HDR Images - just stop it - it's wrong!

nigelcampbell

nigelcampbell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
428
Edit My Images
No
I do like a controversial Subject line!

But really, I've been thinking this for some time; looking around the web at many examples of HDR, and I have not seen one image that really justifies the process - they all look overcooked - and some of them look downright awful!!

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a purist thing. I shot and processed my own film and prints back in the day. I stood in dark rooms inhaling noxious chemicals - but I did a lot of dodging and burning and a spot of cross processing along the way. When I went digital I continued to post process.

But the HDR thing seems to come in 2 flavours.
"I don't know how to meter a shot and dodge and burn so I'll take a random selection of exposures and combine them" - or "HDR is cool so I'll do it to all my shots whether or not they need them".

In the end I guess it's personal taste, but there is something unnatural about them in my opinion.

I wonder whether people get hung up on the (incorrect) idea that you have to have detail in your shadows and your highlights. Go look at some of Ansel Adam's actual prints and you'll see some solid areas of black that would still have (distracting) detail in a HDR shot.

(now let me read that back and check it.... HDR is wrong.... yes.... cat.... pigeons... OK that all seems in order... over to you).
 
For the most part, I agree with you ... but you're gonna get flamed for that!
 
Awaits for Pete's arrival :whistling:

Can't say I agree with you. Its just another forum of processing. I can agree that they can be overcooked too much, but done in the right way it can add so much to a picture which the camera just isn't able to capture.
 
876288163_db75efbe6e.jpg


I could not have got this image without HDR, my little Canon G7 just does not have the Dynamic Range to capture both the highlight and shadow detail and no amount of doging and burning will bring it back. I did not have the luxury of RAW, so had to put up with 8bit JPG's.

Its a tool, just like a flash / lens / filter and should be used as such.
 
Or its right!


Photography, like all art, is subjective. One mans Picasso is another mans Tracy Emin....

Fair enough, you dont have to like HDR, though it does come in many shapes, from so subtle as to be unnoticable unless you see the original for comparison, to OTT extreme.

Like all art, it is neither right not wrong, it is just another form of representation of an image. ;)
 
:clap: I mostly agree with that. HDR, along with fake tilt shift are two of my pet hates. HDR can be done well and subtly, but very rarely is imo. Some of the few examples of nice subtle HDR can be seen on this great site; http://www.timecatcher.com/. To be totally honest, I don't even mind the HDR look of skies, its the overbaked ground that I hate, and shots with no light and shade.
 
...... and I'm not overly impressed with duo-tones! :razz:

I'm must add there is a place for both (all processing for that matter) in the correct context..... but some HDR leaves me cold!
 
It's a nice shot Chillimonster - though (again personal opinion) I would probably spend time in photoshop taking out much of the detail you have worked hard to preserve.

But I do love a good debate - so to quote Johnny Storm "Flame on!"
 
Just in case anyone missed it the first time :p

nigelcampbell said:
(now let me read that back and check it.... HDR is wrong.... yes.... cat.... pigeons... OK that all seems in order... over to you).
Click to expand...
 
mmmmmmmmmmm....

I tend to agree mostly.
I do like a few hdr images for what they are rather than what they were IYSWIM.
It can be used effectively but ...

These days photography seems more about what you do with an image than getting that image !
 
When I see a beautiful shot & Im not quite sure if it has been HDR'd... then I think HDR works.

When I see an HDR image that is so poor & cartoonlike it could be in the Beano ... then with jaw on the keyboard I usually just find myself pressing the back button as I know the creator would not care to hear my thoughts on it!
 
Good point InaGlo - I think it was Hitchcock who said that if you're noticing the direction while watching a film - the director is doing a bad job.

I guess that's what I mean about HDR - or perhaps to add a qualifyer - I mean to say that if I'm noticing the effect instead of the image - then for me its a problem. Same goes for duotones, B&W, cross processing etc.
HDR is just the flavour of the month.
 
Ah well I love it! I use it an awful lot and I know that even thugh I get the odd amount of stick many people seem to like the overall effect. Agreed it can be overcooked on some and sometimes very subtle in other hands.

I use it to create a look I like - mainly on architecture but sometimes on other scenes .

