Photography Automotive Photo Comp #104

[NevadaJack]

Re: Resubmission of image (not HDR)

^^ I really do not mind, but sometime we had this discussion about HDRs, and therefore I had to retract my entry. Thats all.

PS: @NevadaJack, how come you have all these cool mercs, are they all yours?

I was not specifically aware that HDR were taboo in the competition. I really feel that HDR photography is an exposure process which is really no different than using masks which are blended in CS3 to improve detail in highlights and shadows. Multiple exposures of a scene when shooting is to capture the dynamic range and allow that range to be displayed on the monitors that cannot reproduce that original dynamic range. In this specific situation I took a single image photograph and saved an under and over exposed copy and then treated them like a multiple exposure HDR shot. As the resubmission shows, sometimes HDR is not needed to produce a well exposed image. Detail in the shadows, highlights and black levels are not quite as good but the overall image is fine. HDR is most effective when the scene you are trying to capture has deep shadows and bright highlights and normal processing would produce noise or lack of detail in the shadows and blow outs in the highlights. Did not mean to go with such a long response... sorry.

All of these MB's are mine but only one at a time...

 

[Bruce]

Re: Resubmission of image (not HDR)

Thanks for the input, etc folks.

 

[dOmInIX]

Yes the image is processed as an HDR image from a single shot. I will replace it but based on the fact that more members are now using this technique, it may be time to reconsider these images. They are nothing more than another way to improve exposure on a scene and the processing is standard CS3 or other software. It is really no different than any other photograph except it may be exposed 3 or more times at the same time.

YMMV

I completely agree with you, we should all think about including HDR photos in the competitions. HDR isn't some artificial effect in photoshop, it's just the same image with a bit different exposure balance put together..

just my 0.02 $

 

[MikeJ]

Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought HDR images look really artificial, to the extent that sometimes they look more like advanced CGI than actual photographs... that said, I've never understood the appeal of selective coloring either.

 

[NevadaJack]

Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought HDR images look really artificial, to the extent that sometimes they look more like advanced CGI than actual photographs... that said, I've never understood the appeal of selective coloring either.

I agree with you that some HDR's do look artificial but they do not have to look artificial unless they are processed to look that way. Controlling the saturation, intensity and other tonemapping adjustments allows for "extreme" as wimmer would say or normal looking images. Many HDR images do not contain an extreme dynamic range and a good image could have been produced using the standard post processing adjustments.

The image below may be a hair over-saturated but because of the bland commonality of the rock colors, I added some red. The sky represents a very clear day in Nevada and that big western sky. In the HDR shot of the SL I posted first, I attempted to make the SL pop off the screen but I don't think it looks artificial... I love the contrast of the stark black car against the green of the trees and redness of the trunks. I think the repost is somewhat more subdued but I like the HDR rendition more. Photography is art and to some a image may look artificial and to others it may looks terrific. It is the photographer who attempts to capture the scene as he (or she) sees it and it is the viewer who likes or dislikes what he sees... both are totally correct in their judgements.