HDR

urbansecrets

urbansecrets

Suspended / Banned
Messages
154
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
No
could someone explain why they like HDR images ? try as i might i just can't see the point, i tend to do very little processing due to the fact that i prefer "real" images, natural images no matter how good or bad......or am i missing the point of HDR
 
I don't prefer HDR images to those with no effects applied. I keep an open mind and think that sometimes an effect, such as HDR, can enhance a subject. But also HDR can spoil a subject and especially if it's done too heavily.

Perhaps you don't see photography as being anything other than a reproduction of what is and not in any way as an artform. I think it can be both and it's always up to the individual subject and what the photographer wishes to express.
 
I think there is a place for all things. I have seen photos of Cathedrals, church interiors etc, which have benefited by the use of HDR bringing out the fine detail, but I cannot see the need or the use of HDR in landscapes. In my opinion a landscape should be a memory of what the togger saw. A little processing is OK to enhance the photo but I recoil in horror at some of the overcooked photos that I see. What worries me most is how many people comment on these over enhanced photos "what beautiful colours". I just didn't realise that we had such a problem with colour blindness in this country.
 
I recoil in horror at some of the overcooked photos that I see
Click to expand...

i know that feeling well, the amount of processing some people do to an image, usually glamour shots really makes me cringe, i have lost count of the times i have booked a model only to not recognise her when she arrives at the studio ! maybe it's just my hatred for over processing that clouds my judgement regarding HDR.....either that or i'm not colour blind :cool:
 
One problem with HDR seems to be that it's seldom applied modestly - or could it just be that we're more likely to notice vulgar, overblown examples than more subtle manifestations? I appreciate Barbara's point above to do with church and cathedral interiors, but even then the results seem to tend towards the forensic rather than the atmospheric. I think mostly that HDR is an over-used practice that probably attracts people who like the challenge of applying techniques more than they do the expression of true emotion, which is a subtler business altogether.
 
Surely, if an image looks good, the technique used to process the final result is an irrelevance. Some HDR will look great, some will look bad in exactly the same way that any other processing result will have good and bad examples. It's the picture that I look at and decide if I like it or not. :)
 
Last edited:
kev2010 said:
Surely, if an image looks good, the technique used to process the final result is an irrelevance. Some HDR will look great, some will look bad in exactly the same way that any other processing result will have good and bad examples. It's the picture that I look at and decide if I like it or not. :)
Click to expand...

....I couldn't agree more!

Photography is another medium for expression and communication. It can be just a cold unevocative record but that's not what most toggers here are all about (as far as I know).
 
It depends on the lighting in question. The other day I wanted to take a shot of a brightly coloured alleyway but because the lot was cast in the shade and it was during a bright sunny day, I was faced with the issue of getting the correct exposure in the shaded part but anything in sunlight all blown out in the process - so I employed the use of HDR to try and get that even wash of exposure.

Here's the offending image in question to show what I was on about :D . . .
Googies1Largesize.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am stuck in a groove which I am happy to be in - "Do I like it or not" - whether colour or mono, HDR or not, tea or coffee, black or white, etc.

I'm guilty of having been through a phase of liking HDR & doing it to most of my shots - why? - probably because I was using a cheapo camera & it was the only way to get 'anything' from the very lacklustre shot.

My kit is now of a much better quality & so I don't go the HDR route automatically but may try it on some shots applying my test "Do I like it or not" but recognising, as an amateur, all my shots are for me & sod what others think. So to me HDR is in the armoury of PP techniques I can call upon.
 
Ian D J said:
It depends on the lighting in question. The other day I wanted to take a shot of a brightly coloured alleyway but because the lot was cast in the shade and it was during a bright sunny day, I was faced with the issue of getting the correct exposure in the shaded part but anything in sunlight all blown out in the process - so I employed the use of HDR to try and get that even wash of exposure.

Here's the offending image in question to show what I was on about :D . . .
Googies1Largesize.jpg
Click to expand...

....Faced with that lighting situation I think I would have taken several shots with different exposures and shot it in RAW (did you shoot this in RAW?) so that I could try post-processing the shadows and highlights information.

