic range either (trust me, I could have went WAY over the top with this one) but I'm also not much of a fan of blown highlights and dark shadows - in this type of scene. There are many instances where I prefer extreme highlights and deep shadows, but this isn't one of them...

I'll have to check out the scene when I return in June to see how far off I was

 

[Groucho]

I'll have to check out the scene when I return in June to see how far off I was

No problem. I was just there about four weeks ago and did a tripod photo of the front of the Chinese Theater so it's sort-of stuck in my mind, but I was looking from a much closer angle (since the hat was walled off for painting so you couldn't get a wide shot.) Feel free to see if I'm off.

 

[boBQuincy]

It is difficult to tell if our photos are 'off' from what we see with our eyes. Everyone's vision is different, my color vision and brightness perception is different in each eye!

One 'standard' might be the 'sunny day' rule where a normal exposure is f/16 at 1/ISO but for anything but sunny days this goes out the window. My photo of Main Street Station was taken about 20 minutes after sunset and the 'nominal' exposure (1/4s. f/4, ISO 200) was about 12 stops more than the 'sunny day" setting. As expected from the time of day this indicates the scene was *much* darker than the photo indicates. Even the -2 stop exposure was still much brighter than the scene as it should be, yet we would say it is too dark.

Our eyes have a much wider range than any sensor or film (except maybe in the case of long exposure astrophotography) and our color perception is notoriously unreliable, making any direct comparison of a photograph and the original scene both difficult and arbitrary.

In this case I like to borrow from Alain Briot's brilliant essay, "Just Say Yes" and say that the photograph is not what I saw, it is how I felt. Even if I did tone down the demon Mickey eyes...

 

[annnewjerz]

Even if I did tone down the demon Mickey eyes...

I thought I noticed that! I figured it was the difference in color on my home computer v. my work computer's monitors---but I guess not! If there were pumpkins and fall decorations in the background, I think that would have been perfect as an MNSSHP entrance shot.