Page 6 of 6
First < 4 5 6

Topic: photos nsfw (56 beware >.<) (Read 2924 times)

the_bub_from_the_pit

#101 December 16, 2009, 10:01:23 pm
  • Avatar of the_bub_from_the_pit
  • Power to the flowers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Dec 17, 2005
  • Posts: 1608
Quote from: Mama Luigi on December 16, 2009, 09:23:46 pm
Whoa I leave for a day and this place turns into a shitstorm about HDR, haha. Okay, let's have a serious discussion about it then.

What is it that people don't like about HDR imaging? Is it only when it is fake looking/overcontrasty? I could easily understand distaste in that; but then I would argue coming from that perspective any photo modified to be an inaccurate representation of what really was should be equally scoffed at (ergo: black and white, sepia tone, etc). But I do not share this view: historically, we've always created artistic interpretations of our reality that include our emotions and feelings towards the subject matter.

The point of HDR in it's purest form is - yes - to reconcile the enormous range of light that our eye can see but the camera cannot capture in one shot. To capture the large range of light in a scene which contains bright brights and dark darks, it may be necessary to take 3 photos in succession which capture a different exposure. These photos are then merged to create the raw HDR image. A raw HDR photo should look no different than a LDR photo other than a better representation of light... closer to what our eyes can see (ergo less blown highlights and more detailed shadows). The problem? HDR displays are expensive... I think even a 37 inch HDR display is like $40,000... so we can't even currently look at these photos in their purest form in any meaningful way. HDR images contain far more detail that can't be seen on our screens!
The fanciful and unrealistic images we short-handedly call HDR are actually not HDR images. They are the result of an HDR photo being compressed to display properly on our LDR screens - and this compression process is where the creative liberty comes in regarding how the artist wants their photo to look. Some choose to make unrealistic representations of what they saw... some chose to make very accurate representations of what they saw in their viewfinder.


I accept that people have different tastes, but it disturbs me how some people act downright elitist and in my opinion it's rather deplorable.


It's aesthetically pleasing and dream-like - the colors are vivid and beautiful, and it reminds me of Legend of Zelda or something (I think someone pointed it out earlier). This photo isn't created by snapping a picture and auto-tuning it. I assure you a bit of work went into the creation of this light-art, having done some successful (and unsuccessful) HDR work myself. Is it a realistic representation of wherever that is? Of course not! Is this guy the next Leonardo Da Vinci? Hell no. I guess it just goes to show how wide availability of the tools have allowed your average person to create beautiful art.

tl;dr but you can tell they're HDR because there's haloing around the mountains, which is typical of badly done HDR

edit: they're completely harmless pictures though. i was just being a smartass, you can point out HDR images if they're not done correctly.
Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 10:07:51 pm by the_bub_from_the_pit
  • Back to top

crone_lover720

#102 December 16, 2009, 10:02:23 pm
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
that is a really funny post. since it's Mama Luigi posting it probably isn't meant to be a joke but it's still really good.

anyway I don't think anyone cares about hdr images like those 3 mountains you posted. hdr, a technology, isn't good or bad. it's the garish movie poster style images, like ones you posted at first, that we think are horrible. what you don't seem to get is that trying to achieve something, and putting a lot of time and effort into it, doesn't necessarily give it any artistic value. this is why someone said HDR is the Michael Bay version of photography. lots of money goes into his movies, and he's trying to achieve something, but his shit only ever has a really low-brow appeal. it's the same thing with the garbage you posted at the top of the page.
Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 10:04:03 pm by earlchip
  • Back to top

the_bub_from_the_pit

#103 December 16, 2009, 10:05:39 pm
  • Avatar of the_bub_from_the_pit
  • Power to the flowers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Dec 17, 2005
  • Posts: 1608
the point is that there is a difference between doing it tastefully (ie only aiming to correctly balance exposures in say, the background and foreground) rather than turning the knobs all the way and creating a terrible mess. and from what it looks like that you posted, you seem to prefer the latter.
  • Back to top

crone_lover720

#104 December 16, 2009, 10:25:36 pm
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
Here is an excellent photograph (sublime film, too):

