HDR - The Marmite of Photography?

[dejongj]

HDR Efex Pro runs on 64bit OSX for me inside Aperture

 

[ecniv]

I use Artizan - not quite perfect but gives good results (or bad ones depending on the settings lol ) url=http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=330337]Two of a steam engine[/url] - Admittedly the black and white has haloing... but for some reason I really like it.

 

[unplugged]

"oh my god look how talented you are" posts which encourages more people to have a go....and so the circle of bad continues.

HDR is a Style of Photography. Sure it's not a indication of Photographic talent but if 50 people really like the effect or the photo and your the only one that doesn't then that actually makes YOU the minority.

Even overdone HDR which gives the "Painting" look is better than most of the crap that gets churned out by non photographers. Sometimes you have to stop looking at it as a photo and more Art (which you could argue all photography is at the end of the day.

I dont find glued together coke cans artistic but modern art buffs will drool all over it and pay £1000s for it. I would hazard a guess the majority of normal people won't find Modern art appealing (except to poke fun) so HDR being liked by a majority already wins.

HDR has it's place sometimes it's the only place to get decent exposures especially in buildings, dimly lit interiors and lots of dynamic work that without spending a fortune on filters or equipment is difficult to achieve.

I would credit the monkey who can go out with a £300 take 3 shots and plumb them into photomatrix with more ingenuity than someone who takes a body, large aperture lenses, a dozen filters and an hour in PP.

I did this last night and on reflection it's a little over saturated and ill probably go back and tweak it more (I too like more "believable" HDR) but sometimes it can be fun to be creative.

 

[Decca]

See there is nothing wrong with that picture. If there was less water then it could have overcooked the grass but it didn't and there are no halos, no fallout glow. Learn from this chap people, he knows how to use the tool correctly

and I hate modern art.

 

[unplugged]

Ah the tate modern is sometimes good for a laugth

The only HDR I can honestly say I hate is when people pile it into PhotoMatrix and apply the Grunge or Painterly preset then output straight out. It was a 1am effort I may revisit it or tweak the colours in Lightroom.

I guess it depends on the photo some of the more overcooked HDR can be good (just not as good as the original). I think a lot of peole people will try a photo with HDR and if it adds nothing to the photo they will just go for the completely overdone look.

 

[redhed17]

HDR is a Style of Photography. Sure it's not a indication of Photographic talent but if 50 people really like the effect or the photo and your the only one that doesn't then that actually makes YOU the minority.

HDR is a type of post processing in photography. Just because you are doing an HDR image shouldn't mean that photography skills should/can be ignored. :shrug:

Even overdone HDR which gives the "Painting" look is better than most of the crap that gets churned out by non photographers. Sometimes you have to stop looking at it as a photo and more Art (which you could argue all photography is at the end of the day.

Some OTT HDR can look good, but most don't. To me. What if a 'non photographer' makes a HDR, does that make their image suddenly good and worthy of merit just because it is HDR? Obviously it is the image that counts, whether the person taking the pic is a 'photographer' or not. And that goes for whwther the image has been done using HDR or not.

I dont find glued together coke cans artistic but modern art buffs will drool all over it and pay £1000s for it. I would hazard a guess the majority of normal people won't find Modern art appealing (except to poke fun) so HDR being liked by a majority already wins.

You assume that the majority find most HDR images appealing, I don't see any evidence for this. :shrug: Maybe I'm missing something somewhere.

HDR has it's place sometimes it's the only place to get decent exposures especially in buildings, dimly lit interiors and lots of dynamic work that without spending a fortune on filters or equipment is difficult to achieve.

I agree HDR has its place, but I feel most people use the effect when the scene may not warrant it. And indeed the fact that the HDR effect has been used is the point of the image being shown, most often overdone, rather than a good scene enhanced by the effect.

I would credit the monkey who can go out with a £300 take 3 shots and plumb them into photomatrix with more ingenuity than someone who takes a body, large aperture lenses, a dozen filters and an hour in PP.

I don't find any ingenuity in using HDR alone. I would credit the person who got their image as good as they can at capture with more skill than the person who takes 2+ bracketed images. :shrug: Don't get me wrong, I've done the bracketed image route more often than I've taken the time to use my filters, which it why I appreciate it when someone takes the time to get the image as good as they can in camera.

This an almost perfect example of my point. What are you trying to show in this scene? An interesting sky? Nice sunset? Foreground interest? Capturing movement? :shrug: For me it has non of that. You obviously see something I've missed. :shrug:

I'm all for experimentation, I try them all, but I want it to enhance the image and build on the basic photography skills everyone should aim to have. And it is not just HDR, it's B&W, it's Tilt/Shift, it's Selective Colour, it's whatever effect you putting on to your image, hopefully you're doing it to enhance it, and not just 'look I can do that too!'. :nono:

 

[Digifrog]

The only HDR I can honestly say I hate is when people pile it into PhotoMatrix and apply the Grunge or Painterly preset then output straight out. .

