HDR: overused, boring or something really special?

[specialman]

So what's everyone's opinion of HDR?

It seems to be the 'in thing' at the moment, a bit like solarisation was in the darkroom when we all did our A-level photo courses, and tobacco grad filters were when everyone wanted to take moody landscape shots like Joe Cornish.

Myself, I'm seeing it as something that will remain but the effect of which is just becoming diluted very quickly through overuse, especally on mediocre shots that would have been better shot with decent metering knowledge in the first place.

Are photographers becoming lazy thanks to the apperent ease in which they can 'reclaim' lost tonal range that 10 years ago we would have lauded as 'moody' and 'atmospheric'?

Photoshop and other like software has allowed a generation of photographers to work on their pics like nothing in the past has allowed – it's certainly made image making to become something anyone can do – but what with digital SLRs now selling like mobile phones did when they become accessible to the masses, are there simply too many 'photographers' who point-and-shoot and rely on the software like Photomatix to 'rescue' what was dull in the first place?

Let the discussion/battle/rampant character assasinations begin...

 

[petemc]

Ro roh Shaggy!

 

[Jo]

Oh dear

 

[dcash29]

I have mixed feelings....If done correctly it looks great, and probably a step up from what used to happen in the darkroom due to technology.

That said it doesnt make it easy for us that dont have the skill.

Although let me sum it up with a line from a winning letter in Photography Monthy

I quote " Lets not make the mistake of believing that being an expert Photoshop manipulator makes you a good photographer"

 

[basegreen]

mixed feelings really... there's a lot of snobbery due to

1) People being left behind by the latest manipulation tools/filters
2) People getting annoyed that years of hard metering and careful exposure has been undone by software
3) People getting wound up that even pretty poor shots can look dramatic in ToneMapped HDR

 

[dcash29]

Snobbery....not on my part Basegreen

Image manipulation should be considered in my opinion when entering competitions people should decide...is it photography or graphic art they are interested in.

It would soon get sorted out if the judges had stricter guidelines

 

[jamiefsmith]

3) People getting wound up that even pretty poor shots can look dramatic in ToneMapped HDR

I'd agree with that, not the bit about getting wound up mind. I really love some hdr, but it's losing it's novelty for me as I wade through reams of it on every site.
I seem to go on some peoples personal sites only to see 90% hdr, this makes it a bit "cheap", only imo of course:bonk:

 

[Canon Bob]

Personally, it's not my thing but neither are abstracts.

I think it became too popular too quickly and there were too many half arsed attempts toted as HDR but, in truth, were anything but.

Perhaps the true exponents of the art could start putting thumbnails of the numerous exposures under their rendered image. This might then allow us to decide if it's the photographer or the software package that we're judging.

Bob

 

[DoubleT]

ive only just worked out how to produce somthing good from it, so for me its the next best thing

 

[ab$olut]

I think its getting way overused the hdr I like the most is the kind you can't really notice.

 

[foodpoison]

In my opinion, image manipulation is just one of the steps towards creating a photograph.

Its like in the dark room. Its just like using contrast filters on the enlargers, or using a sepia toner. Its not the film's true image, but so what?

I personally use a lot of HDR. I started out really over-doing it, but thinking it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. That was my naive opinion, and after having used HDR techniques, I now understand how to use it with subtlety to bring out the detail in an image, rather than over-cook it.

There was an image Jimmy Lemon took of 3 trees in a line, with flooding all around them. The original exposure was really quite boring (sorry!), but with a bit of tone mapping, he managed to bring some emotion out of it, and make what was a boring image, a really interesting one.
Thats not to say that it was a bad image in the first place, but the flat colours and flat light just ruined the shot for me, but with a bit of PP, what was a boring image was saved.

 

[Betty]

I have nothing to say on the matter, but I knew for damn sure Pete would be post 2

 

[Canon Bob]

In my opinion, image manipulation is just one of the steps towards creating a photograph.....

I'd disagree with you here FP....

I think a photograph is one of the steps towards creating an image.

I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with either approach but the disciplines are very different and require different skills....some lucky folk have both.

Bob

 

[Jonnyreb]

HDR is a fantastic tool (NOT a style) and i dont agree for a minute that its there to recover mediocre shots. Mediocre shots may come of it, but it is not a recovery process.