Not particularly my favourite photograph, per-se; nonetheless it is well within my top 10. Is it up there with the work of Jeff Koons? Heck no. Regardless, it's still very visually pleasing to me.
  • Back to top

Brown

#105 December 16, 2009, 10:31:38 pm
  • Avatar of Brown
  • ブラウンの人
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jul 17, 2004
  • Posts: 1160
thats a cheap shot haha. adding bloom effects to an already shitty poster.
  • Back to top

the bloddy ghost

#106 December 17, 2009, 04:10:16 am
  • Avatar of the bloddy ghost
  • ::pulls another Hideo Kojima::
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2003
  • Posts: 1050
Quote from: Mama Luigi on December 15, 2009, 08:11:37 pm




i like the sign he is holding.
has a girl in his bed. pot in his pipe and family guy on the tube. i like life
  • Back to top

Barack Obama

#107 December 17, 2009, 04:45:22 am
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
Quote
I accept that people have different tastes, but it disturbs me how some people act downright elitist and in my opinion it's rather deplorable.
I think it all boils down to what you appreciate in art. I mean if you look at art as some sort of means to convey a message or self expression, some high-tech digitally enhanced boring photos are of little interest especially if they require some crazy expensive screen to fully appreciate.

If landscapes and shit is your jam because it reminds you of Zelda or whatever, then go for it. But if you think that shit's boring, enhancing the lighting ain't gonna make it anymore interesting.

applejacks: we eat what we like
Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 04:52:15 am by DietCoke
  • Back to top

Ragnar

#108 December 17, 2009, 06:34:10 am
  • Avatar of Ragnar
  • Worthless Protoplasm
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 15, 2002
  • Posts: 6536
yeah when I said it looked like Zelda I meant it in the worst possible way if only life could look like a videogam all the time

Edit: Also Tomb Raider movie came out in 2001 damn I feel fucking old
http://djsaint-hubert.bandcamp.com/
 
  • Back to top

Mama Luigi

#109 December 17, 2009, 07:12:56 am
  • Avatar of Mama Luigi
  • Wind of Peace
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2004
  • Posts: 1282
Different strokes for different folks I guess. It shocks me the hostility to HDR imaging though... when done realistically it basically overcomes the limits of our cameras and monitors by creating a more truer-to-life image. When done impressionistically yeah it's going to look unrealistic but then black and white isn't exactly realistic either. I understand that there used to be no choice in the matter but b&w is still popularly used as basically a post-processing filter today.

Also that Lara Croft photo is not HDR.
gw... no concept of studio lighting magic  :fogetnah:

Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 07:17:31 am by Mama Luigi
  • Back to top

Marge

#110 December 17, 2009, 02:49:58 pm
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Aug 10, 2008
  • Posts: 336
Quote from: Mama Luigi on December 16, 2009, 09:23:46 pm
I guess it just goes to show how wide availability of the tools have allowed your average person to create beautiful art.

Art? It helps the average person create cool looking shiny pictures, which distracts him from learning to create art.

Also your comparison to b&w doesn't work. Our problem with HDR is not that it's unrealistic. Our problem with HDR is that I haven't seen it used to add to the artistic value of the photo or even to create aesthetically pleasing photos on any other level than "wow cool, stunning contrast, look at the details!"
  • Back to top

Cray

#111 December 17, 2009, 04:00:18 pm
  • Avatar of Cray
  • One tough potato
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jan 15, 2002
  • Posts: 537
You guys are still arguing over this?
HDR is just a TOOL, and like any TOOL we use photogaphy or painting or music, it can be used to HELP people get the message we want them to see (or hear) or it can be used just to "enhance" the looks of it for no reason, or even be used to ruin a before good work.
The convent [FULL GAME]                  Smiley's Quest[FULL GAME]
*Download*                                   *Download*
*Mirror*                                            *Topic*
*Topic*
                            Download my games!
  • Back to top
Page 6 of 6
First < 4 5 6