Table of Contents
Main help menu
Close help
 
I Saw The (hdr) Light.

When I posted the Tabblo "Compare Technique". I got so many interesting comments. One of the comments really made me think again, it was from "HunterProdutions" and I have taken the liberty to copy a little of his comment here:  "The first photo (the non processed) is what people are used to seeing in a photo....The third photo (The HDR) is a closer match to what you see when you are there taking the picture... Notice the highlights in the trees to the right, that must mean there was ample ambient light for the camera to capture that at +2 which in turn means that the human eye would have seen the same thing or even better. next time you compose similar shots take a moment and make a mental note of all the highlights that you see and the contrast of the surroundings, then after you load the images see which one comes the closest to what you saw in person....In my opinion it will come closer to #3 than any of the others." ( The picture # HunterProd. refer to is on the Tabblo Compare Technique)

  OK,  that was what I did this morning. I went down to the same place looked out over the the area that I was going to capture, I then took the picture #1 trying to get it as good exposed as i could. I looked out again and saw that the picture had a very limited range compared to what I saw.

 

 

 

 

 

    I went home and processed the HDR picture and I am 100% sure that it much better reproduced what I saw  at the beach with my own eyes than the first shot.

 

 

 

    My conclusion of this is that HunterProdutions theory is right, when we see a picture like #2 and we conclude that it is beautiful but not natural, we do that because we compare it with other pictures and not with what our eyes really see. We are used to that photos have a very limited range and don't think about our eyes already have built in HDR.

 

 

 

  The third pic is the same as #2 altough I used the controls in Photomatix to get that result, not natural, but kind a beautiful is what I think :-)

In this #1 picture I worked out a exposure that didn't wash out the sky and at the same time gave as much detail as possible in darker areas.

This #2 picture is taken directly after the first and it's a HDR, made with 5 pictures , EV:  -2,-1+-0,+1+2 and Photomatix settings in default.
COMMENTS
LatentE said at 6:22 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
I think you put much too much emphasis on what a scene really looked like and what looks "natural." The eye is a very special instrument and its imaging goes through an advanced computer processor with imaging algorithms that we likely don't fully understand. The brain.

Consider the human eye camera. It's auto-exposure and auto-focus - continuously. Some cameras are like that but we usually turn off some of those features because they don't reproduce what we remember, or at least what we think we remember. Much more significant than the continuous auto-focus and auto-exposure is the angle of view. We can see, or at least have the impression of seeing something like a 180 degree view and beyond. Yet our perspective always seems to be perfectly rectilinear, or at least we remember it that way. Unlike cameras, the eye image sensor is spherical. That may help in the rectilinearity but post processing (the brain) is likely the major factor.

So we see things perfectly sharp, perfectly exposed (except for extremes of snow blindness or deep darkness - which incidentally or eyes shift towards black & white handling), incredibly wide angle with perfect squares wherever they should be, and perfect, almost infinite depth of field. Things appear sharp from inches away to miles away, all in the same "mind's eye" image.

Personally I think the most important aspect of an image is sharpness, and usually the greater the range of sharpness the more impressive the image. Sure there are images that use focus to focus our attention and there are images that are blurred that catch our eye, but far more often it's the tack sharp, full depth of field (or at least full frame) sharpness that keeps our attention and makes for an impressive image.

We're struck by scanning electron microscope images of spiders and the perfect sharpness of each and every hair and bump, a sharp contrast to closeup light photography where only a narrow field of focus is possible. The scanning process seems more natural and more like what we remember because we scan a scene and continually re-adjust focus.

There's a current fad of using special pivoting and shifting lenses to create that narrow field of focus giving a closeup look to scenic views. The world turned into a closeup toyland. Our sense of "natural" used to confuse us.

Looking at your HDR output and comparing it to the unprocessed image I get the sense that the clouds were not as contrasty (stormy looking) as the HDR images portray - with the greater the processing the more the stormy effect. I think they were much smoother in tonality - as they appear in the upper image. There's also the halo effect in the sky above the trees on the right side. It doesn't exist in the single shot scene and I doubt it existed in the real scene. That looks like an artifact of the HDR processing, much like a feathered select.

