PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Who is Trey Radcliff?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Trey Ratcliff shelving his D800 for NEX-7
- Thread starter fractal
- Start date
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
...and when he gets fired from the NYTimes he gets to work at People or Shape magazine to make the stars look skinnier and blemish free.
The industry doesnt work that way.
A team of editors at People/Shape take the raw files and process the photos themselves.
For NYT I have edited lightly for tonality, captioned and transmitted. Slight levels, slight curves, slight sharpen and voila.
I am going to put this as delicate as I can.
A compositional image that is used sparingly shouldn't be called HDR. The entire process was simply created to bridge the dynamic range gap between digital technology and those that existed in larger format films. I believe I am correct, but I believe the compositional process was first pioneered in digital architectural work... since most of this work that was done in film was being done using 4x5 film as the smallest medium. The dynamic range of 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 is worlds apart from 35mm which is what most people here were familiar with back in the day.
This is what Trey became known as, as a major player in "HDR" photography, this is the standard that many come to think of when they hear the term HDR
And that is not what I would call a judiciously used enhancement. While this may be what you view as HDR, HDR is technically any use of multiple images that create a greater dynamic range than what the camera could achieve in a single shot.... That doesn't mean it has to look like a comic book illustration as the stuff from Trey does.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
did you read my post? If a compositional image is created (out of say 2-6 images to increase the dynamic range) and is done so in marginal ways I don't feel that is HIGH dynamic range. It might be high compared to the slew of crap 100 dollar p/s cameras being produced year in and year out but not against the original standard the technique meant to close the gap on, large format film. I suppose this is an issue of standards.
If I google HDR... what do I get? See above.
So while I understand your approach of "what may be HDR to you is not what HDR is to others" all you have to do is look what the mass creates. Those images may not have been what HDR was intended to be, but it is the beast that it has become.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
he's toned down his work but he's the BIG honcho who started turning up tone mapping on everything.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Funny however is that we have been using HDRI in CG projects for a very long time now. THATS where its digital roots came from. For CG basically we take multiple exposures (same way we do now) and then merge them into a giant image...but not BLENDING them. What that means is that the file is basically all light info that we use to light a CG scene...the resulting maps looks similar to this:
http://www.trinisica.com/typed/002/002_illum_hdri.jpg
(We use chrome orbs to take full 360 degree shots)
In fact thats why my company originally got our D7000 (auto bracketing and high dynamic range without the need to go full frame).
Why did I bother sharing this info? Basically to apologize on behalf of my fellow CG artists out there who used these images in a different way to blend them into one image which evolved into what now is considered HDR.
http://www.trinisica.com/typed/002/002_illum_hdri.jpg
(We use chrome orbs to take full 360 degree shots)
In fact thats why my company originally got our D7000 (auto bracketing and high dynamic range without the need to go full frame).
Why did I bother sharing this info? Basically to apologize on behalf of my fellow CG artists out there who used these images in a different way to blend them into one image which evolved into what now is considered HDR.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
That's nice. Does he do lawn work? I have $20...
The fact is there HDR includes both the more subtle as well as extreme examples of what combining multiple exposures can achieve. I can't argue that the cheesy versions don't exist, but you can't say that the more subtle form doesn't exist either. If you simply do a HDR search on wiki you'll find that even there they show both types extreme and realistic. I don't think the world has decided that all HDR must look like a comic book, anymore than people have decided every rose must be red. You might believe that all roses are red and that all HDR must look like a comic book illustration on acid, I can't change you belief anymore than you can change mine.
I do wonder why you mention large format film as if it were the pinnacle of dynamic range, I was under the impression that I could get the same dynamic range form a 4x5 piece of film as from a 35mm piece.... is their some magic that makes the dynamic range of film higher if I get a big piece verses a smaller piece? I hadn't ever heard of that.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
It is complicated but yes, the dynamic range is greater.
It's a combination of factors but the greater details achieved in the negative of a 4x5 and up leads to greater dynamic range because those improvements, or general dynamic range, is more noticeable in transition areas of a larger negative. So more detail in a neg will lead to more dynamic range because it becomes more noticeable with the human eye as we scan (if we're going into the digital realm for sharing or digital printing) or we enlarge using traditional darkroom methods. So if you had an image of a lake with rock formations, a section with sky would have the same dynamic range on a piece of Velvia from 35mm to 4x5 format but that's not why people shoot a larger format.... it's those rocks where a larger negative produces more detail and as a result creates a wider range of dynamic range in those types of areas. This is why photographers were using large format films for architectural work because of drastic light and dark areas and the ability for the larger film to produce more detail and dynamic range in the "more difficult" areas to expose. Am I making any sense?
I understand what you are say, but I think you are mixing up what people perceive to be dynamic range with what actually is dynamic range. I think from a purely technical standpoint dynamic range doesn't include the level of detail that you are equating to dynamic range. I wholeheartedly agree that large format photos have much more detail than a 35mm, but then when you are talking detail you also have to get into the quality of the lenses and a lot of other variables beyond dynamic range of the film.