IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4654 times:
Hmm... I don't know exactly what you mean by HDR. Do you mean multiple exposure?
Somebody once did a shot like this with an airplane and I don't think it was accepted here. I've never seen something like it in the Q in my days of screening though. Not sure about the rules, perhaps a headscreener can comment.
Indeed, multiple exposures look great Eduard. To clarify what I mean, I don't want to shoot a series of photos and then merge them (like the boarder posted above) of an aircraft, but rather HDR in the way of merging several photos with the same scene (the overview was taken with a tripod) but different exposures.
This way you get all parts of the image with correct exposure. No blown highlights, no 'black' shadows.
Basically the luminous landscape tutorial explains the process in detail.
Jhribar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4575 times:
HDR is stunning for aviation as well.
When you shoot RAW you can process the RAW file various times. Each time optimizing a different section in the picture. This is not realy high dynamic range but it for sure extends the dynamic range without loosing that much of quality.
The overlay is similar to working with layer masks.
This feature comes in quite handy for high contrast exposure situations.
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4538 times:
The D2x for instance can bracket 9 shots, the pictures would then all be taken within seconds. Great for night photography. I've tried a few cityscape shots in HDR and it takes some work but does look great, it looks like what the eye actually sees.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3282 posts, RR: 32 Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4507 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 17): It's not a matter of getting the right exposure, it's about achieving the result your eye actually sees. The "correct" exposure doesn't do that, especially in high contrast situations.
I understand that from a purely-photographic standpoint. If you're going to be entering such a shot in a photography contest, magazine, book, etc. (which isn't about how the shot was taken, but of the finished product), then more power to you.
But you weren't asking whether or not it would simply make for a decent-looking, "here's what I saw with my own eyes, so this is how the picture is supposed to look" shot, you were asking whether or not this type of manipulation is allowed here...Which, again, it isn't:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 8):
Wouldn't bother me too much though, HDR is stunning for non-av....
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 18): If he's going to be entering such a shot in a photography contest, magazine, book, etc.
I bet you've already seen hundreds of HDR photos in magazines or contests and didn't notice as thousands of professionals use this technique. it's not a matter of delivering the result in one shot, it's a matter of having the best photo in the end.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3282 posts, RR: 32 Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4487 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 19): I bet you've already seen hundreds of HDR photos in magazines or contests and didn't notice as thousands of professionals use this technique. it's not a matter of delivering the result in one shot, it's a matter of having the best photo in the end.
Didn't even read my reply:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 18): I understand that from a purely-photographic standpoint. If you're going to be entering such a shot in a photography contest, magazine, book, etc. (which isn't about how the shot was taken, but of the finished product), then more power to you.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4484 times:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 18): Can I send in digitally enhanced/composite photos?
No, Airliners.net does not accept photos that have been altered in any way.
All photos on this site are inherently digitally enhanced already. So it's not a clear cut definition anyway. A HDR shot is by no means a composite, in the sense of taking 2 different pictures and doing a cut'n'paste job. It's the exact same image taken with a bigger latitude. If there was a sensor that could handle 20 stops of information, then it would be legit. Right now this is the only way to do it, I think it should also be legit. It's not a fraudulent manipulation in any sense, it's actually quite the opposite.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3282 posts, RR: 32 Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4467 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 21): It's not a fraudulent manipulation in any sense, it's actually quite the opposite.
It is fraudulent manipulation, and it is a cut & paste job from two different pictures (albeit the same exact scene). Just because you can't physically see the lines for where the different exposure layers meet, this doesn't mean it's any more acceptable.
When you take one photograph, and layer it with other photographs, it no longer remains a photograph in the sense of the word, but becomes a composition.
Sinkrate From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4458 times:
While HDR's are not acceptable here, they are a great way to make the image look like what your eye really saw. I've used it quite a few times and the results arent great, im still testing it out, and i've seen some awesome images merged using HDR. I might try a couple aviation photos of static aircraft on the ramp using one RAW file and making a few diffrent exposures. I wont try to upload here.
Im not a photographer... But I did Stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night
25 EDDL: The best HDR images are the ones where you can't see the technique that has been used to deliver the result. When it's professionally done, no one wi
26 D L X: Clearly, that rule cannot be read too literally. If you do not digitally manipulate your shot, it will NOT be accepted here. (Nikon D200 and Canon D1
27 StealthZ: OK you anti-manipulation "purists" merging several images is out by your rules, how about the multiprocessing of a single RAW image and layering and m
28 TimdeGroot: If done well this is allowed as far as I know. This will lead to an editing rejection if not done properly though, something we see more and more. Ti
29 ChrisH: No, the word would be composite. All photographs are compositions. No, nothings been cut out, nothings been pasted in. Two exposures of the same scen
30 TS: Yes, I am a purist, & all I do with my photos is levels, resizing, sharpening & maybe resizing. Nothing else. I'm not against this technique per se,
31 IngemarE: ...as there are jobs where your job would be in jeopardy if you didn't! You're not altering the picture "per se", but rather getting the most out of
32 JeffM: I would bet a lot of money on that. HDR methodology is nothing new, the same techniques (though applied in a different manner) have been used in film
33 KFLLCFII: It's silly to infer that my point attempts to hold all forms of manipulation in contempt; You and I both know this is about what forms of manipulatio
34 ChrisH: Incorrect. Exposing the panel correctly and then taking a ramp shot from a different airport and pasting into the window. That is a cut&paste job. Pe
35 Jhribar: absolutely right..... I was wondering about using layer masks on for example curves as well. Isn't locally applying a (multiple) curve to a picture t
36 JeffM: Absolutely. I do it all the time, and will continue to. The layer mask works for almost any type correction you need to apply. Bingo. Couldn't say it
37 JumboJim747: I think using the same file in your quote and using a completely different picture file to merge with another file but same scene as in this discussi
38 KFLLCFII: Absolutely. And for the umpteenth time, this discussion (and my reply you quoted) isn't about what is or is not considered an acceptable practice thr
39 StealthZ: KFLLCFII, This may seem a digression but I am just trying to get a feel for motivation here. If you used a film camera and loaded it with B&W film and
40 Philhyde: It is ludicrous to call this fraud, especially within the context of this question and A.net. It is not being presented as "what can I get away with"
41 DLKAPA: I've been starting to dabble with HDRI recently, It's quite fun. Here's some examples: http://rockymountainavphotos.com/sir...e.com/imagehtmls/makeout
42 D L X: I didn't make that inference. I said that that rule cannot be read so hard and fast. Since clearly you have to "break" that rule to get a shot accept
43 KFLLCFII: You're trying to get a feel for motivation. Alright then, let me repeat myself for the umpteenth + 1 time: This discussion (and my motivation) isn't
44 StealthZ: OK, maybe I was not clear. Within the context of A.net which of those B&W techniques do you find acceptable or not? Is it just me, I do not consider
45 KFLLCFII: You're not "breaking" that rule to get a shot accepted if you're not exceeding the context of the terms used therein. Let's take a look at it again:
46 StealthZ: OK, You seem pretty keen to make those distinctions earlier in th trhead but no longer prepared to. Fine
47 D L X: whatever. Some people think using a DSLR is cheating. Some people think not developing your own film is cheating.