HDR Photography - Sunset Update [56K Warning]

[The Grim Squeaker]

Beautiful pictures! Thanks for the new desktop!

Hey, I didn't say I could use any of them!
Which photo did you steal anyway?

New photos :

IMG_0433_4_5Enhancer

IMG_0436_7_8Enhancer

IMG_0442_3_4Enhancer

IMG_0439_40_41Intensive

IMG_0427_8_9Enhancer

IMG_0424_5_6Enhancer

IMG_0430_1_2Intensive

IMG_0430_1_2Enhancer


Quite a few different versions, and a bit more artistic (Well, the trees, brown/grey/gold colours, etc'). The 2 with the "Strong" light and very strong contrast and colours I thought about deleting, but I had the feeling that one or two people might like them .

(All rights reserved)

[aerius]

I cropped this from your second picture, this is why computers are stupid and should not be trusted.




Note the circled area, the slope is facing away from the sun, which is pretty much at the horizon. There shouldn't be any direct light hitting the slope so it should be much darker as it is in the 1st photo you posted. The 2nd photo makes the grass in that area look fairly brightly lit which would imply there's direct sunlight falling on it, but that's clearly impossible given the position of the sun in the sky. Unless of course there's a wall of glass skyscrapers behind you to reflect light back onto the slope, but that wouldn't make sense either since that would make the riverbank a lot brighter as well.

When we're editing stuff by hand in Photoshop, we can look at the picture and see these things, and make judgements on whether a given effect looks real or plausible. We can then tweak to make it look real or decide to throw reality out the window and edit for an effect or mood. Computers can't do that, so you'll always have to look over the pictures they spit out and then adjust the sliders & numbers until they look right.

[Simplicius]

I hate to say it, but these newest photos are a lot like the stuff in your earlier photo threads, in that they lack subjects or places to which the eye is drawn and held within the photos, compositional balance, visual depth, and, in the case of the sunsets, color or contrast worth speaking of. They are, in fact, rather dull.

If none of that matters and all you were trying to do is practice using HDR, then I have to ask: what prompted you to HDR the sunset, when it would suffer for the very low light - that would be a situation where you might want to decrease your dynamic range and play up the shadow effect of backlighting by upping contrast, since the foreground is going to be badly lit with or without HDR.

It's a bit disconcerting that you're letting yourself get carried away HDR-ing everything and letting basics like composition lapse, especially considering how good some of your earlier portrait work was. When you're putting effort into your photos, you should be trying to make sure all the fundamental aspects are as strong as possible, and then - if you want to imprint yourself more directly on the work - apply suitable post-processing effects. In other words, it should be a good photo before you HDR it, or vignette, or selective desat, or over- or under-saturate, or whatever is in vogue at the moment - and when you do any of those things, you should do them in such a way that they add to the strength of the photo. If you can't tell whether it's better with or without an effect, it's best to leave it out until you can; if the effect undermines the photo, then it should not be employed. This is common sense.

If you are applying effects to strong photos, then you can assert your artistic sensibilities when people complain, and even if they deride you as a fool, they won't be able to dispute that you nonetheless have skill. But to apply effects to weak photographs and count on the appeal of those effects to win an audience for your work is to abandon photography and resort to gimmickery, and you will have no defense in the face of real criticism. "Because it looks cool" is irrelevant for someone who expects other people to take their photographs seriously; you could drop food coloring in plain water to make it green and no-one else's opinion would matter, but you don't sell your green water for $20 the liter and expect to get away with it.

Just a general note - you can see in IMG_0439_40_41Intensive that you're getting little halos around the treetops - I would say you should avoid processing your photos to the extent that weird things like that start to crop up.

Also, I'll take this time to suggest that you resize your photos to 800 or 1000 pixels on the long side before you post them. It's easier to crit a photo when I can see all of it in one go, the photo doesn't lose any significant detail at the more convenient size, and you can be less protective of them as well: if someone 'steals' an 800x533 pixel photo, they can't do a damn thing with it - it's too small for them to sell, and if there's a dispute over ownership you can just bitch-slap them with the large versions which remain in your hands.

Sorry to be so harsh, especially after the conversation we'd been having in the other thread. But you can do much better work; I've seen it. You just have to get back to basics.