The juxtaposition of the various architectural colours is interesting but somehow the image looks unreal even if the colours you captured are in fact real. But overall it's quite an exciting colourful image which is very nicely balanced.

EDIT:
Having now seen the image large, I find that I like it much much more. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
This photo was very lacklustre and so I simply went in very strongly with HDR in such a way that it has become a graphic rather than a photo. It doesn't pretend not to be HDR or an effect.

The place where it was photographed are very pleased with it (I had only taken for shot for myself and the player friend) and it's now block mounted and hung on their wall.

HowlNo10.jpg
 
Last edited:
Theres no such thing as a 'real' image, your camera applies Mr Canon/Nikon whatever own style, then your software will apply the default, add in the way the sensor works these factors all alter slightly the reality your camera gives.
As for HDR... Well theres nicely done subtle HDR and theres the "OH MY GOD!" sort of HDR. With subtle in some cases it's pretty much impossible to tel it's been HDR'd, sadly it's the other sort of HDR that people have nightmares about ....... :naughty:
 
I like messing around with different processing techniques and this includes dabbling with HDR. I do think that people only think of HDR images as the garish over saturated shots that proliferate the internet. I don't think of HDR like that. I like to keep it as real as can be. I was just messing with this handheld bracketed set of 3 to see what I could do with my new camera. Processed with Photomatix. It does not have to be halo ridden or freakish. You can get a very natural looking final result with practise

 
Last edited:
The best description I have read about HDR processing which has gone too far: 'all it needs is a couple of unicorns and it will be complete'.


Steve.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Theres no such thing as a 'real' image, your camera applies Mr Canon/Nikon whatever own style, then your software will apply the default, add in the way the sensor works these factors all alter slightly the reality your camera gives.

As for HDR... Well theres nicely done subtle HDR and theres the "OH MY GOD!" sort of HDR. With subtle in some cases it's pretty much impossible to tel it's been HDR'd, sadly it's the other sort of HDR that people have nightmares about ....... :naughty:
Click to expand...

....Sure, but when I wrote "real" I meant relative to most HDR effects.

I agree about the extremes of HDR and find @kev2010 's interior HDR photo very subtle and very attractive.
 
"HDR is great!" It's people you should worry about.
HDR can bring back a blown out sky. I know that's not "real", but it may be better. Black and white pictures are not real.
Basically it's down to the author. Need something garish? Overcooked HDR might do it. Need to cope with a high contrast landscape? HDR may help.

For many (not all) situations, it's the way the result "looks" that matters, not what you did to get there.

Steve Smith said:
The best description I have read about HDR processing which has gone too far: 'all it needs is a couple of unicorns and it will be complete'.
Click to expand...
You should just start with one unicorn. Don't go straight to two! That's madness.
 
Last edited:
urbansecrets said:
i tend to do very little processing due to the fact that i prefer "real" images, natural images no matter how good or bad......or am i missing the point of HDR
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the main reason it is done is to counter the deficiency of a digital sensor in terms of dynamic range compared with what is possible with negative film. A digital sensor will blow out highlight detail past a certain point and will not be recoverable in post processing whereas negative film will handle quite a lot of overexposure before highlights are lost forever.

Unfortunately, a lot of people overdo it and end up with an image where everything is very close to a mid tone. If it was black and white, it would be monotonous grey all over!


Steve.
 
urbansecrets said:
could someone explain why they like HDR images ? try as i might i just can't see the point, i tend to do very little processing due to the fact that i prefer "real" images, natural images no matter how good or bad......or am i missing the point of HDR
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reasons that some people like Marmite :)
 
HDR is great if you are trying to make something out of a bland, crappy photo and you are not having any success. First try it in black and white. Then, if it is still crap, go for the full Mantiuk HDR! Make sure you display it proudly like you are really arty!
 
Last edited:
I think the trick with photography is to take and process photographs you like (or your customer likes) whether that involves a lot or no processing is up to you. If you don't like hdr don't do it, if you want it to look like... well slightly over-cooked shall we say, do ithat, it's not about pleasing other people (unless your selling the pic) it's about pleasing yourself.
 
