Hdr

Never I hope, and I don't think it is the 'New Age' in digital photography, it's just another fad, has not produced any results that have merit (IMO), and not a process that's taken seriously in mainstream photography.

Perhaps in the future, when it's developed a bit more, it may become an accepted process, but I can't see the big camera makers including it as an option, perhaps as a gimmick on the cheaper end cameras?
 
I hope they manage to increase the dynamic range capabilities of cameras, but I dont think there will be a HDR mode as such - just hopefully a greater overall range.
 
Les McLean said:
Never I hope, and I don't think it is the 'New Age' in digital photography, it's just another fad, has not produced any results that have merit (IMO), and not a process that's taken seriously in mainstream photography.

Perhaps in the future, when it's developed a bit more, it may become an accepted process, but I can't see the big camera makers including it as an option, perhaps as a gimmick on the cheaper end cameras?
Click to expand...

I don't like the snobbery involved with HDR.
A lot of people go on about how it isn't accepted as mainstream photography.

I don't think it will ever be included in a camera as one of its 'features', and I do wonder when people will accept it as a way of presenting their photos.

Its simply the 'photography isn't art, painting is' argument, all over again.
 
foodpoison said:
I don't like the snobbery involved with HDR.
A lot of people go on about how it isn't accepted as mainstream photography.

I don't think it will ever be included in a camera as one of its 'features', and I do wonder when people will accept it as a way of presenting their photos.

Its simply the 'photography isn't art, painting is' argument, all over again.
Click to expand...


I don't think snobbery has anything to do with it, HDR (for me) is similar to the fads like tobacco grads, or the glitzy filters that came out in the 80's -things like starburst, multiple exposure etc etc, they were just fads, and the novelty soon wore off.

I'll definitely accept HDR as a way of processing and presenting images when I see some evidence it works,
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
I hope they manage to increase the dynamic range capabilities of cameras, but I dont think there will be a HDR mode as such - just hopefully a greater overall range.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think that's the way things will go.
 
I don't exactly understand how HDR works, and how to do HDR, but some of the shots I have seen look remarkable, but more often than not, other worldly too. They can look unrealistic to the point that it may start to represent CGI, the first time I seen an HDR, and it was on this forum, I think I asked if it was a graphic :) (I'm a noob-ish).

Anyway I think it can be nice if not overcooked.

Gary.
 
I think cameras will improve in dynamic range to the point where HDR wont be particularily needed to get highlight and shadow detail in most shots.

I dont think it will totally die away but I'd imagine it will be left to the cgi style looking overcooked shots. As for how many years that will take, who knows.
 
I would'nt think it a necessary requirement to have an HDR mode on Digital cameras. It is a nice process when not overdone but natural straight shots from the camera from a personal level are prefered.
I think if you want to create a HDR photograph then putting the effort into creating the image to begin with gives it a more personal touch.
 
surprises.smileysmiley.com.54.gif
I think it will be highly likely that the dynamic range of sensors will increase to the point that HDR will no longer be needed.
 
Personally I only really one type of HDR shot, the ones (for example) taken inside churches etc.

The outdoor ones don't really look right, in some cases it seems to me that it's a way of making a dull picture interesting.
 
What a lot of HDR naysayers don't seem to realise is that the lay people often like the HDR effect. Sure they can witter on about it not being proper photography, but if there's a market for it, it'll succeed.
 
I think the HDR like everything in photograpy can be done well or done badly, I'm pretty new to photograpy so have an interest in all areas.

IMO HDR thats has been "over done" with halos looks crap but images that have been done correctly that still retain natural looking colours look good.

There was a paticular site I came accross that had a series of images taken in a dim room with soft lighting, and merged them together to create a true high dynamic range picture that looked realistic.

I will try to find the link to show what I struggling to find words for....

Grrr I can't find it..:bang:
 
Thanks for all the comments, I agree with it becoming a gimmick on low end cameras,but how much longer will they last, there will soon be 10mp phone camera`s with 100mm optical zoom lens, and maybe HDR, ( you may laugh ).
 
I see nothing good about HDR at the moment. It only produces badly coloured images often with very strange shadows and skies. In effect HDR does nothing to a bad photo other than make it worse. I see it used by a lot of people with badly exposed images trying to "resurrect" it instead of retaking a properly exposed image.


So HDR:thumbsdown:
 
ThisPhotoGuy said:
I see nothing good about HDR at the moment. It only produces badly coloured images often with very strange shadows and skies. In effect HDR does nothing to a bad photo other than make it worse. I see it used by a lot of people with badly exposed images trying to "resurrect" it instead of retaking a properly exposed image.