[aerius]

When you're putting effort into your photos, you should be trying to make sure all the fundamental aspects are as strong as possible, and then - if you want to imprint yourself more directly on the work - apply suitable post-processing effects. In other words, it should be a good photo before you HDR it, or vignette, or selective desat, or over- or under-saturate, or whatever is in vogue at the moment - and when you do any of those things, you should do them in such a way that they add to the strength of the photo.

I have to say this is an issue I've struggled with since going to a digital camera, since taking pictures is now free and I can take a practically unlimited number of them I'm not as careful with my composition as I should be. It's good in the sense that I can experiment and find new ways of taking pictures, but at the same time my ratio of good pictures to so-so pictures has definitely taken a drop. With film about half to 2/3 of my pictures will be good while with digital I'm at around 1 in 10 if I'm getting careless or about 1 in 3 if I'm being more selective. I also don't pay quite as much attention to lighting as I should since I know that almost everything short of a gross mistake can be fixed up in Photoshop.

[Simplicius]

I have to say this is an issue I've struggled with since going to a digital camera, since taking pictures is now free and I can take a practically unlimited number of them I'm not as careful with my composition as I should be. It's good in the sense that I can experiment and find new ways of taking pictures, but at the same time my ratio of good pictures to so-so pictures has definitely taken a drop. With film about half to 2/3 of my pictures will be good while with digital I'm at around 1 in 10 if I'm getting careless or about 1 in 3 if I'm being more selective. I also don't pay quite as much attention to lighting as I should since I know that almost everything short of a gross mistake can be fixed up in Photoshop.

I have the opposite problem with my film. Frames are a finite resource, and since I'm stingy I want to get the most out of each roll. While this makes me put a lot of consideration into my shots before I snap (or don't) the shutter, it also makes me extremely cautious - I'll generally stick to 'safe' subjects that I like to see photographed and know I can photograph reasonably well, and I'll avoid lighting conditions that would make a good best-guess exposure uncertain. Sometimes I'll shoot infrequently enough that I will actually start to lose my eye for exposure between sessions, which isn't a good thing at all.

I'm trying to overcome that a bit, though - I'm trying to figure out how to work a light meter I have without benefit of the instructions, and I'm using it to practice timed exposure at night as well as venturing into light I'd otherwise stay out of. If I can be less risk-averse, I'll learn more and do it faster.

[The Grim Squeaker]

When you're putting effort into your photos, you should be trying to make sure all the fundamental aspects are as strong as possible, and then - if you want to imprint yourself more directly on the work - apply suitable post-processing effects. In other words, it should be a good photo before you HDR it, or vignette, or selective desat, or over- or under-saturate, or whatever is in vogue at the moment - and when you do any of those things, you should do them in such a way that they add to the strength of the photo.

I have to say this is an issue I've struggled with since going to a digital camera, since taking pictures is now free and I can take a practically unlimited number of them I'm not as careful with my composition as I should be. It's good in the sense that I can experiment and find new ways of taking pictures, but at the same time my ratio of good pictures to so-so pictures has definitely taken a drop. With film about half to 2/3 of my pictures will be good while with digital I'm at around 1 in 10 if I'm getting careless or about 1 in 3 if I'm being more selective. I also don't pay quite as much attention to lighting as I should since I know that almost everything short of a gross mistake can be fixed up in Photoshop.

Yeah, tell me about it. It's the best known "problem" of the digital cameras (and it's hard to suppress). It's even worse due to my not being a very good filterer.

I hate to say it, but these newest photos are a lot like the stuff in your earlier photo threads, in that they lack subjects or places to which the eye is drawn and held within the photos, compositional balance, visual depth, and, in the case of the sunsets, color or contrast worth speaking of. They are, in fact, rather dull.

Really? I really liked the shots of the sunset, the colours are nice and the composition pleasent (with the water and trees).

If none of that matters and all you were trying to do is practice using HDR, then I have to ask: what prompted you to HDR the sunset, when it would suffer for the very low light - that would be a situation where you might want to decrease your dynamic range and play up the shadow effect of backlighting by upping contrast, since the foreground is going to be badly lit with or without HDR.

I wanted to try to get a larger DR of the light from the sun. Didn't think about the other applications of it. (I liked the sun, its light and the shapes of the trees and their reflections).