The shot here is HDR'd and it rates in my mind as one of my all time favourites - others may think that HDR was necessary - I happen to think it enhances the shot.

goodbye.jpg



There must be a place for all types of processing and the word 'wrong' surely cannot be used on such a subjective subject.

Lets face it for every HDR shot that looks 'awful' there must be one or more infra-red, macro, mono, duo-tone etc etc shots that look awful and no-one says the techniques are wrong.

There's a place for HDR as with all these techniques (imho)
 
Interesting thread that I think will run and run :clap:

Funnily enough I was having a conversation with Rob (rwotton on here) last night on the subject of HDR. We were both of the opinion that, used subtly to enhance an image it can be an invaluable tool. The trouble is too many people over use it and end up with shots that immediatley look HDR'd and consequently very unnatural. I'm not at all against it, I just feel that as soon as as you can see that a shot has had HDR applied to it it looks wrong. The shots it works on are the ones where the HDR doesn't slap you in the face. A good example of subtle use of HDR is John's (Dark Star) shot posted above IMO (you can slip me the tenner later John ;))
 
Dark Star said:
There must be a place for all types of processing and the word 'wrong' surely cannot be used on such a subjective subject.
Click to expand...

Agreed - but if I said HDR isn't my "cup of tea" I'm not sure ot would have got such a strong response.

Nice shot BTW - but I'm interested, what did HDR add to it for you that you could not have done some other way? I'm interested.

Here's my take on that shot - because everything is sharp and detailed, I don't know where to look - my eye is drawn to all parts of the shot (which could be your intention) when I feel as if I should be focussing more on the couple. Or maybe I just have A.D.D. ;)
 
OK. Now I know I'm going to look pretty dim here:embarrassed:, but what is HDR:thinking:.

Sharon
 
I think there is a place for HDR and enjoy looking at quality HDR'ed images. But there has been a preponderance of them - mostly from people who shouldn't, or with images that shouldn't.

But what do I know. I happen to think the same about B&W. Too many are resorting to mono in a usually failed attempt to make a crap pic presentable.
 
A good HDR shot is one where you can't tell it's been used. The first example posted by chillimonster is a good example of that. If you looked at the shot your unlikely to know that HDR has been used. Pete Carr has some great example on his site and some hthat are overcooked, but he does that to demonstrate the use of HDR. The bottom line is that Digital film cannot handle the full dynamic range of some scenes, using HDR can bring back the highlights and shadows where they would either be blown or no detail with one exposure.
HDR has it use, but when it's overdone I'd have to agree with you it's just wrong.
 
Dark Star said:
Ah well I love it! I use it an awful lot and I know that even thugh I get the odd amount of stick many people seem to like the overall effect. Agreed it can be overcooked on some and sometimes very subtle in other hands.

I use it to create a look I like - mainly on architecture but sometimes on other scenes .

The shot here is HDR'd and it rates in my mind as one of my all time favourites - others may think that HDR was necessary - I happen to think it enhances the shot.
Click to expand...

I think that is your all time favourite shot, john, because of the content.
Wouldnt it have looked just as good without hdr?

If you use it on all virtually all your shots, then are you saying you arent a good photoghapher because you need to do that to every one? :shrug:
I would disagree, and that you are good, but have got stuck in the rut or habit of using this technique.
 
Sharonap said:
OK. Now I know I'm going to look pretty dim here:embarrassed:, but what is HDR:thinking:.

Sharon
Click to expand...

High Dynamic Range. It's a processing technique where having taken 3 shots of the same scene using exposure bracketing (ie, one over exposed, one under exposed and one in the middle), you then use software like Photomatix to combine the best of all 3 shots to supposedly capture the full dynamic range of the scene. It's supposed to more faithfully represent what the eye would see but that's the basis of the discussion here I guess.
 
I'm just off out so I'll say...

Thou shall burn in the firey pits of damnation for this obscenity! HDR > Thee.

My HDR work from the almost extreme to the tastefully done. Calling HDR images wrong means you dunno jack. He's a pirate by the way, big fan of my work.
 
