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

I think the fundamental point is that neither film nor digital sensor can achieve the same dynamic range as the human eye can see.

This makes facile the argument that neither shadow nor highlight should contain detail.

The downside to HDR is that the compression software required to display the image on a monitor, or print onto paper, ranges from rough and ready to almost adequate. Indeed its in the compression that errors are made by the user.

Metering and exposure are just as important in HDR as in a single exposure. You need the correctly exposed image to act as the anchor for compressing the + and - shots.

I'm sorry, but i wish the original poster of the comment concerning B&W (I really cant be assed to look back to find out who you are) lived in B&W times.
 
I think this argu.. discussion centres around who is behind the brush/camera, Van Gogh, Constable, Lowrie or Michaelangelo. there's room for all and all have their followers.
 
Jonnyreb said:
I think the fundamental point is that neither film nor digital sensor can achieve the same dynamic range as the human eye can see.

This makes facile the argument that neither shadow nor highlight should contain detail.
Click to expand...

Hi Jonnyreb,

Sorry to contradict you - but that's not strictly true. Seeing is as much a process of the brain as it is the eye. The part of your eye that actually sees details is very small. It's called the fovea and it's at the centre of the macula. When you are looking your eye is moving around so that the fovea can build up a detailed image. If you think of this in terms of exposure it is a bit like spot metering.

So you could say that HDR is precisely how your eye works - and that might be true - but it is not the way your brain percieves the images.

Sitting in my office now I am looking at the way the light through the blinds falls on my black ipod, catching the reflective surface. By concentrating (and thereby focusing the fovea) on the highlights, the shadows lose their detail - by focusing on the shadow detail the highlights lose theirs.

So whilst my eyes can take millions of images and exposures in a second, so I know what detail is in the highlights and what is lurking in the shadows that's not how we percieve the image as we see it.

When HDR is over (or inexpertly) used it creates an unreal image (bear in mind that HDRI was developed for videogames - and it can have that effect on photographs or making them look like videogame images).

Or look at it this way - most of the grand masters of painting - who used thier eyes and could choose any exposure they liked were very fond of shadows.

(I've been typing so long I'm sure I've wandered far from the point)
 
But by mentioning artists being able to use their own exposures, you are contradicting your own debate. Take artists that painted scenes as they were, and you will find several that painted the same scene many times in order to capture the different details and different light levels both with dark undetailed shadows and with much more details shadows. Photography is merely another art form [in fact, definately PhArt :D ], and many different media and tools can be used to create the image the artist wants. I personally dont like too many oil paintings, they look always look heavy and over done, but I dont think its wrong to use oil, its what the artist wanted and pressumably, as we all know some of these paintings, some of his/her 'audience' must have liked them.

Jonny also has a point, to do a good HDR, you need to start with a well exposed shot, otherwise the end result will be less good. Yes, I have seen some less good HDR images here [most of them I have posted], but you only learn to do it well by trying and asking for constructive critisism, ditto any picture, using any processing technique.
 
nigelcampbell said:
So whilst my eyes can take millions of images and exposures in a second, so I know what detail is in the highlights and what is lurking in the shadows that's not how we percieve the image as we see it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is isn't it. :D


The brain inherently alters the image coming from its lens, we don't see the real world as it actually is you could argue, evolution has altered our mental image processing so that we can see the highlights and shadows at the same time.

Unlike a normal photograph....but similar to an HDR. ..so whats right and wrong? ...you'd have to ask god. ;)
 
nigelcampbell said:
Hi Jonnyreb,

Sorry to contradict you - but that's not strictly true. Seeing is as much a process of the brain as it is the eye. The part of your eye that actually sees details is very small. It's called the fovea and it's at the centre of the macula. When you are looking your eye is moving around so that the fovea can build up a detailed image. If you think of this in terms of exposure it is a bit like spot metering.

So you could say that HDR is precisely how your eye works - and that might be true - but it is not the way your brain percieves the images.

Sitting in my office now I am looking at the way the light through the blinds falls on my black ipod, catching the reflective surface. By concentrating (and thereby focusing the fovea) on the highlights, the shadows lose their detail - by focusing on the shadow detail the highlights lose theirs.

