[pure-silver] Re: Today's Watercooler Discussion: Dynamic Range
- From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:46:13 -0400
DEAR ERIC,
I agree with you that it is an issue of degree and more or less
subtle use of this new technique. In most of the HDR images I have seen it
appears to me that the practitioner was soooooooooooooo thrilled with the
new ability to hold tones throughout a wide dynamic range that they way over
did it. Even the images in the posted site seem, for the most part, over
done. The eye and brain have recorded decades of visual information and
have some sense of what is out there.
A while back I mentioned an image made by one of my students
that was the most amazingly subtle use of HDR. It was of a side canal in
Venice and it truly captured the unique and beautiful feeling of light one
sees in Venice. Of course, if you look extremely carefully you can see some
tonal transitions that are subtly strange but the over all scene is so close
to life that it is, in its own way, "not photographic" but it IS subtle and
believable..and beautiful.
Now, if surrealism is your intention, then go for it. If showing more of
the information that the eye can see but digital photography cannot (due
mostly to questions of dynamic range) then, I pray, that subtlety will
eventually reign.
CHEERS!
BOB
_____
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Nelson
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:29 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Today's Watercooler Discussion: Dynamic Range
I think it depends on the eye of the practitioner as some folks have
definitely gone over the top HDR-wise creating an almost hand colored
postcard look to things. Certainly clouds can get a weird look to them when
worked on by a what I would call a novice as they tend to add way too much
drama that wasn't in the original scene.
In re:to your question, I think it's a combination of what we're used to
seeing, surprise at the range from our lowered expectations from digital up
till recently, and users getting a little heavy handed in their use of the
method. Your examples didn't seem too heavy handed for the most part. In
B&W I'd be bleaching and dodging and burning like crazy to achieve that
range....or is it just my
<http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z210/emanphoto/angkor_temple_needs_spott
ing_has_bettersky.jpg> negs? ;)
Eric
_____
From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 10:24:38 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Today's Watercooler Discussion: Dynamic Range
Monochrome film photographers routinely handle well over 16 stops of light.
Digital ... not so much. They resort to HDR techniques like this:
http://www.perfectphotoblog.com/high-dynamic-range-images-hdri-before-and-af
ter-landscapes/1201/
I judge these to be quite beautiful but ... they don't look "real" to
me. To my eye they seem more "surreal".
So, here's the question: Is this a byproduct of the digital manipulation
process OR are we so used to seeing color without a lot of dynamic
range (even color film is pretty limited by comparison to B&W) that
when we see a full dynamic range color image it seems "fake".
Discuss amongst yourselves...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5830 (20110129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
