Re: French Creek hdr -- a zone system lecture

["Herschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <herschel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like a little burned highlight in a picture and a little blocked shadow too.... Keepts it "Real"

Sent from my iPhone

On 26 May 2010, at 19:32, פיני וולך <pinimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Herschel and Don – Good words !

HDR is only a tool in our toolbox.

Tools don’t replace our imagination but can help us do better work.

 

I agree with Lea about Bob’s picture. It should be more contrasty.

In this week my picture have small highlight areas that were blown away. HDR could bring back the details to those areas and that is all HDR’s purpose.

 

Pini

 

P.S Hi Bob, Happy to hear about your sons. Have a good travel and enjoy !

 

פיני וולך - מהנדס אזרחי

יזמות, נכסים, תכנון ובניה.

 

From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Herschel Mair
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:19 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: French Creek hdr -- a zone system lecture

 

Good point Don. I liked the steps shot for its serenity and dappled lighting.... not for the tonality. It wouldn't make much difference if there were a few burned out highlights... maybe even improve it.
 
Highlights and shadows, after all, aren't what make good photographs.
 
First there should be something worth capturing... a moment or a gesture or a mood... a sense of exceptional time or place.... Then.... f8 and be there!
 
I stood in Hernandez, New Mexico. Where Ansel Adams shot "Moonrise" I didn't see the picture. It was nothing-much... didn't excite me... That's why he's great. He SAW the picture he felt the rhythm and made the image. I'd have driven past. Probably have stopped a mile down the road where I could get a clear shot of the moon without the buildings in the foreground. It's all in the SEEING. NOT in the PROCESS!

We expose for the shadows and then, if we really need to, we use an under-exposed frame of the same scene to take care of highlights.
Or
we expose for the highlights and use an over-exposed image to take care of the shadows.
 
The idea of bracketing 4 stops in either direction and then letting the computer, which does not have EYES or TASTE, come up with a sloution will inevitably lead to a whole lot of extra work in Photoshop.
 
This is the RULE.
 
The EXCEPTION is those occasionally seen wonderful landscapes with open shadows in green fields and held highlights in white-walled windmills... Really all that HDR achieved is holding the white walls which are only pulled 2 stops AT MOST from where they were. So 2 exposures would do it anyway.
 
It's all in the seeing and the capture. For those that can't SEE and make DECISIONS about tonality... well great photography isn't for you.  But hey,  go ahead and play with the equipment and software. It's fun! I do.  A few more mundane images on the net won't hurt anyone and if you look at enough great photographs and read enough books maybe you'll develop your own sense of seeing.
 
My advice: Don't get trapped in the quicksand of PROCESS or EQUIPMENT. Devote yourself to looking and seeing. Develop those skills. Photoshop is not photography. Lenses and filters and the Zone system are not photography, Apetures and shutter speeds are not photography. These are a means to an end. Rather take great shots that are a stop or two off than mundane pictures which are technically perfect.
 
Just like knowing MS Word and buying computers and tape recorders are not journalism. If you have a story to tell... you can use a pencil and paper or a workstation. It's the story that matters.
 
Herschel
 
On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:34:03 -0500, Don Roberts wrote:

Agreed that some HDR photos are overcooked and look odd.  But the aim of HDR, to me, is to incorporate both ends of a spectrum into a coherent whole.  This photo looks like there were never extremes to accommodate to begin with.  Maybe I am wrong and the shadow/highlight areas needed HDR treatment but it doesn't look that way.  HDR should, for me, provide a little extra "pop" and this doesn't do it.  Moderation is a virtue in many instances but this could use a little more extreme treatment to me.  Just my opinion, I could be wrong.  To quote Dennis Miller.
Don

On 5/25/10 5:02 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:

My feeling is that HDR usually gets carried too far and looks fakey.  Bob's HDR tweak stayed away from fakey and is a good improvement.  Period.  

  -yoram

 

On May 25, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Lea Murphy wrote:

 

You're getting there but it still doesn't have the contrast that I think of when I think of hdr images.

That's just me and what do I know?

Lea

 

On May 25, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Bob wrote:

 

Lea and Mark,

http://www.flikr.com/photos/kneepayne 

Any more comments are appreciated.