IMHO Installment #6: HDR Photography Rocks
IMHO...
HDR photography (something I'm rather new to, thanks to a Boing Boing post a while back) absolutely mesmerizes, don't you think? Done well, it offers a dose of breathtaking hyper-reality; done poorly, it can be rather kitschy. But, take a look at a few better images snagged from the net. To me, the effect is something like a vivid, almost idealized painting made from a memory or a dream:
Tokyo Nightscape by This Awesome Photographer
The Grotto by This Awesome Photographer.
Cool Paris pic from the Photomatrix site.
Maybe it's just the latest thing -- something that'll get old after a number of views (such as the Magic Eye books from the late 80s / early 90s -- like this shark). But for now, I'm fascinated with it.
So, what is it? Basically, it takes three exposures (one darker, one normal, one lighter) and blends certain aspects of each, bringing detail to shadowy and/or highlit areas. Of course, it's much more technical than that. I haven't studied it, really; I'm just an admirer at this stage.
While you can in theory accomplish these results with a normal digital camera and just Photoshop, it'd be a hell of a lot of work that way. To make it work optimally, you should have a camera that can take at least three pictures in rapid succession (a feature called AEB), each with a distinct exposure (or virtual f-stop, I guess). My new digital, sadly, doesn't have AEB. Also, you'll need Photoshop and a good HDR rendering program like Photomatrix. So, it's one of those "make a huge investment" things. But, if you've got a good artistic eye and some tech skillz, the results can be spectacular.
--posted by Patrick at Blowing Shit Up With Gas.
5 Comments:
That's absolutely amzing.
I'm glad you like my photos and the guide, but if you're going to use my shots on your site please at the least ask. Don't remove the logo on it since you have no permission to edit them. You should credit not just me but the others whose photos you've used. If you want to continue using my photo use the version with my name on it. All these photos are copyrighted to me.
Whoa, you really pissed off Pete! HDR is somehow scary beauty. Sorry about the six figure gig.
PETE: "I'm glad you like my photos and the guide..."
ME: Yes, Pete, I thought they were very nice. And, the guide was among the best out there, which is why I linked to it. I was hoping people would go view your work and read about HDR.
PETE: "... but if you're going to use my shots on your site please at the least ask."
ME: Sorry, man; it's just the nature of the blogosphere, really. People link to shit and repost photos. In the vast majority of cases (including here at my personal blog), it's just done as a tribute and not for personal gain. Hell, I don't even have ads on my blog. And, even if I did, I wouldn't make much because my traffic is pitifully low. Sorry I had to be the one to point this out to you. I'd ask if you're blind, but since you're a photographer, I'd guess you can see. But, hey, good for you for hunting down everyone who posts one of your pictures. HDR must be easier than I thoguht if you've got so much free time.
PETE: "... Don't remove the logo on it since you have no permission to edit them. ..."
ME: I didn't "remove" it per se. I just cropped the whole thing to show more of the detail since I had to shrink it to 350 pixels to fit here. Your logo would've been tough to read at that size. Besides, I linked to your guide -- which, prior to my new opinion of you, I thought was one of the best ones out there. Regarding permission, I see that's a huge issue with you, so I've simply removed your stuff and unlinked from you.
PETE: "... You should credit not just me but the others whose photos you've used."
ME: Yeah, you're probably right about that one. I added credits. But, again, please understand that it's normal for bloggers to go out and find a picture to go with their post and just post it. 99.9% aren't attributed. But, since these were artistic, I probably should've credited the photographers... Just being lazy, dude.
PETE: "If you want to continue using my photo use the version with my name on it..."
ME: No, I deleted them. Even though you were the photographer and are probably in the right, something about your tone kinda pissed me off. I may be wrong in my reading of you, but I guess I just don't like you much, anymore. But, hey, it's a big world. Ther are six billion others who may still love you.
PETE: "All these photos are copyrighted to me."
ME: I don't think they all are. Just the one I removed.
SOAP BOX: If someone were to ever post a paragraph or two from my site, discussing how talented I am, and then link to my blog (which, in a nutshell, is what I did with Pete), I'd be motherfucking thrilled. I wouldn't lecture the dude (or dude-ette) about copyright law. Especially for a personal blog.
Very cool. I almost thought they were illustrations of sort. I didn't realize there were multi-layered photographic processes involved.
Going to have route hubby this way as he's a photography enthusiast. (He probably is already familiar with this stuff - every time I think I've found something new, he already knows...)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home