I've never much cared for HDR photos. They contradict my usual photographic approach - I'm trying to engage with and portray what is there, and it seems that a picture that is produced largely in the computer, while it may be beautiful, goes in another direction. But recently I switched to Corel photo editing software after years of using Lightroom and Photoshop, and my new program, Paintshop Pro has an HDR option, so why not try it out? It made the photograph above, out of this:
And I realised, that not only did the HDR shot look better than the orignal, but it expressed more accurately what it was I saw on the headland at Karitane back in late December 2011.
So for the last 24 hours I've been playing. There's tens of thousands of photos on my hard drive that I've never bothered with, because they are kind of nothing shots - ones that didn't quite work. There were others I've worked on over the years but never been quite satisfied with. But I've been looking again. I've been experimenting and learning. HDR won't save a bad picture, but it can help release the possibilities of some potentially OK ones, like these:
..and there's quite a few others besides. Enough to keep me occupied of a rainy Dunedin afternoon.
Comments
I suppose it's not surprising. HDR is about increasing the dynamic range of photos, that is the range of levels of luminance in an image. No system of photography is able to reproduce the range accessible to the human eye, so however it is shot there is always a range of things visible to the eye which the camera obliterates either by consigning it to darkness or washing it out in whiteness. In HDR you combine the limited range of several pictures to make a picture which has the combined total range of all the contributing shots.
Its a form of photography which is easy to do but tricky to master, and my initial attempts here have got a long way to go, but I've learned a lot in the last couple of days. Once the HDR file has been made it then needs to be expressed in a photo of some sort, usually a JPEG, and the ways of doing that are pretty much infinite: a bit like a film negative being expressed in a print. Most of the HDR jpegs you see around are pretty garish and overblown, but when it is used with subtlety, the results can be astonishing.
The technology conditions us. So the limits of film defined what a colour picture should look like, and decided how we see colour and what we regard as "normal". Then digital technology more or less adopted the limits of film and made film like images because that's what they were programmed to do. HDR breaks those limits and sets (that is falsifies) what we see in a whole new range of ways. And as early film using big plate cameras had a higher dynamic range than later commercial film, the extended range of HDR does recall early film and early forays into managing HDR colour do look like early forays in controlling colour by using three different developers in big tanks in the darkroom.
One of the things I've learned is that HDR is very unforgiving. To do it well, you need very good and very large files to work with. It drives me back to the old days with a hand held meter and trying to use the zone system in Walter Logeman's darkroom. I am being forced back to long shutter speeds, careful measurement, tripods, thinking about the final image before I press the shutter, being careful with depth of field.... in other words, it is very good for me. Very good indeed.
I've taken one, and only one HDR image I'm really pleased with. It's not in this post, but I may put it up in the next few days.
It is interesting that we can provide the proof that we can mimic human functions such as seeing and hearing with cameras and sound equipment but we can't proof that what each of us experiences has exactly the same tonal and colouration qualities - we can only agree on differences between things not that our consciousness is seeing the world in exactly the same way as anothers consciousness.
It is very interesting that you mention Walter Logeman's darkroom. I had recently been thinking about that darkroom, which prompted me a couple of weeks ago to find and give my 45 year old niece Shiree a black and white photo of her being held by my sister at Pages Road Christchurch when she was about 2 years old. I processed that and many more black and white photos in Walters darkroom - that must be nearly 50 years ago. I still have a few photos that came out of Walters chemical wash baths.
Although we were given permission to use the room, I remember a number of times I was there by myself feeling somewhat like a burglar and waiting for someone to open the door and ask me what the hell I was doing there.
I have a piece of old technology from those days, my Canon FTQL 35mm single lens reflex camera. A camera that took 35mm Kodak or Agfa film. A camera that has been totally eclipsed by the digital age. I have been thinking about making a nice little varnished stand for it with a name plate 'Vintage Camera Cira 1969'. Something to show the grandchildren.
For a while, when digital SLRs first came out and I wanted one, and the family budget couldn't stretch to such things (They cost HOW much?!!?)I put my many long hours spent reading photography magazines to good use by buying and selling cameras on the internet. Between Ebay and Trademe I picked up the film cameras people were ditching in favour of pathetic little 2 megapixel Olympuses and sold them again, usually at a good profit. I got my Canon 400D in a couple of months, and in the process owned (temporarily) many wonderful cameras, including 3 or 4 FTQLs. They're a fine piece of kit. Not worth a lot now, but prices for those old well built mechanical cameras is slowly rising, and it's worth hanging onto. The trouble is, they use a battery that isn't made anymore and the nearest modern equivalent makes the light meter inaccurate.
I'm interested in how popular photography shapes our world view - what is regarded as attractive and "normal". Interested also in what people take pictures of. Themselves often. What does that say? For a while Clemency and I watched many Camino videos on Youtube. Many (most?) of them tediously consist of someone walking along filming themselves with a selfie stick. And all the while, out of focus in the background, is the wonderful Spanish countryside, and quaint villages and ancient churches being passed by.
For me, retirement has meant a leap of interest in my camera, which is a great instrument, though I would like the added clarity and the opened possibilities of a full frame sensor. (They cost HOW much?!!?)
