Is it just me or do all these HDR or ultra high vibrance type photos drive other people nuts? I get that the whole instagram type filters are somewhat cool, but this crap is going wayyyy too far. Just makes mediocre photos look even worse and goofy on top of everything else.

Have a jaeger and red bull and calm down :-)

Seriously though I agree.

i must be REALLY old. i have no idea what you are talking about......

I once took a candid portrait of one of my daughters. I thought it was very good and e-mailed it to her. I then saw it posted on her facebook page and modified by some Instagram process, and I thought it looked awful and was completely baffled by why she would want it massacred like that. It must be some sort of fad.

Short answer, yes, they almost always look terrible.

here is an example.



the colors are so distorted it takes away from the photo.

it doesn't ruin my day or anything, to each his own. just thought other photographers might see what I'm saying. I'm seeing more and more of it on hunt reports here too.

I'm curious,which colors are so distorted? The skin tones look correct,the bears gums are proper shade of pink I would think. The hunters kakhi hat looks ok and his jacket appears to be the proper color.I have seen literally thousands of rocks that color along coastal areas. Exactly what is wrong with the picture? Never seen a Brown bear in nature so have no idea if that is correct.

I wish I had the original to compare. its obvious the red color of the bears hide is wayyyy out of wack. and yes I do know this to be a fact because the video of him shooting this bear was posted a while back.


I guess I can just show you an example with one of my own photos.


original


with clarity and vibrance cranked all the way up




do you see the difference? I guess some might actually think these type of edits make the pics look better...

Sometimes one may want to add a certain effect to a photo to make it look film like, or just old, or perhaps like the effects used on movies, and so on. I agree with you that not everybody likes how some photos look, but a lot of people like such things. For example, original turned to paper toner:



Then I have seen kick boxing pro-photographers turning the photos of the boxers HDR, and they look amazing.

A very light HDR effect on this one:


Or just a papertoner "backyard moose"

Have you ever seen those paintings they sell in Tijuana (or Juarez for that matter) on black velvet with iridescent and/or glow-in-the-dark paint? Some people like those too.

Almost all of the post-processing software available today has some "one-click" effects modes, which is so much easier than trying to get color fidelity or accuracy. I think that probably only portrait photographers, certain sports photographers (white balance is a challenge in arena lighting) and some product photographers have to get skin tones right, or at least in the ball park, without their pictures looking like a mess. Nature photography is the most lenient, since people seem to like extra dark blue skies, vibrant colors and excessive contrast in general. Like one photography student said to Ansel Adams, "I went to Yosemite and it doesn't look anything like your photographs."

But I don't think, in the end, that "perfect" color fidelity is a requirement for a photograph to be pleasing, and sometimes it only detracts from some of the dramatic effects that are possible. Take a walk through a good exhibit of famous painters and the last thing you are really worried about is color fidelity. So in one sense it depends on what you are trying to achieve; and whatever that is doesn't mean that everyone is going to like it anyway.

As Garry Winogrand once said, "I take photographs to see what things look like when photographed". I like the way Ray "sees" things, whether they are color or B&W, because they make me look at the subject. Good photographs eliminate the distractions.

(And by the way, the Nikon D810 I'm presently experimenting with seems to have the best in-camera Auto WB of any Nikon camera made to date. Previous Nikons were pretty poor in incandescent lighting or sodium vapor lamp or fluorescent lighting on Auto WB).

quote:

Originally posted by Ray Alaska:
Sometimes one may want to add a certain effect to a photo to make it look film like, or just old, or perhaps like the effects used on movies, and so on. I agree with you that not everybody likes how some photos look, but a lot of people like such things. For example, original turned to paper toner:



Then I have seen kick boxing pro-photographers turning the photos of the boxers HDR, and they look amazing.

A very light HDR effect on this one:


Or just a papertoner "backyard moose"

These are all very well done. And not at all what I'm talking about in my original post. The only way to really show what I mean is to link to actual images, and I don't want to ruffle feathers or be rude to the user. I thought some of the photographers on the site would know what I meant right away.

Wink, I totally agree with you. I guess we are simply the minority when it comes to what we think is a good photo. I've only seen a few people take very good photos on this site, you being one of them.

When I hear people going off about how amazing the photos are on so-and-so's thread I simply shake my head and wish they could see what an actual proper photo looks like. I guess I'll just keep it to myself.

on a quick side note. these are some of the better photos I've seen on a report in a while.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/9281030002/p/1

You just have to keep in mind that when it comes to HDR photography, or any type of photography for that matter, hobby or amateur photographers can't do as well as professional photographers who have the equipment necessary to achieve the best photographs. For example, depending on your screen, a photo that may look crappy on your computer may look great on a calibrated screen.

While I am not into HDR and special effects, there are a lot of professional photographers creating award-wining photos, while a lot of others are creating a lot of crappy photos. That you see some photos you don't like, I don't disagree with you in that some photos are clearly overdone. But there is not denying that some HDR photographers create very interesting images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurman/

By the way, I don't disagree with you at all relating to some photos being way overdone.

The type of screen and calibration of same are one of the "nothing-you-can-do-about-it" variables. I use an iMac and I calibrate the screen pretty frequently (especially since iMacs tend to be too bright in native calibration). But when I post-process to the best I can get on my screen it still may look like washed out mush on a PC laptop.

One recommendation is to convert the color profile in your RAW files (if shooting in Adobe RBG) to SRGB and then tweak color and sharpness before saving to tiff or jpg. Internet doesn't really like Adobe RBG and handles with better consistency sRGB files.

This last weekend I posted some pics taken Saturday at Nairobi National Park, but I only had my PC laptop with me and some simple software. They were awful, but I couldn't really tell on my lap-top. I got home today and re-did the post-processing, deleting the originally posted pictures and replacing them today in the photo album forum. (I think the croc came out well). For just a minute I thought maybe I'd never learn how to use my D810; it is a challenge by the way.

Yes, the photo of the croc looks very nice. I too use a couple of Macs for photo-editing.

Will add that the places on the Internet we use to store photos for posting online sometimes alter some of the photos colors or tones. I have no idea how this happens, but every now and then I see poster complaining about the changes to their photos.

By the way, I have seen lots of photos where the photographer changes the looks of the photo (color, tone, etc.)so that it looks like the tones and colors used on movies. For example, the looks of the movie "500" (sort of dark contrast and tones. While some of those photos look nice, all depends on the person doing the processing. I personally don't find such photos interesting, however. Then there was this wedding photographer I was talking to who was having a difficult time with a client who wanted her wedding photos to have a sort of faded looks with slight golden tones (another one of the movie effects I referred to). He did not want to do what his client wanted, but had no choice. He had an assistant who is good with CS6 and the NIK plugins taking care of the client, but he refused to do it himself.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray Alaska:

Will add that the places on the Internet we use to store photos for posting online sometimes alter some of the photos colors or tones.

Good point and very true. I have read professional photographers discussing what happens when they store/post from Flicker as compared to Photobucket as compared to 500PX etc. It seems thay all use different algorithms for compression which may or may not alter color and also sharpness.