But let's not get too worked up about what a scene really looked like. If that were the case we'd probably hate digital cameras. They almost universally over saturate colors giving bright colorful Disneyland like pictures. My first digital camera, a Minolta, actually didn't have over saturated output and when I replaced it with a Canon, the difference was dramatic. I think since then Minolta (now Sony) gradually changed this aspect to follow the standard of producing bright pretty and unnatural (though "natural") colors. What was that Paul Simon song about his Nikon camera and his "Kodachrome" with its bright colors?

What we want is an image that makes us remember and is itself memorable, sometimes allowing us to see things we never saw or even could see. The best even make us think of what we've missed and should notice, even beyond the visual.
Love2laugh said at 6:51 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
ANDERS --- personally ... I'll take ALL THREE !!! LOL I love each one for the differences I see. Is that bad to not make up my mind ??? Well .. the other choice is ... I'm a woman ... and WOMEN CHANGE THEIR MINDS ALL THE TIME ... (people say) hahahaha... !! I could frame each of them.. hahaha...
Floridamolle said at 7:01 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
I don't think it's a big deal, but an interesting discussion. When I made the first compare technique tabblo I got comments that the not manipulated pic #1 was best, because it looked much more natural, and then I made this experiment to see if that was true, and concluded that it wasn't. The second picture on this tabblo looks most like what I saw by the beach, (not the third) and I mean that if it looked like the first one, I would probably not have taken any pic. We don't get what we see in photography, how many times isn't it that we see something that is so beautiful and then look trough the camera and find that we can not catch the beauty with the camera because the camera has a simplified way of seeing the subject.And in certain situations can, for instance HDR get it closer to the beauty we saw. I my self have no intention to take pictures that looks natural, and not really for to remember a place or time either, but more for to create something that is beautiful or interesting. I think that the last picture is best because it's pretty LOL!! But people who are photograph aesthetics often think that almost every manipulation of a picture make it less "natural" isn't really true, I saw that with my own eyes to day. I do agree with you though that sharpness is probably the most important aspect of most pictures
DVP said at 7:35 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
It is an interesting discussion and the question ultimately becomes which photograph is most valid? The answer is, it depends. It depends on the end purpose of the photo. For art-photography these photos are universally accepted. Ansel Adams did it by hand, why shouldn't we do it with computer? For a publication dedicted to photojournalism, HDR is considered 'altering or manipulating' which for some reason, usually puts you out of the running for being published therein. There was an interesting article on this in the March/April 07 Digital Photo Pro magazine.
I noticed that Anders did 2 variations of the HDR photo. I'm more inclined to #2 than #3. #3 pulled my eye diagonally between the sky and the harsh light on the rocks. Overall, a great opportunity to have an intriguing discussion. Thanks Anders.
OscarDaniel said at 7:39 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
great Anders , you are better each time..
Floridamolle said at 8:06 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
thank you, LatentE, Dvp (I didn't call you DVD this time) LOL! and Oskar.