It's a bit disconcerting that you're letting yourself get carried away HDR-ing everything and letting basics like composition lapse, especially considering how good some of your earlier portrait work was.

But, it's easy to do HDR . If possible, experiment, at least that's what I was thinking then. Still, point taken, I have been letting myself run away with this, blame the lure of easyt bracketing..

you could drop food coloring in plain water to make it green and no-one else's opinion would matter, but you don't sell your green water for $20 the liter and expect to get away with it.

You don't drink bottled water, do you . (And part of my family does something similiar and make a nice mint off of it, so it does work )

Sorry to be so harsh, especially after the conversation we'd been having in the other thread. But you can do much better work; I've seen it. You just have to get back to basics.

Hey, this is the critique I upload this stuff for . Thanks, and I appreciate the honesty. Now I need to post more comments back though... Bah, time waster causer!

[Simplicius]

Really? I really liked the shots of the sunset, the colours are nice and the composition pleasent (with the water and trees).

The colors are really very pale - I would go so far as to call them sub-pastel - and there aren't even that many of them. Maybe it looked a bit better before HDRing weakened it, but all I see are a watery yellowish fading through a grey-pink and grey-orange to a grey sky with a hint of purple.

Composition isn't what is in the picture, but rather how the stuff in the picture is arranged. Composing requires attention to balancing shapes and tones, leading the eye toward the subject, and showing depth. What you've got here has more in common with a theatrical backdrop - flat and "as you found it" - than a well-composed photo. You might want to go back to the comments I made in your earliest threads and re-read what I told you about composition, subjects, and scenes, or pick up a decent how-to photography book and read the same thing from someone with credentials.

I wanted to try to get a larger DR of the light from the sun. Didn't think about the other applications of it. (I liked the sun, its light and the shapes of the trees and their reflections).

You can't get a larger dynamic range of one kind of light; light is light is light. Dynamic range is the ratio between the whitest and darkest light that your camera can measure. As I've said before, mapping a really high dynamic range onto a standard digital image is going to decrease the contrast between light and shadow in that image, which means your trees are going to look brighter (they do) and the sunset will look weaker (it does) and the visual impact of the image is going to be reduced even more (it is).

I think you need to study up a lot more on HDR before you go on experimenting with it, so you at least use it where it is appropriate and don't think of it as a 'more color' tool, which it really isn't as you can plainly see. Since HDR as a photography tool is irrelevant to me, I'm not the guy to tell you where and how to use it properly. There are books out there, but for starters you should read these two pages:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... -range.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... -range.htm

They are technical guides with technical explanations, so pay attention - it's high time you got down into the nitty-gritty of how your tools work, since you are trying to use them in a serious fashion.

(Actually, you might want to go through all of their tutorials - it looks like handy things to know.)

Also, check out the HDR Pool on Flickr. It has lots of photos, including examples of appropriate, skillful HDR use and examples of inappropriate and clumsy HDR use. Heck, there's enough to make a Right Or Wrong And Why quiz game out of it.

But, it's easy to do HDR . If possible, experiment, at least that's what I was thinking then. Still, point taken, I have been letting myself run away with this, blame the lure of easyt bracketing..

Yeah, see above as well. It's easy to shoot totally in automatic mode as well, but that's another situation where ease and good results aren't always compatible. Anyone can take pictures - I was doing it when I was 6 and I'm not the only one - but if you want to make good photographs, you have to work at it.

You don't drink bottled water, do you . (And part of my family does something similiar and make a nice mint off of it, so it does work )

Twenty dollars per liter is alcohol territory, boyo.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Also, check out the HDR Pool on Flickr. It has lots of photos, including examples of appropriate, skillful HDR use and examples of inappropriate and clumsy HDR use. Heck, there's enough to make a Right Or Wrong And Why quiz game out of it.

Yeah, but mostly crap. And I need to find more on how to get interesting colourful stuff out of it that doesn't look like "pastels gone wild" or "revenge of the chocolate/vanilla ice cream meltdown".

But, it's easy to do HDR . If possible, experiment, at least that's what I was thinking then. Still, point taken, I have been letting myself run away with this, blame the lure of easyt bracketing..