So HDR:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

THats maybe a little harsh, some of the HDR shots here are fantastic.

I will find an example for you to critique :)

Gary.
 
ThisPhotoGuy said:
I see nothing good about HDR at the moment. It only produces badly coloured images often with very strange shadows and skies. In effect HDR does nothing to a bad photo other than make it worse. I see it used by a lot of people with badly exposed images trying to "resurrect" it instead of retaking a properly exposed image.


So HDR:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...


What do you make of this image:
2322114718_e79f7569d8_o.jpg


Hope the owner doesnt mind me reposting as an example!!!
 
An example of a poorly done HDR image is below. It was processed with a very basic understanding of HDR, and the colours are vivid and quite gaudy in my opinion.

2072219952_33be0f88a8.jpg


Here is a better processed photo. It is still a high dynamic range image, processed through photomatix and tweaked in photoshop. It is more realistic, and to most people the HDR isn't really obvious at all.

2341713416_bb119d9017.jpg


Both shots were taken by me, and both are processed using photomatix. One with a very basic knowledge of what HDR is and why its done, and processed with giddy excitement like a toddler trying to 'work their new toy'.
One was processed with a better understanding of how to, lets say, 'work it'.
I gave it HDR treatment because I wanted the sky to be bluer, and I wanted to retain the detail in the mountains, since everything was so bright, it was hard to nail the exposure.

The point of this post is to show people that HDR is just another form of post processing.
Some could argue 'I should have got it right in the first place'.
Thats fair enough, but heres the original image. Not much wrong with it, could do with a bit of tweaking, but I think the HDR image packs more punch.

img23292403tm5.jpg
 
EdinburghGary said:
What do you make of this image:


Hope the owner doesnt mind me reposting as an example!!!
Click to expand...


That's one of Jimmy Lemon's, and although I think Jimmy is an excellent photographer and has a keen eye for what works, the above image reinforces the point-badly coloured images with strange shadows.

I've made this point before, images need shadows, they gives depth perspective and points of reference. HDR bleaches out shadows, and somehow takes the life, heart and soul out of images.

It was brought home to me one day when reading a restaurant review , when the reviewer complained that the restaurant had no character/mood or didn't feel welcoming because the lighting was like supermarket lighting, flat/even and shadowless, and it occurred to me, this is what HDR is like-supermarket lighting.

Nevertheless, it's what presses your own buttons which is important, and it would be a sad old world if everyone's tastes were the same.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Hope the owner doesnt mind me reposting as an example!!!
Click to expand...

No probs :)

What about this one as a HDR shot? If anything it is more processed than the St Pancras one above, I think it one of my best processed HDRs - and really impossible to reproduce without tonemapping (I did try)
2258078353_c01523095c_o.jpg
 
foodpoison said:
An example of a poorly done HDR image is below. It was processed with a very basic understanding of HDR, and the colours are vivid and quite gaudy in my opinion.


Here is a better processed photo. It is still a high dynamic range image, processed through photomatix and tweaked in photoshop. It is more realistic, and to most people the HDR isn't really obvious at all.


Both shots were taken by me, and both are processed using photomatix. One with a very basic knowledge of what HDR is and why its done, and processed with giddy excitement like a toddler trying to 'work their new toy'.
One was processed with a better understanding of how to, lets say, 'work it'.
I gave it HDR treatment because I wanted the sky to be bluer, and I wanted to retain the detail in the mountains, since everything was so bright, it was hard to nail the exposure.

The point of this post is to show people that HDR is just another form of post processing.
Some could argue 'I should have got it right in the first place'.
Thats fair enough, but heres the original image. Not much wrong with it, could do with a bit of tweaking, but I think the HDR image packs more punch.


I agree. I think that HDR is fine when it's not overdone and looks natural, but those overdone images always remind me of the awful chocolate boxes you used to get with a horrible gaudy silk picture on.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
No probs :)

What about this one as a HDR shot? If anything it is more processed than the St Pancras one above, I think it one of my best processed HDRs - and really impossible to reproduce without tonemapping (I did try)
Click to expand...


Apart from the sun, it is a good image , but it would have been achieved a lot simpler (and quicker) by ND grads I reckon.
Here's a similar image (sun is cropped from the original), balanced by grads

sun.jpg
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
No probs :)

What about this one as a HDR shot? If anything it is more processed than the St Pancras one above, I think it one of my best processed HDRs - and really impossible to reproduce without tonemapping (I did try)
2258078353_c01523095c_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Ticms my box, but I am a novice. It just looks like a good photo to me!!
 
