HDR Bashing

Peter10d

Peter10d

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,346
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
It appears that hdr bashing is still rife in our friendly TP community.
Why do some folk slate (for want of a better term), hdr images that have been posted for comments. Even if someone dislikes hdr, then it is still worth making comment on other factors, like composition, lighting etc.
There are many good examples of hdr work out there, and you just have to look at our own Photographer of the year comp to see some.
There are many bad non hdr photos out there (I will admit to my own work on that one), but you are unlikely to receive a fist line attack for the PP you did on your non hdr shot.
I remember when digital first came out, and I am sure many others, despised the thought of moving away from film, but many years later I am so glad I did.
HDR is part of photography, like it or hate it, so don't be so quick to shoot down everyone that has a go at it:nono:
 
Old argument and neither side is likely to change. Personally, I'll keep on largely ignoring the hdr auto-haters (who share a circle of Hades with the auto-condimenters) and occasionally remember to neglect including in the description the fact it's hdr in the first place.
 
Peter10d said:
It appears that hdr bashing is still rife in our friendly TP community.
Why do some folk slate (for want of a better term), hdr images that have been posted for comments. Even if someone dislikes hdr, then it is still worth making comment on other factors, like composition, lighting etc.
Click to expand...

Bit difficult to comment on that if it's one of those HDR images that has been over processed to the point of looking like a cartoon.

I thought the main point of HDR images was to take the best bits from more than one exposure to expand the dynamic range of an image to match more closely what we see in a scene with the human eye.

An image that has been processed to the point where it's really obvious htat it's a HDR image generally don't work for me as they start looking false and unconvincing.
 
There's a fine line between realistic HDR and fake looking. As a rule I like the realistic, and it's about a 30/70 dislike to like of things just on the other side of that line. The problem is, on a scale of 1 being completely natural looking, 5 that fine line and 10 being the overly fake - most HDR seems to fall between 9 and 10.
 
It makes me laugh when it says HDR in the title yet people comment on the pictures saying they dont like HDR etc.
 
TBH It's not necessarily HDr bashing for the sake of it. It's being critical of the PP because not only was the HDR not really HDR, its more merging of multiple exposures...
It's also because A: the application of the "HDR" is completely useless (or done badly as explained above), and B : Take the discussion about the post processing away and you have what is essentially an ill thought out photo of not really anything interesting.

That's why I think people get up in arms about it. It's not HDR bashing, it's "Oh look I've pressed a button, doesnt it magically make my photo look good?" bashing.
 
Oh, this is about that recent thread. If it took a bashing, then if you really read the thread you'll see it was getting bashed by those that *support* hdr.
 
When I feel like doing a bit of HDR (which isn't often) then I tend to keep it to myself as I mainly do it for effect rather than to get around an exposure problem.

I did use it a few weeks ago HERE for what I consider is a legitimate reason in so far as the top of the building was very bright and the lower half was in deep shadow. By using 3 shots I could get decent exposure on both parts.

As someone suggested though I could have also just gone back later when the lighting was better :lol:

Heres one of my more in your face HDR shots.
 
Last edited:
Mike.P said:
When I feel like doing a bit of HDR (which isn't often) then I tend to keep it to myself as I mainly do it for effect rather than to get around an exposure problem.

I did use it a few weeks ago HERE for what I consider is a legitimate reason in so far as the top of the building was very bright and the lower half was in deep shadow. By using 3 shots I could get decent exposure on both parts.

As someone suggested though I could have also just gone back later when the lighting was better :lol:
Click to expand...



See now, that's when HDR is awesome :thumbs:

I don't mind ones done purposefully for effect, so long as they're done well actually.
 
littlemonster said:
There's a fine line between realistic HDR and fake looking. As a rule I like the realistic, and it's about a 30/70 dislike to like of things just on the other side of that line. The problem is, on a scale of 1 being completely natural looking, 5 that fine line and 10 being the overly fake - most HDR seems to fall between 9 and 10.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Gemma here.
It's a pity because I have seen some really impressive HDR shots. But it is *so* easy to overdo it.
 
Personally I like both extremes of HDR photography, for some images the cartoon effect seems to work, surely like all photos what one person loves another will hate it is all subjective.
If people really hate HDR that much why enter a thread that mentions it then go "AAARRRGGHH my eyes" :)

Some HDR shots don't work, but then they probably wouldn't without the HDR.

Here is what I believe to be my best HDr of Five Arches, I actually had this printed on a canvas for our wall.
 
Used to be a problem in the 19th century as well apparently

Who knows eh!

Cezanne_Still_life_with_fruit_dish.jpg
 
littlemonster said:
There's a fine line between realistic HDR and fake looking. As a rule I like the realistic, and it's about a 30/70 dislike to like of things just on the other side of that line. The problem is, on a scale of 1 being completely natural looking, 5 that fine line and 10 being the overly fake - most HDR seems to fall between 9 and 10.
Click to expand...