My recent HDR work I've done just this.

And from a caption...

"I'm quite particular about HDR myself. I used to be sensible and keep the look real but since buying Lee grads I hardly ever use the technique. Now though, I admit I do like the grungey effect HDR, but only when the subject suits it. I wouldn't dream of doing this to a landscape shot, mostly because for me it's not suited to it.

With this series I chose this particular tonemapping technique as I wanted to air on the side of "illustration" rather than photograph. I think many seem to think that this style of HDR is HDR done badly, which is not the case, I've paid careful attention to chromatic noise and light smoothing (2 of the biggest factors determining a poorly done HDR). No haloing or dodgy shadow/highlights here.

If someone thinks a good HDR is when you can't tell it's HDR then what's the point in doing HDR? I don't use it to correct exposure or any other practical means, I use it as a creative outlet, which for me is all what photography has ever been about."

Previously, my HDR output was, as I said before, more natural.

I'd like to know how someone seems to think that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing HDR (actually, the issue here is tonemapping not HDR) because in my eyes it is subjective, unless of course it's done by a newcomer who hasn't quite found their feet.

I find Decca's comments pretty arrogant actually. Who are you to say that someone trying it out for the first time (with fairly poor results) is doing HDR a diservice and applying a bad name to the medium? Does someone who wants to try BW for the first time, then outputs a mass of midtones without paying attention to tonal range give BW a bad name? I don't think so. Process or technique is immaterial here, the bottom line there is only a good photograph or a not so good photograph.

I'm no expert on any form of photography but I think I have learnt enough regarding HDR and to produce what I see in my minds eye without someone telling me I need to learn from someone else. I do HDR, I do DRI and I do graduated filters so I think I know what process to use to get the image/effect I want.

5p

Thanks

 

[Decca]

It's not that it's the first time that's the problem, it's the fact that they post it, and no matter how horrible it is it gets 20 OMG awesome win!!! (flicker/facebook) posts, with no negative criticism because if everybody else likes it then it must be good. No one learns anything this way. Ever.


edit: I don't know if you are aware if this but there was a sketch artist in york (the name will come to me soon) in the 70s/80s who sold prints that looked very much like your first HDR picture.

 

[Digifrog]

It's not that it's the first time that's the problem, it's the fact that they post it, and no matter how horrible it is it gets 20 OMG awesome win!!! (flicker/facebook) posts, with no negative criticism because if everybody else likes it then it must be good. No one learns anything this way. Ever.

OK. That's fair enough, it maybe won't teach anyone anything but progression can also be achieved by looking at what inspires YOU.

Bless Flickr. Flickr is a pretty fickle and generally not really a place to learn from peoples comments, but it is a place to find inspiration (which actually is a better way to learn than reading comments and pandering to constantly differing opinions), there are some magnificent photographers/artists there.

If something inspires you then you try harder to improve what you do yourself, and with HDR how better to improve your own processing workflow and settings.

 

[passportphotoman]

My recent HDR work I've done just this.

The problem is when HDR is used extensively as this it almost doesn't matter if the actual image is any good or not, it just becomes "all about the effect" if you know what I mean.

Most HDR I have seen looks like it could have been done by the same person...maybe the fact that most of the HDR I have seen includes cobbled roads/buildings, cathedrals and epic skies (usually all 3) might have something to do with it

You second example of the boat at night with minor HDR is beautiful.

This is all too subjective though to really discuss I guess.

 

[wildsam90]

personly the reason i think theres so much hate on hdr is the people who over do it, When its over done some people like that, But its no diffrent to people liking a unsharp photo to some of us like them realy sharp,

Personly i only use hdr when i want somthing diffrent / a reflection off water or a car / when there is dark parts about.

 

[Digifrog]

personly the reason i think theres so much hate on hdr is the people who over do it, When its over done some people like that, But its no diffrent to people liking a unsharp photo to some of us like them realy sharp,

Personly i only use hdr when i want somthing diffrent / a reflection off water or a car / when there is dark parts about.

I don't think it's "over doing it", I think under doing it and not paying much attention is the case tbh.

 

[unplugged]

HDR is a type of post processing in photography. Just because you are doing an HDR image shouldn't mean that photography skills should/can be ignored. :shrug:

Im well aware of that. A lot of the time ive run even just a single raw though Photomatrix and it's made an image worthy of keeping that I would have normally binned. Sometimes even an overcooked HDR photo can add something to a photo even it it is pretty much turned into a painting. It's all down to personal preference though.