As in my previous post in this thread I do play with different processing techniques including HDR. But I maintain that HDR can be "natural". This was created from a set of 3 processed with Photomatix. Whilst it is no work of art it ain't garish or smothered with halo's. HDR should look pretty normal in my opinion.

 
Last edited:
Sometimes you really don't have much choice. In my line of work I often find myself needing to take photos of black objects. I've attached an example. Fortunately my phone camera has a built-in HDR function which is perfect for the job. I don't think it looks unnatural, though if you stop and think about it, it definitely is.
 
urbansecrets said:
could someone explain why they like HDR images ?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I can't... I think they're sh1t. The ones you see usually anyway. A decent HDR image shouldn't look like a HDR, but most people think a "tone mapped" image is HDR. It's not. Kev's images above is a good example of HDR being used well.
 
If you can see an image has been processed, it's probably been overcooked. Things like HDR can be done well but most examples end up looking like David says.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm afraid I can't... I think they're sh1t. The ones you see usually anyway. A decent HDR image shouldn't look like a HDR, but most people think a "tone mapped" image is HDR. It's not. Kev's images above is a good example of HDR being used well.
Click to expand...
kev2010 said:
Thank you. :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree with Davids statment.

Out of interest Kev what HDR software do you use?
 
petersmart said:
You're lucky - if I look at it long enough I can see faces in the clouds :D:)
Click to expand...

It's typical of what you can find on the internet with a label of HDR though! :)

Ironically, you often see some blown highlights in this style of grunge shot, as so in this case. So it's certainly not an HDR image. Actually, you can process this kind of horrendous result without touching HDR software. :)

I can see the faces. ;)
 
Last edited:
urbansecrets said:
could someone explain why they like HDR images ? try as i might i just can't see the point, i tend to do very little processing due to the fact that i prefer "real" images, natural images no matter how good or bad......or am i missing the point of HDR
Click to expand...

I like using HDR software / plugins because of its versatile usage which can go from one extreme to another. It can be used to help bring back detail in an image that has been lost in the naked eye. Of course as we know many procedures can be performed in Photoshop etc., HDR is just another tool that many many photographers use, including Pros.
You may well view an image that contains HDR and would not even know. HDR also has its creative side which can be used to extreme that can be useful in art work and such like.
With digital cameras its hard to get that perfect image straight from the camera, hdr adds a little help, just as photographers have done in the past when developing there work.
" i tend to do very little processing" If this is the case then its no longer the real image you originally had taken.
"i prefer "real" images, natural images no matter how good or bad", Not sure anyone would like to show work that is bad, therefore one would want to enhance that bad image using what ever process it takes, HDR is just one of many ways of processing. This most certainly some tacky HDR images out there but there are many that are excellent...
 
Not sure anyone would like to show work that is bad, therefore one would want to enhance that bad image using what ever process it takes
Click to expand...

i just prefer to learn how to take the image correctly using the camera and my natural talent (i have yet to find any talent :confused:) if i take a bad shot i like to take note of what i did wrong and learn from my mistakes, that way i can become a PHOTOGRAPHER and not just someone who relies on editing to get it right like so many people do !
 
urbansecrets said:
that way i can become a PHOTOGRAPHER and not just someone who relies on editing to get it right like so many people do !
Click to expand...
You mean a real photographer like Ansel Adams? ;)
 
urbansecrets said:
i just prefer to learn how to take the image correctly using the camera and my natural talent (i have yet to find any talent :confused:) if i take a bad shot i like to take note of what i did wrong and learn from my mistakes, that way i can become a PHOTOGRAPHER and not just someone who relies on editing to get it right like so many people do !
Click to expand...

I do understand what you are saying, Your preference by all means although you can become a photographer with the help of natural processing, processing an image in photoshop can actually bring out detail which you may well take note and use this knowledge next time you are out with the camera.
Your bad shot will only happen in your camera, by your comp or yourself, if processing is done correctly then that's just another way of learning...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top