Nail.Head.

Unfortunately a lot of people seem to use HDR (to level 9 or 10 on Gemma's scale) in an attempt to make a poorly composed,boring or just plain bad photo seem interesting.

It doesn't, a bad photo is a bad photo, converting it to HDR just makes it a messy bad photo.
 
The funniest thing I find is when you post an image that is HDR but only very subtly so and you don't tell people it is, they comment that they like the image even though some of them often bash the technique if told it is HDR. I've done this a fair bit this year

There's a knee jerk reaction from some folk that when they hear the word HDR they already tell themselves they are going to hate the shot.
 
I consider the people who start making value judgements about the picture solely because of the process miss the point of a critique.

A picture is never 'real'. Every image be it film or digital, has some type of limitation on the capture of the image that appears in the final print.

HDR clearly has a place in the 'toolbox' of photographers, just as 'fake' devices such as ultra wide lenses, tripods and inkjet printers do. ;)
 
joescrivens said:
The funniest thing I find is when you post an image that is HDR but only very subtly so and you don't tell people it is, they comment that they like the image even though some of them often bash the technique if told it is HDR. I've done this a fair bit this year

There's a knee jerk reaction from some folk that when they hear the word HDR they already tell themselves they are going to hate the shot.
Click to expand...

:agree:

I am not a fan of heavily processed HDR so I tend to steer clear of threads which I know contain HDR images. However, I am big enough to acknowledge the process and what people can achieve.

I have to be honest now and state, one of the best, if not the best image I have seen posted on this forum was a HDR image (in my opinion of course) and that was one of the Shambles in York, I forget who posted it but the image was, in my opinion truly outstanding and one I would happily part with money to obtain.
 
I was under the impression that the object of HDR was to increase the dynamic range to more closely resemble what we see with our eyes, Church interiors being a good example where both the shadow detail and stained glass windows can be seen.
 
artyman said:
I was under the impression that the object of HDR was to increase the dynamic range to more closely resemble what we see with our eyes, Church interiors being a good example where both the shadow detail and stained glass windows can be seen.
Click to expand...

HDR is just a technique, what you use it for is up to your own interpretation and artistic merit just like any other tool out there.
 
Quaker said:
:agree:

I am not a fan of heavily processed HDR so I tend to steer clear of threads which I know contain HDR images. However, I am big enough to acknowledge the process and what people can achieve.

I have to be honest now and state, one of the best, if not the best image I have seen posted on this forum was a HDR image (in my opinion of course) and that was one of the Shambles in York, I forget who posted it but the image was, in my opinion truly outstanding and one I would happily part with money to obtain.
Click to expand...

this one?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=201172
 
joescrivens said:
this one?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=201172
Click to expand...

Very good, I do like B&W HDR I often try it with my HDR shots and sometimes desaturate them, sounds like you are defeating the object of HDR but what can I say I like the effect

Unfortunately a lot of people seem to use HDR (to level 9 or 10 on Gemma's scale) in an attempt to make a poorly composed,boring or just plain bad photo seem interesting.

It doesn't, a bad photo is a bad photo, converting it to HDR just makes it a messy bad photo.
Click to expand...
I read that as Gamma scale thinking I'm sure it doesn't go that high they must be using different software :shrug::nuts:
 
POAH said:
whats your point caller - so it appears that most people on TP think HDR is rubbish. Nowt wrong with that.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with people having views along the lines of hdr being rubbish, but my issue is with the way they express them.
I would not expect to see critique advising that someone's image is rubbish because they used a cheap kit lens.

joescrivens said:
The funniest thing I find is when you post an image that is HDR but only very subtly so and you don't tell people it is, they comment that they like the image even though some of them often bash the technique if told it is HDR. I've done this a fair bit this year

There's a knee jerk reaction from some folk that when they hear the word HDR they already tell themselves they are going to hate the shot.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I am trying to raise.

Voyager said:
I consider the people who start making value judgements about the picture solely because of the process miss the point of a critique.

A picture is never 'real'. Every image be it film or digital, has some type of limitation on the capture of the image that appears in the final print.

HDR clearly has a place in the 'toolbox' of photographers, just as 'fake' devices such as ultra wide lenses, tripods and inkjet printers do. ;)
Click to expand...

Could not agree more.
 
Mike.P said:
HERE in your face HDR shots.
Click to expand...

I find it rather hard to justify shooting such subject in HDR with a proper dSLR. For a start this is fighting with contrasty light, that is neither pretty nor interesting. I can see how P&S shooters invented HDR as a way of getting less blown-out snapshots. A proper camera records enough details in RAW / film that can be easily pulled back in post. HDR doesn't make that shot interesting, as the light remains bland, while the colours start looking very odd. Good / interesting light (natural or created) is a requirement for any good photograph.