Some OTT HDR can look good, but most don't. To me. What if a 'non photographer' makes a HDR, does that make their image suddenly good and worthy of merit just because it is HDR?

If your making a living out of photography then as much as it pains to say its what the average joe thinks or your photos more than your fellow photographers and at the end of the day their the ones paying for your lunch. I do photography as a hobby however if I go out and shoot a scene and put it on Facebook then post the same scene in HDR I can almost guarantee which ones attract the most attention. That's what quite a lot of people have been complaining when it comes to HDR we as photographers see it as "Just a HDR image that any monkey can create" where as the average joe sees it as something completely different.

You assume that the majority find most HDR images appealing, I don't see any evidence for this. :shrug: Maybe I'm missing something somewhere.

In my experience yes. Maybe not among photographers but certainly among normal people. It's like magic really once you know how it's done it looses it twang but people still get exited by light trails from cars ive posted on facebook purely as "General images ive taken" theirs nothing special about them but it's something the average person with a camera phone can't do. Some people still get excited by camera photo effects like clipart

I agree HDR has its place, but I feel most people use the effect when the scene may not warrant it. And indeed the fact that the HDR effect has been used is the point of the image being shown, most often overdone, rather than a good scene enhanced by the effect.

I don't find any ingenuity in using HDR alone. I would credit the person who got their image as good as they can at capture with more skill than the person who takes 2+ bracketed images. :shrug: Don't get me wrong, I've done the bracketed image route more often than I've taken the time to use my filters, which it why I appreciate it when someone takes the time to get the image as good as they can in camera.
[/QUOTE]

Their isn't. You will yes as your a photographer. As a Software Developer I quite often look a poorly written code and it makes me want to puke...... If it works however to the user it's the best thing since sliced bread

I use it mainly for buildings where detail gets enhanced. Bracketing is set to a function on my camera so I will quite often just flick it on and experiment. To me it's no better or worse than any other PP effect I do in Photoshop.

This an almost perfect example of my point. What are you trying to show in this scene? An interesting sky? Nice sunset? Foreground interest? Capturing movement? :shrug: For me it has non of that. You obviously see something I've missed. :shrug:

Haha I wasn't trying to show anything in particular I stated that when I posted it. I was out taking general photos when the sun started going down. Other than the water I will agree with you it's hardly anything inspiring. I just posted it as an example of how HDR *can* improve a photo. I can dig the original out if you like but it's pretty much even less inspiring and not even worth keeping as it's just a sunset silloette. It was also a extremely quick edit but it brought out some of the sunset which still retaining detail in the pond.

I'm all for experimentation, I try them all, but I want it to enhance the image and build on the basic photography skills everyone should aim to have. And it is not just HDR, it's B&W, it's Tilt/Shift, it's Selective Colour, it's whatever effect you putting on to your image, hopefully you're doing it to enhance it, and not just 'look I can do that too!'. :nono:

Im all about experimentation it's the only way you learn. I didn't think I had improved much over the last year but looking at some of my past photos and going out taking photos with my friends friends that have just got their first SLRs I surprised myself to how much I have.

 

[Musicman]

You second example of the boat at night with minor HDR is beautiful.

Boat?

That's a steam ship!

 

[redhed17]

I can dig the original out if you like but it's pretty much even less inspiring and not even worth keeping as it's just a sunset silloette. It was also a extremely quick edit but it brought out some of the sunset which still retaining detail in the pond.

Thanks for replying to my comments unplugged.

I'd be interested to see the original image to see what difference the HDR made. If you haven't lashed it yet.

 

[unplugged]

Sure




This *was* I believe the original



This is a basic 60s level adjustment in Photoshop

 

[unplugged]

This was a Photomatrix Effort using the bracketed set. I just applied one of the presets I normally apply to buildings

 

[Harlequin565]

HDR is a type of processing.

Some people do it badly, some people do it well.

It's like saying "I hate Photoshopped pictures" when you're looking at a badly PS'd image, or someone who has gone mad in retouch software like Portrait Pro.

Ian.

 

[redhed17]

This was a Photomatrix Effort using the bracketed set. I just applied one of the presets I normally apply to buildings

Thanks for that unplugged.

If the original was a RAW file I 'think' I could have got something similar with ACR. It is amazing how much information can be recovered from a RAW file.

There Photomatix version is a bigger difference, especially in the sky. I think HDR can give 'drama' to even the subtlest of skies. I like to try HDR on wispy clouds.

 

[nibbley-uk]

Are there any decent free downloads to have a dabble at HDR, i did try one free download but it was very limited to what you could use without paying for an upgrade to use all its applications.