Yeah, see above as well. It's easy to shoot totally in automatic mode as well, but that's another situation where ease and good results aren't always compatible. Anyone can take pictures - I was doing it when I was 6 and I'm not the only one - but if you want to make good photographs, you have to work at it.

Lucky bastard, I didn't get interested in what a camera was until I was over 17 .

You don't drink bottled water, do you . (And part of my family does something similiar and make a nice mint off of it, so it does work )

Twenty dollars per liter is alcohol territory, boyo.

Er, that says nothing about my not paying attention to how much something costs, really...

[aerius]

Also, check out the HDR Pool on Flickr. It has lots of photos, including examples of appropriate, skillful HDR use and examples of inappropriate and clumsy HDR use. Heck, there's enough to make a Right Or Wrong And Why quiz game out of it.

Yeah, but mostly crap. And I need to find more on how to get interesting colourful stuff out of it that doesn't look like "pastels gone wild" or "revenge of the chocolate/vanilla ice cream meltdown".

The key is knowing when to use it. With the picture below it would be nice since I'd like to see something other than dark nearly black shadows on the bike and the rider without blowing out the trees. The sky's light grey anyway so who cares about that, but it would be nice to see some colours and so forth on the rider's clothes as well as the bike.



With this one, there wouldn't be much point to HDR. Making the road clearly visible doesn't add anything to the picture, and the sky's already dull & washed up enough as it is. If I were to edit this picture (not really worth my time since it's from my reject pile) I'd probably burn the entire sky to darken & richen the colours, then unsharp mask with a medium to large radius to add shine & pop to the hood of the car & the sky. But it ain't worth my time since the left half of the sky is blown out.

[Simplicius]

Yeah, but mostly crap.

Instead of just dismissing crap HDR shots as crap, use them to learn what crap looks like so you can spot it in your own photos - otherwise you'll get sucked into gimmicky HDR shit without even realizing it.

Being able to identify and critique crap is a necessary part of editing skills and useful practice for developing them, and until you can be critically detached it's easier to spot someone else's crap than your own.

And I need to find more on how to get interesting colourful stuff out of it that doesn't look like "pastels gone wild" or "revenge of the chocolate/vanilla ice cream meltdown".

Why you want to use HDR to make things colorful when it is a tool to address light levels is apparently beyond my grasp. If you want to increase your colors, you start by taking pictures of colorful things, and then you use color tools on them. Photo editing software gives you a whole suite of palette tools, so use them. HDR isn't a magic button for color and never will be.

If all you want to do is get "the HDR look," well, you'll wind up getting crap pictures. The good photos that use HDR use it subtly and as only a small part of careful post-processing; HDR does not dominate the PP and is only used to improve the dynamic range of the photo.

Lucky bastard, I didn't get interested in what a camera was until I was over 17 .

Then you might also want to keep in mind that I produced crappy snapshots for my first fourteen years of photography. Mind, that was all I expected because that was all I knew I could do, but use this head start you have. I was taking sunset shots with my cheap P&S when I was just a sprog that looked no better than these sunsets, so just think how much better than seven-year-old me you could be if you worked at it.

Er, that says nothing about my not paying attention to how much something costs, really...

Grossly overvaluing a mere gimmick is senseless, which was the point of my analogy.

[aerius]

I have the opposite problem with my film. Frames are a finite resource, and since I'm stingy I want to get the most out of each roll. While this makes me put a lot of consideration into my shots before I snap (or don't) the shutter, it also makes me extremely cautious - I'll generally stick to 'safe' subjects that I like to see photographed and know I can photograph reasonably well, and I'll avoid lighting conditions that would make a good best-guess exposure uncertain.

With film I try to use the last few frames in a roll for experimenting with new stuff, I try different angles, lighting and if I have the chance new subjects as well. Most of the time it doesn't work but once in a while I'll discover something new which I've never thought of before, such as shooting into the sun while using the subject to block out the sun which resulted in this. On a sidenote I've never been able to get similar photos to look good with my digital camera without lots of Photoshop work, the light response curve of film works much better (for me at least) when making these kinds of shots.

[TheMuffinKing]

I stole this picture! Hey, I figured out how to use the thumbnail feature on photobucket! A cookie for me!

You picture are great! These are all in Israel I'm assuming?