So whilst my eyes can take millions of images and exposures in a second, so I know what detail is in the highlights and what is lurking in the shadows that's not how we percieve the image as we see it.

When HDR is over (or inexpertly) used it creates an unreal image (bear in mind that HDRI was developed for videogames - and it can have that effect on photographs or making them look like videogame images).

Or look at it this way - most of the grand masters of painting - who used thier eyes and could choose any exposure they liked were very fond of shadows.

(I've been typing so long I'm sure I've wandered far from the point)
Click to expand...

Hi nigelcampbell

Thanks for the biology lesson but you'll agree, I'm sure, that rhodopsin is responsible for reacting to light and the reaction is linear - unlike the ability of a non-boilogical photocell which is limited by its inherent digital programming. Thus, in a digital receptor, the majority of detail is stored within the mid-range of the spectrum, sharply tailing off at both the black and white poles.

When we've both quite finished with finished playing in semantics I think we're agreed :D
 
nigelcampbell said:
So whilst my eyes can take millions of images and exposures in a second, so I know what detail is in the highlights and what is lurking in the shadows that's not how we percieve the image as we see it.
Click to expand...

Ah, what a better world it would be if visual art comprised only the world as we see it, and music comprised only the sounds we naturally hear.

How much richer our lives would be...

Ordinarily I avoid these debates, but this strikes me as similar to "the waterfall debate" that comes up in photography every so often. There's always someone who "hates that silky water look - it's fake, it's not how we see it....and stop it, just stop it!!". They advocate a faster shutter, freezing the water droplets in space - which of course is also not how we see waterfalls! Then you point out that if you search "waterfalls" on flickr, the favourite ones are all the silky ones - people like them.

HDR to me is no different to silky waterfalls, filters, even sharpening or colour - just an effect that can be pleasing, or can be taken too far. We intensify blacks for effect, where's the problem to extend the dynamic range? Sure the effects can be bad, but why does a bad HDR arouse such intensity of emotion when a million bad photos on the 'net go otherwise uncommented. An unpleasing image is just that - HDR or otherwise - and may be very pleasing to someone else.

It's a debate that isn't even a debate. I'm actually not much of an HDR fan (done one in my life to try the technique), but even if I were the only person in the world who liked them, that would be reason enough for me! :-)
 
I've never understood the argument that HDR is a better representation of a scene due to a single exposure not capturing a dynamic range like the human eye does. If that's the case why do HDR images never look anything like my eye sees a scene?
 
I like it sometimes, others I dont. I think people need to learn to burn properly as sometimes it can all look to much. Perhaps Pete should arrange a training weekend? ;)
 
B&W now that's unnatural!

Infra-red, come on!

Solarised? Tosh.

Fill flash? How weird is that.

Grad filters, mental.

f2 for narrow DoF, yea, like that matches what our eyes see, I often have my eyes set to f2

Lots of Ansel Adams' work is highly push processed work & in B&W - all crap then

HDR rules

(if you like that sort of thing)

Which I do

From the subtle to the wildly OTT - it's just art after all

Will you complain or not by the Canon 44,000D or the Nikon D578x when launched with a 15-stop dynamic range? Where to get shots as we do today, you'll have to 'Tone Map' out of that extensive range!

What a daft thread - like it
 
Diego Garcia said:
I like it sometimes, others I dont. I think people need to learn to burn properly as sometimes it can all look to much. Perhaps Pete should arrange a training weekend? ;)
Click to expand...

I think you've got a point there Pete. I thinking dodging and burning is probably a lost art on anyone who hasn't developed there own film in the past, myself included. I know what it does (kinf of) but because I've not used it before from a film background I don't know when to use it, when not to and how much too.
 
50 posts in less than a day - and a wide range of opinions and viewpoints well argued. I like this forum. My original post was deliberately inflammatory, that's just the way I am. There are more subtle ways of doing things but I've always been the one who thinks that the best way to see if a crocodile is asleep or dead is to walk up and poke it with a stick. (not always wise but it sure keep life interesting.)