The question regarding what is attractive or 'normal' in other areas is an interesting one. I clearly remember Walter Logeman talking about photographs that were not of the "Chocolate Box" variety and viewing many photos he had taken that showed beauty in the ordinary and the mundane - not a revolutionary concept even then, but an important point for me at the time. Our son Nikolai constantly takes lots of the ordinary and mundane and posts them on Instagram to the point that I sometimes wish for a few of the "Chocolate Box" variety to provide balance to a point of view of the city he lives in.
I have just finished looking at his latest round of photos on Instagram (he is in Bern Switzerland at the moment) and have viewed both beautiful vistas of Switzerland along with the sweaty, gritty, visceral, photos of street life with its attendant graffiti he has shot along the way in many of Europes great cities. I find from a viewers perspective that an honest view of the world includes both photographic points of view and many more in between. As a parent I am glad he includes one selfie per session to let us know he is alive and well.
In many ways I am glad to be free of my weighty old Canon, but I do appreciate that photography enthusiasts still like to use big cameras with a variety of gear and lens in their quest for good photos.
I use a small Panasonic DMC-FT2 Lumix with a Leica lens. It slips easily into my pocket and because it is waterproof to 10m / 33 feet and has every opening protected by robust seals I can use it pretty much anywhere, especially when I go sailing without worrying about water ingress. It does have its limitations, a wide angle lens would at times be very useful and I choose adjustments on a pre-set dial for different conditions rather than an at times useful manual set up.
Good to read that retirement is aiding and abetting your interest in your camera. If I've learned anything about retirement it's that a variety of interests and the time to indulge them is a great blessing.
I would dearly love a Hasselblad camera for reasons that escape me, but maybe it has something to do with the beautiful 'Chocolate Box' images pumped out by the photographic advertising industry.
I have a couple of point n shoots, including a Panasonic, but the camera in my phone is actually better. It’s only drawback is not having any choice of lens, but even that isn’t such a big deal with my latest phone as it has 2 cameras and 3 lenses built in. It’s always an issue, weight vs convenience, but of late I’ve started to lean towards the weight side of the equation. In all sorts of ways. Me and cameras is a bit like you and boats.
I must look up Nikolai on Instagram.
One of the cameras that interests me is the Nikon P1000 with its large telephoto lens which would I think be able to photograph a mouse on Mars if so required. It would suit one aspect of my photography which is photographing yachts from a long distance. The problem is its largish size. Of course like owning boats one needs to be sensible and own a bevy, a brace of cameras - a camera for every season, an entirely justifiable situation so long as you avoid justifying yourself.
You will find Nikolai on: https://www.instagram.com/nikolaiasmith/
Waterproofing is a big issue for on board marine photography. Despite its limitations (no wide angle lens) with my little Panasonic I just run it under the tap to get the salt water off it after use.
If I get motivated at some stage to up my game with land based photography I would hope that Digital SLR may has evolved to the point where the cameras are a bit lighter.
As far as lenses go, people usually try and have a range of zoom lenses which cover a wide range of focal lengths. My own lenses give me a continuous range of 12 mm to 600 mm in just 3 lenses. The main brands have stock (or "kit") lenses in the most useful ranges which are generally pretty good. You pay extra (a LOT extra) for wider apertures, for apertures which don't vary through the zoom range of the camera (and if you have to ask "what's the point of that?" then you don't need it) and for the sort of clarity which you are never going to notice if you are looking at your photos on an iPad. Alternatively, some people go back to the future and use prime lenses (ie non zooms) Primes from the big manufacturers are often re workings of designs which have been around for years, With no R&D costs they are very cheap. With decades of use they are well honed and give superb results. A full frame camera with, say, 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and 200mm lenses is affordable and would give professional results. But if you are going to be taking it to sea, a waterproof camera with a general purpose zoom which you don't under any circumstances change while actually in the boat is probably the only realistic way to go
Of course in all of this there is the question of how much you are willing to spend. A full frame DSLR and a couple of zooms that will do it justice will take care of the best part of ten grand, or maybe only 8 if you shop around. A full frame mirrorless probably runs out to about the same, but there are always sales on last year's model, and hardly used second hand ones around.
Apart from full frame, a good option is micro 4/5, and olympus makes some good cameras in this format. Another thing you might like to look are the retro cameras: Nikon makes a (quite expensive) full frame digital, the FD, which looks and feels and operates for all the world like an F series camera from the 80s. Olympus make the OM-D range which look like old OM-1s. They're made of metal and have much the same appeal as wooden boats and BSA motorcycles.
But my main interest in cameras lies elsewhere really. I used to use my Canon FTQL SLR extensively and always got good results. I would like to get back some of the control that I used to have when taking photographs - many of which end up on my Blog.
Also as a way of planning more tranquil interests for the next decade or so I wouldn't mind developing my skills in photography. There is a very active local photography club which organises trips and runs competitions. If I gave up the small boats in conjunction with a knee replacement I would be fit for purposes to take part in all of their walks and tours etc.
Thanks for your comments, your advice on lens pretty much confirms what I have been reading. There seems to be a lot of books to read, information to sift and peoples advice to weigh.
Whatever I end up with in terms of a 'Land based' camera I think I would like a reasonably compact camera - which the continued development of DSLR Mirrorless cameras (including the full frame versions) seems to promise. In the meantime I will continue borrowing books on photography from the local library and getting myself up to speed.
Of course the great leveler in all of this is money. If I could build a camera out of wood I would probably do so - but even I know my engineering limits and my bank account has its own limits.