[The Grim Squeaker]

On a sidenote I've never been able to get similar photos to look good with my digital camera without lots of Photoshop work, the light response curve of film works much better (for me at least) when making these kinds of shots.

Yeah, most of your photos look really bad as a base (dark, or blurred or bad lighting). I think your main flaw is a lack of an eye for lighting and positioning. I mean, you regularily mountain-bike, that's a goldmine of action shots and the like!
Hey, at least you're good with photoshop

I stole this picture! Hey, I figured out how to use the thumbnail feature on photobucket! A cookie for me!

You technological monster! . Could you mind providing a link to the thread or to my flickr or picasa page there?

You picture are great! These are all in Israel I'm assuming?

Thanks! The ones in this thread are, including that shot.

[aerius]

Yeah, most of your photos look really bad as a base (dark, or blurred or bad lighting). I think your main flaw is a lack of an eye for lighting and positioning.

My main issue is getting a digital camera to see what I see, as I mentioned the response curve is not the same as what I'm used to with film so I'm still re-learning the lighting aspect. Film is fairly forgiving with overexposure and hates underexposure while digital is the other way around, plus with film there's a "knee" in the light response curve when you're approaching the limits while digital doesn't have that. Generally this means with digital, I intentionally shoot the pictures on the dark side and then adjust the curves in Photoshop.

I mean, you regularily mountain-bike, that's a goldmine of action shots and the like!
Hey, at least you're good with photoshop

It isn't. The trails we bike on have really difficult lighting conditions, plus it's nearly impossible in most places to find a place to stand without getting run over after taking the picture. Or there's trees & other stuff in the way so you can't get a decent angle on the shot. Or the only place to stand puts the sun in your face. Or all the above.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Yeah, most of your photos look really bad as a base (dark, or blurred or bad lighting). I think your main flaw is a lack of an eye for lighting and positioning.

My main issue is getting a digital camera to see what I see, as I mentioned the response curve is not the same as what I'm used to with film so I'm still re-learning the lighting aspect. Film is fairly forgiving with overexposure and hates underexposure while digital is the other way around, plus with film there's a "knee" in the light response curve when you're approaching the limits while digital doesn't have that. Generally this means with digital, I intentionally shoot the pictures on the dark side and then adjust the curves in Photoshop.

I do that very often myself (underexpose by 1/3 of a stop), I even do it too much at times. I like colour and contrast .

I mean, you regularily mountain-bike, that's a goldmine of action shots and the like!
Hey, at least you're good with photoshop

It isn't. The trails we bike on have really difficult lighting conditions, plus it's nearly impossible in most places to find a place to stand without getting run over after taking the picture. Or there's trees & other stuff in the way so you can't get a decent angle on the shot. Or the only place to stand puts the sun in your face. Or all the above.

Your words are moving, but all I hear is whining . Want a bet that I can take some good mountain biking pics of you lot if I ever try?

[aerius]

Your words are moving, but all I hear is whining . Want a bet that I can take some good mountain biking pics of you lot if I ever try?

You can't. Because we'll make sure you die on the trails, figuratively speaking.
Though a couple people have lost their lives on the trails we ride so I'm not entirely joking about death.
Oh yeah, and there's bears, I wanna take a cool photo of you being chased by a bear.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Your words are moving, but all I hear is whining . Want a bet that I can take some good mountain biking pics of you lot if I ever try?

You can't. Because we'll make sure you die on the trails, figuratively speaking.
Though a couple people have lost their lives on the trails we ride so I'm not entirely joking about death.
Oh yeah, and there's bears, I wanna take a cool photo of you being chased by a bear.

Dude, you do realize that there's a rather good chance that i've been to more national parks and areas with big predators (bears, tigers, lions, mountain lions) than you?

[aerius]

Dude, you do realize that there's a rather good chance that i've been to more national parks and areas with big predators (bears, tigers, lions, mountain lions) than you?

Well duh! That's why you're the bear bait!

[The Grim Squeaker]

Dude, you do realize that there's a rather good chance that i've been to more national parks and areas with big predators (bears, tigers, lions, mountain lions) than you?

Well duh! That's why you're the bear bait!

Yeah, but i've gained experience in the skill of not being seen! And I have running/hiking shoes on when hiking, so i'll be running away faster than you