Camera Labs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4MRT3s97Y

It was originally going to be longer, but my premiere pro trial ran out

This is really nice, especially the panning one over the lake.

But is HDR really necessary, it feels like it was used just for the sake of it?

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

HDR is a tool.

Tools can be used for their intended use or creatively.


I like the time lapse and like the effect HDR gives. When people naively say "I hate it because it's HDR" they are judging the work based on the worst work they have seen that uses the same technique and only approve work that uses HDR for it's intended use but disprove it's creative use completely.


If you don't like something that uses HDR at least say why.

why would somebody do this? it's a waste of time. & HDR has a purpose,you cannot shoot anything & then convert it in HDR

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

Haha wow. I've gotten some pretty harsh complaints on my work on this site, but most of the time they were constructive.

But a waste of time?

Seriously?

I could say the same thing about your photos. Black and White is a tool. You can't just take any photo and turn it into black and white. It's not realistic because that's not how the scene looks in real life.

But I'm not going to say that, because it's a style of art, like HDR.

@Agun, I didnt say I dont approve of it being HDR. Read my message, I merely asked if HDR was really necessary.

As you want me to say why I asked I will.

HDR stands for high dynamic range right? So it should be used when the cameras dynamic range is too small for the scene right? Here, it looks to me as if the camera could sufficiently meter the scene for both the highlights and shadows keeping detail in both, I cant personally see what the HDR has added, as the scenes captured to me look as if they would fit into what the camera can capture sufficiently.


@Bramsey, please note that message was for Agun, I do really like your work, it just seems to me that doing it HDR probably took a hell of a lot more time than it would have, without adding an awful lot to the video.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Valid question. I feel HDR was necessary for the window shot, and a personal preference for the details in the shadows in most of the shots, and to bring out the detail in the clouds. Normal photographs of the scene would have resulted in a darker foreground or overexposed sky.

The waterfall shot could have done without it, however.

Nor did I.

I was refering to people in general. That's why I said "when people..."

I did not say that If you don't like HDR you are naive. I said that if you hate HDR because it's HDR you are naive.

Then I suggested you say why you do not like it just in case you didn't like the HDR for a reason that makes logical sense, like maybe if there was blur in the images.

Wrong...open google.com or youtube.com & do a fast search on street photography & photo-journalism. Color can sometimes be distracting for the important elements within the photo.

And for portraits or other kinds of photography,well...that's what separates creativity from a normal,unimaginative point of view.

I never said HDR is wrong or futile,I was just implying that it's used way too much,including for a movie,with a lot of day-time scenary in it.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

First of all, don't quote me out of context again please.

Your arguments against HDR seem to be, in my understanding

1. It's used too much.

So if black and white were used more often, it would make those photos less good? Since when did frequency have ANY effect on the quality of a particular work of art.

2. Daytime, HDR not needed.

The dynamic range of a scene is highest during the daytime, so I don't quite understand this argument.

Am I really arguing with someone whose criticisms are "Waste of time"?

Now I actually AM wasting my time.

seems a lot of effort for the benefit you can have with a polarizer filter. sorry if I was rude,it's just my opinion.

HDR has become a very commercial tool for photography & 95% of it really doesn't have it's place. I saw some absolutely amazing architecture,scenary,citiyscape & journalism-documentary photography with this tehnique,so I really can apreciate it.
And about black & white...well,I spend days creating a b&w tehnique of my own & still I'm working on it. A lot of lousy photographers convert photos into b&w without adjusting anything at all. This goes for a lot of people that use HDR & their photos end up looking like bad cartoons.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

This shot would of looked worse without HDR imo.

It depends how you define 'worse,' yes you have more dynamic range here, but we have lost the contrast needed to make it pop

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

I guess it just boils down to opinion.

Because I'm looking at the original of that shot and it's just not doing it for me =P Theres no blue sky or blue reflection at all, its just white flair.

Could you post it along with its HDR counterpart?

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)