Yes, it can be overused and we may often wonder why it was used in a particular instance, but if there is another way to get a decent representation of a 10-stop scene with a digital sensor i'd love to hear about it.

 

[WillyNelson]

I quite like the HDR effect as championed by those who use it to good effect. But a poorly composed frame will still look awkward and bad tone mapping will still look badly cooked. Post processing is no substitute lack of technique.

As a wise man once said: you can't polish a turd.

 

[foodpoison]

I'd disagree with you here FP....

I think a photograph is one of the steps towards creating an image.

I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with either approach but the disciplines are very different and require different skills....some lucky folk have both.

Bob

Thats what I meant
Its early, got my words confused. Shame its two words that have completely different meanings

 

[petemc]

I have nothing to say on the matter, but I knew for damn sure Pete would be post 2

haha B&W is fine. Infrared is fine. Cross processing is fine. Duotoning is fine. Tritoning is fine. Silhouettes are fine. None look "real" but are accepted. HDR, well tone mapping, is too new to be accepted.

 

[Craikeybaby]

I think it does look good, but like with selective colouring too many people are doing it and it's lost it's specialness now.

 

[mole2k]

3) People getting wound up that even pretty poor shots can look dramatic in ToneMapped HDR

I've never really got how people got wound up by that. A poor shot HDR'd gives you a poor shot with some dramatic colour/contrast, it still looks like a poor shot imo.

Anti-HDR people always talk about it being for people who cant get it right in the camera and just have a 'fix it later' attitude. I find HDR requires really good light, it can be used to great effect highlighting some nice light but the light as to be there to do that in the first place.

You can make photos look over-tonemapped by using contrast masks which where common in the darkroom and are easy to do in photoshop as well.

 

[antihero]

I think the only real reason we see so much of it on here is down to guys like pete

There are those who have been using the method for a good while and pretty much know what they are doing, and consistently produce dramatic images. And there are others that see the fantastic results can be achieved and want to have a go, which is in no way a bad thing, but can lead to an over-saturation of "not really good enough" tonemapped images. An average shot will still lead to an average tonemapped shot (and heaven knows i've been guilty of this myself).

My comments are in no way meant to cause offence, but maybe new skills should be honed for a while before the results are posted en-mass.

 

[macmike]

As a wise man once said: you can't polish a turd.

Very wise indeed.

My opinion, for what it's worth:

If a photographer can't produce a dramatic image without HDR, then it shouldn't be used.

If one can tell that a photo has been HDR'd, then it's overdone.

In essence, if used subtly and sparingly, HDR is for me

 

[petemc]

There are those who have been using the method for a good while and pretty much know what they are doing, and consistently produce dramatic images. And there are others that see the fantastic results can be achieved and want to have a go, which is in no way a bad thing, but can lead to an over-saturation of "not really good enough" tonemapped images. An average shot will still lead to an average tonemapped shot (and heaven knows i've been guilty of this myself).

You could very easily say the same over any type of processing. B&W takes time to learn and get right but you always get people desaturating images and saying they are b&w. They don't realise that you should be thinking about the light at the scene to get a solid b&w image.

 

[james_death]

Will attempt HDR at some point,
But Hdr or normally shot makes no diffrence to me i like a shot or i dont.

 

[gpc1]

IMHO.....

HDR is another tool inthe photographers box of tricks. Same as Grad filters, colour filters, lighting effects, spot removal etc.

However..IT DOES NOT SUBTITUTE HAVING AN EYE FOR A PICTURE! (i said that very loudly)

a boring picture may well be bought to life by HDR but the tog has to have looked at that scene and thought 'OK, what if.....'

So whther its right or wrong, true or false, real or manipulated its purely in the eye of the viewer as to whther the photo works.

Pics can be technically excellent, but lack punch, others can be technically poor but capture so much emotion, life, death, atmosphere that it invokes a feeling in the viewer that then overrides any thought as to whether the focus is sharp, or the DOF is 'correct'.

So, whther HDR is good or bad, or right or wrong shouldnt realy be asked, the question is whther the Photograph is good....and what works fr some, doesnt work for others

beauty is in the eye of the viewer

Thats my 2 penneth worth, but hey, im still learning!