I think in conclusion Bad HDR (or insert technique here) is Bad but good HDR (or insert technique here) is good. - Doh! how did I not see that before?? :D:D
 
Kev M said:
I've never understood the argument that HDR is a better representation of a scene due to a single exposure not capturing a dynamic range like the human eye does. If that's the case why do HDR images never look anything like my eye sees a scene?
Click to expand...

Kev - as per my earlier note, it the compression software (or operator) that lets the process down. A properly done HDR will be almost impossible to tell - you'll just notice a high level of detail throughout the range.

As John mentioned - the exaggerated effect can be very artistic - just look at Pete's site.
 
Good thread Nigel, I've thoroughly enjoyed keeping up with it. And what a great testament to this place that we can have a healthy debate in a friendly way :D :thumbs:
 
FWIW...I think HDR, like all other techniques, has it's place in a photographers repertoire (sp?) of skills. Like all skills , it has to be learned and refined, so I like to think that all the HDR's I've seen on here that I consider to be "overcooked", are from those still learning. When I see a shot that I know from its quality has had "something" done to it, but just not sure what, then I feel the user has developed those skills that much further, and when I see a truely stunning shot and wish I could produce work like that, then I know I'm looking at the work of a truely skilled photographer.

We have many of those on here and too many to name (they know who they are anyway) so I just watch and hopefully learn.
 
blinkerz said:
One of my overcooked :]

war03.jpg
Click to expand...

All well and good, a fine example of the move from 'pure' photography toward Art.

The strange thing is, I would've liked it just as much as a 'straight' image! How perverse is that?
 
Grendel said:
Good thread Nigel, I've thoroughly enjoyed keeping up with it. And what a great testament to this place that we can have a healthy debate in a friendly way :D :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I agree, really good debate about the topic which hasn't spilled into slapping, hair pulling and handbags at 10 paces :lol:
 
Wile E. coyote said:
I agree, really good debate about the topic which hasn't spilled into slapping, hair pulling and handbags at 10 paces :lol:
Click to expand...

Sorry, been busy ;) I'm not sure I have anything to add really. Seems that everything I'd say has been covered by everyone else. HDR like B&W or fill-in flash can be used for good or bad.
 
Kev M said:
I've never understood the argument that HDR is a better representation of a scene due to a single exposure not capturing a dynamic range like the human eye does. If that's the case why do HDR images never look anything like my eye sees a scene?
Click to expand...

This part just hit me while out driving.

img_9951-edit.jpg


Now thats how a camera sees a scene because it doesn't have the dynamic range your eyes do. Your eyes don't see silhouetted buildings that way but the camera does. The point is that no-one ever says "OMG silhouettes!! How unrealistic!!!" Its an accepted style of photography.
 
I've always said that the best thing your technique can do is not call attention to itself. In my opinion, any time the technique (filter/effect/processing) upstages the subject, something's wrong.

That's precisely why selective color drives me absolutely bonkers. I can't stand it. When I'm looking at a B&W portrait and the eyes are a freakishly bright alien green...... well, let's just say I don't think it works. ;)

- CJ
 
I think sometimes it works, sometimes not. I just do whatever I think makes the image look best. Certainly nothing "wrong" about it :)

BTW, you're lucky Pete's in a good mood :D
 
No need to do that, I'm not (that)stupid. I know they're screwed, as are a lot of folks' I guess.
Doesn't change the fact though :p
 
I've ssen some aweful (IMO) HDR but I can't show them here.
 
I felt the same too. There are plenty of bad HDR images out there and rather than laugh at them publically, it would probably be better to post a few and say why you feel they don't work so others can learn from it. The voices in my head will of course be laughing ;)
 
Okay, I'll be more constructive.
IMO

This photo could be more effective if... the photographer had not used HDR. The dynamic range of the original scene is pretty flat, falling within a couple of stops. There is nothing particularly bright or dark within the frame. It seems that the photographer has used HDR simply because they could. Indeed, they seem to have pushed the software settings to the extreme, resulting in some rather odd-looking effects on Dubya's shirt, and a lot of noise on his bodyguard's suit.



This photo is effective because... the photographer has used HDR to increase the range of lighting within the photograph. The added detail available in the sky adds drama and tone to what I presume would have otherwise been a slightly mundane grey sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top