crsnwby wrote in post #10557129
I keep seeing comments on HDR on photos not being overdone...
I cant see why the images above cant be taken with just the camera. What HDR is done on these? do you have an origional shot...
Every HDR image I have seen has been used to contrast adjust and bring out the shadows or colour.
I would like to address the OP's shots from the view point of these comments. These are just my own personal opinions as always. Further, I really have little experience with HDR photography beyond looking at other people's work so these comments are more from the stand point of a person who simply enjoys "looking at pictures".
I've often said that I think once a person gets past the "snap shot" aspect of photography, there are two different mentalities...that of the photojournalist and that of the artist, and I absolutely feel this applies to HDR photography as well. To address your first comment about people saying things about HDR being "over done", I think a lot of people will look at a lot of HDR images and see them as being "unnatural"...very possibly not seeing the artistic aspect of it. In a great many cases, HDR images are often processed in a way, that despite the hype, does often appear in ways the human eye doesn't actually "see". Now I think this in and of itself is a bit subjective to begin with.
The point of HDR photography is to capture images that "the camera doesn't typically see". In most cases, a camera has a rather limited dynamic range...obviously if you capture all of the detail in highlights, you tend to loose detail in shadows and if you capture all of the detail in the shadows, you tend to blow out highlights, etc.. In theory, HDR photography is supposed to capture images more the way the human eye sees the scene as the human eye has a much wider dynamic range than a camera does (digital or film). However...I don't think that's the only thing that HDR is good for or should be used for.
For better or for worse, I think that a lot of people are starting to associate HDR with a certain "look" much the same way people associate tilt shift lens photography (and certainly other types of photography) with a certain and often specific look. That doesn't mean that you HAVE to achieve that look...but when you don't, people don't always "get it". Ultimately, HDR is a -tool-...another useful piece in the photographer's arsenal to achieve whatever it is that the individual wants to achieve. Any sense of "right" or "wrong" in relation to that is solely dependent on the photographer's intentions. As such, a person who may be more from a photojournalism type of mentality may see a typical HDR image as being "over done"...even though to others it may look quite lovely and artistic. -If- however, the photographer's goal in in fact something of a more photo-journalistic nature, then to others who are more used to the "artistic" view of HDR...you may also be missing something.
In regards to the OP's shot here, no - they do not look like your typical HDR images that many of us see...and I suspect that was the goal. Obviously a great many of us who would be interested in this type of work have seen similar shots quite often published in various magazines, LONG before the advent of HDR photography. In such cases, the images may have in fact used VERY elaborate lighting setups to achieve the same results with very specific and detailed attention given to light placement, light intensity, etc., etc., to make the given scene look "natural" (as apposed to looking like a snap shot). In this specific regard, I think that HDR has A LOT of potential as a photographer doesn't really need to bring in 5 or 6 or more lighting rigs...with little more than a good tripod, he/she could do it all from the camera with a bit of pp afterward.
In other words, I think it's a matter of intention and a matter of perspective. In this case, while I could certainly be wrong, I think the OP's intent was indeed to provide a more "documentary" illustration of these rooms...the goal was to create images that indeed look as though they should be in "Better Home & Gardens" and as such, I think he/she succeeded...at least as far as the processing goes (more on that in a bit). I don't believe the "intent" of these images was to create artistic images of these rooms, I think the intent was to create "natural" looking images that conveyed a sense of the rooms themselves. Could that have been done in other ways? Certainly. Could that have been done without some sort of elaborate lighting setup? That's a bit more dicey. So in this case I think the HDR was used to great effect to create the look the OP apparently intended.
Now as to the images themselves...I too agree that #3 needs a bit more color correction (too yellow) and #6 -really- needs something on those walls above the bed (perhaps a picture of the room itself? LOL!). Further, I'm seeing a good deal of lens/barrel distortion in most of these images. Look at #5...the right side of the image specifically. That wall is REALLY "bowed". It's rather evident in other images here as well but it really stands out in that image. I think the HDR was used very well here but I would pay A LOT more attention to doing some lens correction here.
Ok...as I said, just my own opinions here.
Jim
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. " - Ansel Adams
Walczak Photography - www.walczakphoto.izfree.com
Gear List
. Although I think there should be a painting above the bed and chair in #6, remove the one that is above the dresser, and replace the current flowers with a more vibrant flower with a longer stalk, to help elongate that left wall.
| 