I think that a lot of photographers also can be pretty conservative about what is right and wrong in picture making. IF the real goal was to take pictures that are natural than B/W would be out of question of course. And like Dvp says photographers/artists, even icons like Ansel A. has always used and will use the technique that is available. Very interesting comments on this one Thanks
Floridamolle said at 8:08 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
But I spelled Oscar wrong instead. LOL!!
Floridamolle said at 8:36 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
I think you are right about the #3 picture Dvp, it should probably be cropped or manipulated, so the rocks don't disturb and the eye would follow the clouds in to the center.
Purpletiger said at 9:20 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
Awesome job Anders! I really appreciate the explanation, helps me understand much better.
Margaretshoemaker said at 10:29 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
I like the different ways you made this pic look.
JoanW said at 11:30 p.m. on Apr 10, 2007:
It is interesting to read all the points of view here. I think most people take photos to please themselves mainly, and also their post processing work is very individual and performed to please the photogrpaher/artist. It is really difficult to compare what the scene was really like when the photos was taken, as we all see somewhat differently to each other. Now I am older, my eyes are not good in seeing areas of low contrast, and I have always been short-sighted, so without corrective lenses everything at a distance is blurred. In fact each eye in one person sees a scene differently, and if we use two eyes, we blend the images together to form the best image. SOme people don't have 3-D vision and see things in a different way also, and then there are those who are colouro blind. In a strange way, we could all be looking at one image and discussing the pros and cons but each seeing it in a different way. It's weird really. I have always wondered how scientists know what a cat and dog see for instance. I suppose there is some scientific test for this, it would be interesting to know. Anyway, ' nuff rambling on and on. I must say that in may case I like Image No.2, becasue I can see the details in the trees better, but if I were choosing a scene to hang on my wall, I would go for image No.3 whcih has extra contrast and warmth of colour. Anyway, thanks Anders for making us think a bit. Well done in your efforts with HDR.
Markjugi said at 12:04 a.m. on Apr 11, 2007:
Nice comparison of shots. For myself, I like the 2nd shot the most, it's very 'natural' looking with a few highlights here and there. Great technique! cheers!
HunterProductions said at 2:11 a.m. on Apr 11, 2007:
Well said and well done Anders!!....Joan has a very good point...we all see things differently, and that goes back to the science of color which states "Have you ever heard the question, If a tree fell in the forrest and nothing was around would it make a sound?.....Well the same question is there for color also, If there was nothing in the forrest but trees and plants would they have any color?....The answer is NO." and the reason the answer is no is because there is no living being around to make a perception of color, color lies in the human mind and is deciphered by what our eyes see. That is why the only way to accurately measure colors is to convert them to a numeric value, and using algorithms to compare colors in a numeric value which gives you a "Delta E" value to tell you how close the colors are.
Fantastic shots Anders, I am with you on the comment that you do not want to take Natural looking photos. I view photography from an artistic point of view where someone else might not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we all dont like the same things, so if the photos make the photographer happy then that is all that matters!!
Floridamolle said at 7:22 a.m. on Apr 11, 2007:
I want to thank you everyone that has commented. Tammy, Reta, Desmond, Sheila, Oscar, LatentE, Dvp, Ken, Margaret, Joan, Markjugi and Hunter. I just love the comments made, we all view photography, art and the world different and that is what make it so interesting and fun. thanks again
EMA said at 6:05 p.m. on Apr 11, 2007:
I love the #3. It's great for me!
I totally agree with HunterProductions!!!
Mashpee_Paula said at 6:34 p.m. on Apr 11, 2007:
Very beautiful pictures Anders! Thanks. ;)
Nakedeast said at 10:42 p.m. on Apr 11, 2007:
All great pics! thanks.
Noe said at 3:19 a.m. on Apr 12, 2007:
All photos are great Anders, I like very much your work, you are a great artist!
Pkeener said at 11:24 a.m. on Apr 14, 2007:
I am on both sides of this debate. I am usually a purist and kind of snobish about what makes a "good" photograph. Composition, sharpness in the right areas (good use of depth of field) and tonal range....tension, yin and yang, and the emotional appeal. Subject matter is personal. So what appeals to one's taste will play into the debate. Also, effects. Even in the "old days" of film and darkroom, there was a lot of manipulation and special effects going on. I did a lot of double exposures etc..dodging burning, etc, sepia tones, etc.
So, I appreciate the HDR only because it is another way of creating a piece of work. I will probably never do it with my stuff, but I ackowledge those who do. As for my fave...I like number one best for the water. Two best for the trees...
L.e.n.k.a said at 3:28 p.m. on Apr 16, 2007:
wow.... this is the longest comment I have ever seen..... what an awesome discussion! I love your pictures Anders and everytime I see your tabblo it makes me go WOW and makes me think how did you do it. (cause I don't know that much about photography and digital imaging) It's very nice of you that you share all the work you put in to it. I think it's great that you are making your pictures artisticly even more interesting and impressive..... Obviously, you are very into art photography and I really think you are a marvelous artist.
Add a comment
Flag this tabblo as "may offend"