 

[yourapocalypse]

What they said ^^

 

[devitt]

Well im new to photography, and when I first came across HDR thought it was abit like cheating (imo) but also thought it was very clever bit of technology. However being new to photography I want to learn the true art of it and therefore leave out HDR atleast until I can take good shots with the best natural lighting possible from my camera. If i just jump straight into HDR work, then a year down the line I think my tog skills would be alot less improved than if i left it out for a while. Just a beginners insight tho lol.

 

[oldfart]

Image manipulation should be considered in my opinion when entering competitions people should decide...is it photography or graphic art they are interested in.

strange photographers have been manipulating images since photography began back in darkroom days. I find the resistance to HDR bizarre while quite happy to sharpen, tone convert, dodge/burn, filters, ND grads etc to manipulate image with a skill/tecnique learned over time to make images stand out.

i find it really strange that some will totally dismiss the use of HDR. I love Petes work but there is also a dark gritty side to HDR not seen much on here.

Perhaps the true exponents of the art could start putting thumbnails of the numerous exposures under their rendered image. This might then allow us to decide if it's the photographer or the software package that we're judging.

perhaps all images should be put up this way unmanipulated straight from camera then you can see skill of photographer. I've been using a D300 and some expensive lenses (not mine unfortunatly) and it makes even my pics look good so maybe we should all use same equipement get rid of all those nice L lenses etc. then it really would be skill of photographer..... em thought not lol

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

I think like everyone who plays with it I started off a bit OTT, but really find is a usefull tool now. My main reason for using it is the speed I can process a shot using tonemapping compared to carefull dodging and blending by hand.

I take time to compose a shot when taking it and meter as best as possible, but if you arent able to use a bit of fill flash or have any way of lighting a shadow or bring down a highligh (filter etc) then tonemapping/HDR is just so usefull. I have soooooo many shots that would have been near impossible to shoot perfectly at the time.

As foodpoison says the shot of a row of trees in a flooded field is nothing without tonemapping. I could have spent hours there waiting for the perfect conditions and trying to get some light onto the trees so I could expose for the very grey sky, but I knew I didn't need to. I knew I could exposure bracket (though even that takes some tweaking to get ideal shots for tonemapping) and end up with exposures covering the range of highlights and shadows. Then I know I can convert the raws to tiffs stick them in photomatix, move the appropriate sliders around, tweak it, stick it back in photoshop and resize and sharpen and I have a finished image. The other day I tried to manualy re-produce a tonemapped shot in photoshop and it took me over an hour to get somewhere near to what I got from photomatix (not the same though), and this was just using one exposure with dodging burning and level, contrast and saturation. It took about 10minutes in total using photomatix. So to me is a precise and speedy way of processing my shots.

All it takes away from the old skills of photography is the waiting around for perfect conditions, in my opinion, and where some people love this part I personally dont, I would much rather get the best I can at the time and perfect it later.

 

[InaGlo]

Personally, I couldnt give a damn how an image is achieved. If someone has a great post-processing technique then all credit to them.
What does irk me, is the many feeble attempts at hdr that I see, where the image creator gets testy and accuses others of 'snobbery' if flaws are pointed out to them.
If its snobbery then so be it but, imo there is nothing worse than seeing images reduced to sketches where the blues blind , the reds scream, and there are more halos than in heaven.
If youre going to do it, study it, get it right .. oh! and dont be so damn precious about it!

 

[dazzajl]

but if there is another way to get a decent representation of a 10-stop scene with a digital sensor i'd love to hear about it.

16 bit capture gives a 12 stop latitude..... which is nice.

HDR simply CAN NOT be a bad thing, any more than it can be a good thing. It's technology and tech is always neutral.

Some people will do things I like with it, some wont and the things I don't like, others probably will. For me photography will always be the "making of images with a camera". Anything else is not photography. Simple... end of.

For many years I worked in a darkroom printing images for people, using a similar set of arts and crafts to those I use to make images. I loved the act of printing and I always considered that I was manipulating the image. Never for a second though did I think that what I was doing was photography.

I like HDR and tone mapping technology, even if I don't like most of what's done with it. It's still very young and has lots left to offer us I'm sure. Lets just sit tight and see where it goes.

Oh...... also have a look back at old threads by KenCo. IIRC, he was about the first to start flashing about HRD'd images here and they are full of subtlety and. understanding of light.