The problem of complex light also existed in the old days, and more appropriate solutions had been found, and they are still applicable today. Firstly, there are ND grad filters. Then the RAW file can be selectively processed as needed. Then there are manual multi-shot blending techniques - all of which individually or in combination give better results than HDR.

At least I personally haven't seen a single really good HDR yet, so somebody would need to convince me otherwise.
 
:thumbs:You can please some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you will never please all the people all the time :)

Some people like film, some like digital
Some people like colour some like black and white,
some like portraits some like landscapes
and some like normal photography and some like HDR

to quote beauty is in the eye of the beholder and see this thread;
http://talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=270340

Now lets all step away from the keyboard beg to be different and live and let live
:thumbs:

are there enough quotes in this post?
 
Peter10d said:
.....I remember when digital first came out, and I am sure many others, despised the thought of moving away from film, but many years later I am so glad I did.
......
Click to expand...

But digital photography (i.e. using a sensor to capture an image instead of film) is no different from 'regular' film photography - you focus, get your exposure right and press the shutter. All that's different is the way you get the image out as a finished product and remember. :)

Problem with HDR is that it is usually the overriding presentation technique so it gets noticed and mentioned before anything else.

The OP asks why non-HDR(style) images don't get picked on as heavily but that's because they generally rely on composition, exposure, subject etc to catch the viewer, not the addition of HDR processing to 'sell' the shot. Let's not be blind here; if a badly processed shot is shown that's not HDR then it will be jumped upon just as quickly - it's just that HDR is often made such a big deal about that it's the first thing people want to get off their chest.

The other thing is this (and I'll probably be linched for saying so); there are a lot of sub-standard shots displayed in the forums that rely on processing such as HDR to veil the otherwise noticeable mistakes and flaws. No processing is a cover-up for bad photography but because it's in vogue, we probably see more HDR stuff so it seems there's more attacking it. Criticism is dished out pretty fairly here on TP - it's usually oversensitive members who think there's some kind of linch mob out there to get them.

If it's your thing then do it but like any art form, always expect people to comment on the obvious first and foremost......
 
Last edited:
HDR seems to be the equivalent of silicon implants in some cases. I've only seen a few HDR images that I have liked as I don't often like the artificial look it seems to offer. For architecture like the church interior and the black and white street shots then it is a different ballgame. I think if done well it is a genuine improvement. But if done badly it's worse than a compromise exposure.

I'd be interested to know how the dynamic range of film and digital compare.
 
I quite often don't say an image is HDR now and it rarely comes up, people who would often put it down seem to not mention it and instead comment on the other parts of the images, all of these were HDR shots but that was never brought up in the C&C

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=235174
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=235079
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=234904
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=224751
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=211970
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=200517
 
srichards said:
HDR seems to be the equivalent of silicon implants in some cases.
Click to expand...

:D but true

srichards said:
I'd be interested to know how the dynamic range of film and digital compare.
Click to expand...

Well, it used to be that you'd reckon on about 7 stops on a DSLR. But a number of recent models are being quoted in the 12-13 range at low ISO (e.g. ISO 100). How realistic these numbers are in the real world may depend in part on how much noise you find acceptable in the shadows.

b/w negative film you can get usable information over a range of around 12-14 stops. There's a lot more headroom in the highlights as overexposure tends to roll off detail gently.

Colour slide fares much worse in the 5-7 stop range, and, rather like digital, over exposure to the point of blowing the highlights will result in sudden death of detail, which is why nailing your exposure is so much more important when shooting slide.
 
Last edited:
Have to say that the only people who have ever commented to me negatively about HDR, or who I have seen to comment negatively about HDR are always... yes, you've guessed it... photographers. These photographers seem to think they know the 'rules' surrounding HDR i.e. what's right, and what's not right. Not, I might add... what in their opinion is good or in their opinion is bad, but what IS right and what IS wrong. Phah... poppycock.

Everyone else I have shown HDR shots to, thinks they are fantastic.

Do you shoot your shots for other photographers, for yourself, or for other people...? I know out of these three what I do. :)
 
Last edited:
If people didnt over use it in every situation possible im sure people wouldnt hate it as much.

But alas it seems people feel they must get a crap dull image and crank it up to the max with some overprocessing garbage.

Its a bit like selective colour images, when you see so many pics of 1 persons t shirt the only thing colour you wonder if people actually are able to do anything 'different' and a bit more challenging.
 
POAH said:
its the truth though although it could be put better - its harshly worded even for me :lol:
Click to expand...

how can an opinion be true or false?

What you mean to say is you agree with his opinion but it could be worded better, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top