Originally posted by ibkc I haven't tried any HDR with my K-01 yet; but it has an automatic exposure bracket feature, and I plan to do it that way instead of using the in-camera HDR feature.
Just for the sake of "scientific" experimentation (and fun, IMHO
), would you -- or anyone else -- consider taking an in-camera HDR photo of a certain object and then doing an exposure-bracketing "photo" of the same object (but without doing any superfluous post processing -- in order to keep the test fair)? But please do this
only if it interests you too! It would be really interesting to see how the final products compare to one another. Hopefully, the lighting won't change from one image-capture type to the next (for example, if it is a partly cloudy day).
One reason I would probably cave in and use in-camera HDR is because I have trouble throwing anything away. If the camera merges three images into one and discards all but the final product, that would save me from filling up my hard drive with tons of exposure-bracketed RAW images. Ha????
Originally posted by ibkc I also have HDRartist (mine wasn't free - perhaps there are two versions? It's not expensive, though).
Mine is the
zero-frills Mac version. I just now discovered that the same developer also produces a shareware version.
Originally posted by ibkc So the short answer is, no - HDR does not have to look weird and unnatural.
Thanks. That is what I was hoping to hear.
Originally posted by ibkc I'm one of those who really doesn't like that "overcooked" HDR look
I don't like it either -- AT ALL. I don't care if other people like it or not, but I just wish it wasn't so pervasive. This situation is not unlike back in the 1980s and 1990s when people first discovered that they could change fonts on their computers. They went crazy. I was even infected by the bug during my first year with my first Mac (1988). But I only did it to be silly, not because I thought it looked good.
Photographs, however, are different. There are some rare exceptions, but I like them to be real, so real that I could almost imagine stepping through my computer screen and into them, as if they were open windows (I especially love this when looking at old, color-corrected images - like
here and
here). I first fell in love with looking at photographs when I was still in early grade school. I fell in love with photography when I was in junior high (early 1970s). In both cases, I was utterly fascinated with the idea of capturing and preserving moments in time and in people's lives. I hated sterile "snapshot" poses (with certain exceptions, of course). I wanted (want) to capture people being themselves, oblivious of the camera. I also wanted (want) to capture images of geographic locations and architectural structures and preserve them the same way I remember them. For me, the "art" is in what I capture, not in how I can "distort" it after I capture it. I guess you can blame the historian in me for my viewpoint on this subject. I want to preserve history and true-to-life memories.
Originally posted by ibkc and when I do it, I go for a heightened sense of reality
You took those words right out of my mouth.