 

[Jonnyreb]

Personally, I couldnt give a damn how an image is achieved. If someone has a great post-processing technique then all credit to them.
What does irk me, is the many feeble attempts at hdr that I see, where the image creator gets testy and accuses others of 'snobbery' if flaws are pointed out to them.
If its snobbery then so be it but, imo there is nothing worse than seeing images reduced to sketches where the blues blind , the reds scream, and there are more halos than in heaven.
If youre going to do it, study it, get it right .. oh! and dont be so damn precious about it!

PMSL - come on Glo, get off the fence

 

[dazzajl]

PMSL - come on Glo, get off the fence

Don't you just hate when someone's typing out a much better post at the same time as you.

 

[Jonnyreb]

16 bit capture gives a 12 stop latitude..... which is nice.

Fair point - but only in theory as the sensor is not truly linear: average sensors can determine 5 or 6 stops and the decrease is exponential within that range (wrong use of exponential to determine decrease i know, but it serves) as half the available bits are used in the first stop.

You only actually record in 12bit (14 bit with the newer models) in any case

 

[Jonnyreb]

Don't you just hate when someone's typing out a much better post at the same time as you.

Yes!

Think we've monopolised this thread enough now?

 

[shrimperblue]

...but what with digital SLRs now selling like mobile phones did when they become accessible to the masses, are there simply too many 'photographers' who point-and-shoot and rely on the software like Photomatix to 'rescue' what was dull in the first place?...

I see your point. I had to save for a long time to even afford my 400D, its not like you can just go into a shop and get an SLR free on a netwrok of your choice. If you are going to walk in off the street and pay out £400+ on a DSLR just like that...I should imagine that person has more money than sense and this is where your worry is coming from.

At first I did point and shoot and as I got familiar with the camera and SLR format. I then adventured into the more complex settings when the time was right. But it was always my intentions to become familiar with the camera and then do my diploma in photography.
I never thought once that PP'ing and point and shooting was going to teach me anything to do with photography. As a matter of fact, accept for B&W conversion I like to get the the frame as perfect at the time of taking as possible. I dont even consider PP'ing.

So what I am trying to say in a round about kinda way is, I would like to think that the majority of people that invest such money into a DSLR and all the accessories either want to learn in depth how to use the camera or already know. It just takes practical experience with trial and error.

Point and shoot does happen in order for people to learn and then progress. If all people wanted to do was point and shoot in the long run then they would use a 5mp camera phone that they can get free on any network.....which they are perfectly entitled to do

....also they are perfectly entitled to get a DSLR and point and shoot too. After all isn't that why the Auto settings are built onto the cameras anyway???....

But I see your point.

SB

 

[petemc]

but what with digital SLRs now selling like mobile phones did when they become accessible to the masses, are there simply too many 'photographers' who point-and-shoot and rely on the software like Photomatix to 'rescue' what was dull in the first place?

Photomatix, Photoshop, PSP, Corel Whatever XI, Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop Elements, iPhoto, Preview, and so on. Nothing new there, move along

 

[Spotshot]

I had HDR explained to me thus:

It is bringing out details from different perspectives (Shadows, Middle Ground and Highlights) by taking the same shot at three different stops and later combining them.

In this case isn't it rather like using 'DOF'?

And what's so bad about DOF?

Beats me.. :|
John

 

[petemc]

I had HDR explained to me thus:

It is bringing out details from different perspectives (Shadows, Middle Ground and Highlights) by taking the same shot at three different stops and later combining them.

In this case isn't it rather like using 'DOF'?

And what's so bad about DOF?

Beats me.. :|
John

Its not different perspectives. That implies you're changing your view, which you don't. You change the amount of light captured. I don't quite get how its like DOF as thats more to do with composition imho.

 

[Spotshot]

Its not different perspectives. That implies you're changing your view,

No it doesn't Pete. Not in the sense I was using perspective. I was referring to aerial perspective. (Distance making mountains appear blue, and indistinct, for instance). I am sure that as an artist, you know the difference between that and linear perspective. (Things becoming smaller to the eye, as they recede.)

Perspective, (or point of view, is a different thing surely.)

I am clearly returning to being a novice. I thought that DOF dealt with the focussing in an image from foreground to middle distance to background, making the difference between a good image and a cracker!

I think I will hang up my camera. I am maybe losing it.


Regards
John

 

[petemc]

As an artist, I just take pretty pictures. I'm not interested in physics and aerial perspective vs linear perspective. I see something I like, I take a photo.