Hi Pete,

Took a little time to reply as I was looking at your site - some excellent images there and I can honestly say that I only noticed that thing that really bugs me about HDR on a couple of shots - though I'm sure you used it on many more.

You have a shot of a stone figure by the sea which reminded me a little of Brian Griffin's photo for the cover of "Heaven up Here" by Echo and the Bunnymen (shot on Formby Beach if memory serves) - LEWIS'S is Closing??!! (my first saturday job was working there as a nipper)

Seems like you're the exception that proves the rule

Now if you see Jack - tell him that compass I bought off ebay from him is faulty and I want my dubloons back!


Right I really am off to do some work now (and put the finishing touches to my "Macro photography is Rubbish" post for tomorrow.)
 
Too many other interesting threads to bother with this one at the moment. Will come back when it gets quieter. :D

;)
 
2blue4u said:
I happen to think the same about B&W. Too many are resorting to mono in a usually failed attempt to make a crap pic presentable.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree but the pics are not necessarily crap. It's the mono 'because I can' not because it works that gets me. Not that i like mono in any case :)

nigelcampbell said:
Nice shot BTW - but I'm interested, what did HDR add to it for you that you could not have done some other way? I'm interested.
Click to expand...

As has been said the processing created a look that the creator and many viewers like. Does the name of the processing make any difference? 'Some other way' that does the same thing is pointless unless it is easier/quicker.

There are plenty of filters and effects people can abuse in PS etc. Most of the results are horrible but people still use them. HDR gets you more detail and can change the look of a picture. Its a tool. Use it or don't. Live and let live.
 
Nigel, surely duo tones, as used in another thread of yours, are only the same thing - a processing method used to enhance/change the image the camera is able to produce?

Subtle HDR is an excellent technique when used subtley to produce what the camera cannot no matter how good it is and how good the photographer is. When used more extensively, yes, it gives an almost computer generated look, which I happen to quite like for certain images, but I don't expect everyone to. As long as the images are presented as such, and not claimed to be 'how it left the camera' I don't see a problem using even 'over cooked' as long as its done sympathetically.
 
Tim, going to have to comminsion a "suitable this thread is .........." pic from you.
 
LadyLens said:
As long as the images are presented as such, and not claimed to be 'how it left the camera' I don't see a problem using even 'over cooked' as long as its done sympathetically.
Click to expand...

PMSL - had someone in mind did we there Yv :D
 
LadyLens said:
Nigel, surely duo tones, as used in another thread of yours, are only the same thing - a processing method used to enhance/change the image the camera is able to produce?
Click to expand...

nigelcampbell said:
...I mean to say that if I'm noticing the effect instead of the image - then for me its a problem. Same goes for duotones, B&W, cross processing etc.
Click to expand...


(not here - honest)
 
Good debate this :D

I'll stick to my style, I don't think I'm in a rut, young Janice.

I've simply found a style and effect I like and enjoy working with.

I suppose its a mix of Photographic and and Artistic style - "PhArt" maybe :D

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! But, by god, its fun having a go!

And isn't that what its about?
 
Dark Star said:
Good debate this :D

I'll stick to my style, I don't think I'm in a rut, young Janice.

I've simply found a style and effect I like and enjoy working with.

I suppose its a mix of Photographic and and Artistic style - "PhArt" maybe :D

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! But, by god, its fun having a go!

And isn't that what its about?
Click to expand...


Well said OLD JOHN!!! Put me in my place!! :D
 
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Photography is a very subjective area as someone has already said, and it'd be pretty boring if we all came up with the same type of work. Variety being the spice of life and all that ;)
I've seen some excellent HDR work on here, and again, I've seen some almost fluorescent dreadful HDR work on here. The best HDR shots are probably the ones you can't spot :D
 
Janice said:
Well said OLD JOHN!!! Put me in my place!! :D
Click to expand...


:D Didn't mean it to sound quite like that Janice :D

And less of the OLD!!!! :p


Or maybe I should swap HDR for HRT!!!!


Nice image Tristan!!! Overcooked or not - now that's PhArt!
 
I do like subtle HDR, such as the example shown above with the person on the moped. But I do feel that there are some people out there who couldn't do a non-hdr image if they had to, is this because they can't expose a shot correctly or cause thats all they know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top