I find it funny that one of the best features of the K-5 is the high dynamic range of the sensor, yet the thought of taking several photos to achieve the same thing is vilified.
Mind you, the original photo has had more than just it's dynamic range expanded, but saying that you don't like HDR based on those techniques is like saying you don't like classical music based on opera. On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Darren Addy wrote: > I've expressed my opinion on this subject before, so I won't bore > everyone again. Like nearly any form of artistic expression, I think > anybody is free to do things anyway they like. I'm also free to like > or dislike it. In my opinion, "HDR" has been ruined as label because > of the stuff being done in the name of HDR. Say "HDR" to someone and > they likely envision the over saturated, over sharpened, over > contrasty stuff that in the old film days used to fall into the > category of posterization. To me, HDR is extending the dynamic range > of the image through the use of multiple exposures and then presenting > more detail in the highlights and shadows than you could with a single > image. I think the best (photorealistic) HDR does not scream "HDR" to > you, but simply makes you go "wow". > > The bottom line for me is, that I will never label any HDR that I do > as such. I see no upside to the label. It is either a good image, or > it isn't. > > Darren Addy > Kearney, Nebraska > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
