When HDR first appeared on the scene, LR and PS didn't have as much capability to flatten the image either, and for myself and some others I know, we now term an image "HDR'd" when in fact it hasn't seen anything of the sort. I've done it to my own - brought too much shadow detail out, and cured all the burned spots.
Most of us think of a good image as having blocked up dark spots and bright spots. It's not only a heritage of what we expected as the limitations of film, but our eyes don't respond with as much depth as the RAW image off my camera. The image this group uses of the 488 at Los Pinos is a good example of what we think of as 'normal' - I can't really see the running gear. Pull that detail out too much, and my traditionalist mind says "Artificial!" despite the fact that it's all in the image.
I contend it's simply a matter of artistic preference at this point.
SRK
KevinM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rehunn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The images are beautiful but I can see what
> Greg
> > is saying, they're almost HDR.
>
> Okay, I think that the two of you are talking
> about two different issues. Greg was addressing
> sharpness, which I know is an issue on Flickr.
> Apparently, I still have not found the correct
> recipe. I may need to do some experiments.
>
> With respect to HDR, these are definitely not in
> that realm. True HDR usually involves digitally
> combining images shot with different exposures.
> Theoretically, that should produce an image that
> is faithful to the human eye, but my experience is
> that most of them look like paintings. In my
> case, these are just single images edited in
> Lightroom. I've used the Nik filters on some of
> them (I am still on the fence as to whether or not
> I like them) to enhance the details in the plumes
> and other low contrast areas. That may be what
> you are referring to with the HDR comment. I
> also use the shadows tools in Lightroom in an
> effort to make the dark areas look like a human
> eye would see them. When you watch a steam
> engine work at noon time on a sunny day, your eyes
> will have no trouble resolving all of the moving
> parts in the running gear. Yes, they are dark,
> but you can see them just fine. Unfortunately,
> your camera has a much more difficult time with
> this. Without some postprocessing.....including
> the use of shadows tools, a photo of the running
> gear taken at noon will just be dark and muddy.
> My goal in post is to get rid of the "mud" and
> make the image more like what the viewer actually
> sees. Obviously, the worse the light you are
> shooting in, the more postprocessing is required
> and the less "faithful" the image becomes.
> Cloudy, dark-day images are the hardest to edit
> and get it right.
>
> /Kevin Madore