Les McLean said:
Apart from the sun, it is a good image , but it would have been achieved a lot simpler (and quicker) by ND grads I reckon.
Here's a similar image (sun is cropped from the original), balanced by grads

sun.jpg
Click to expand...


Also very nice, it looses some of the drama, but makes up for that with more realism I suppose?
 
<-- Total noob before I start, but I know what I like.

Surely HDR is just another way of PP'ing an image to get a desired result, very much in the same trend that 90% of images are sharpened or cropped. If we were to all put away our software and rely on what the lens sees then only those with bottomless pockets will ever have images to be proud of.

Credit where it's due, a well HDR'd image has as much creedence as any other well processed image IMO and with all these little tweaks, it can make even the a complete beginner like me feel as though I can get a half decent image .. and not throw in the towel straight away.

Gary :)
 
GarynLea said:
<-- Total noob before I start, but I know what I like.

Surely HDR is just another way of PP'ing an image to get a desired result, very much in the same trend that 90% of images are sharpened or cropped. If we were to all put away our software and rely on what the lens sees then only those with bottomless pockets will ever have images to be proud of.

Credit where it's due, a well HDR'd image has as much creedence as any other well processed image IMO and with all these little tweaks, it can make even the a complete beginner like me feel as though I can get a half decent image .. and not throw in the towel straight away.

Gary :)
Click to expand...


I take your point (to some extent), but isn't it far better in the process of helping develop your skills as a photographer, to make mistakes , particularly in exposure, learn from them and strive for a well balanced exposure rather than rely on HDR to try and 'rescue' an image?
 
Les McLean said:
I take your point (to some extent), but isn't it far better in the process of helping develop your skills as a photographer, to make mistakes , particularly in exposure, learn from them and strive for a well balanced exposure rather than rely on HDR to try and 'rescue' an image?
Click to expand...

I would agree 100%, but an image which needs rescuing, which ends up looking fantastic is no bad thing!!

Agree though, don't compensate for lack of skill with Photoshop and other tricks...

G.
 
I never rely on HDR to 'rescue' my image.
Its only on some photos that the photographer relies on software to rescue a badly exposed photo.

And Les, you made a comment about how an image can be achieved using an ND grad.
Filters are just another tool in the photographic arsenal used to produce images, much like photoshop or dodging and burning in the darkroom.
 
Les, I'm sure you're a really nice chap in real life. And may you live a long and healthy life. But when it comes to talkphotography, you don't half talk some crap.
 
foodpoison said:
And Les, you made a comment about how an image can be achieved using an ND grad.
Filters are just another tool in the photographic arsenal used to produce images, much like photoshop or dodging and burning in the darkroom.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree, but there are 2 important points firstly, it's a lot easier slipping a grad on the end of a lens than spending time messing about in photiowatsits or PS to blend the images in HDR, secondly (and more importantly) using ND grads balances an image, the end result looks natural, unlike HDR.

At the end of the day, if HDR pushes your boat out-fine, everyone to their own.
 
I think a big bit of this arguement is against people who dont bother taking photos properly exposed etc because they can just 'fix it later' I am very much against that and would always strive to perfectly expose every shot I take.

I would occasionally use HDR on images.
 
benneh said:
Les, I'm sure you're a really nice chap in real life. And may you live a long and healthy life. But when it comes to talkphotography, you don't half talk some crap.
Click to expand...


I think you need to qualify that statement
 
Les McLean said:
I think you need to qualify that statement
Click to expand...

Well, firstly:

Les McLean said:
I'll definitely accept HDR as a way of processing and presenting images when I see some evidence it works,
Click to expand...

-->

Les McLean said:
I really need to eat my hat, I think for the first time ever, I've seen a set of HDR images that work, and that I like.
Click to expand...
here

-So we establish that you can see merit in HDR, even though you seem to feel the urge to troll a fair amount of HDR threads.

Les McLean said:
I've made this point before, images need shadows, they gives depth perspective and points of reference. HDR bleaches out shadows, and somehow takes the life, heart and soul out of images.
Click to expand...

Eh?.. No shadows in HDR?, how's that work then?. Of course there can be shadows in HDR photography. It works in much the same way as a person deciding whether or not they want shadows in any photo (flash, exposure, grads for sky etcetc).

I accept that you don't like HDR, and when confronted with the majority of HDR nonesense that seems to dribble from peoples photomatix antics I can see why. But you seem to just bash HDR threads on sight, when in reality the limited dynamic range of current digital sensors is one of the biggest problems facing digital photographers. Thus people tend to prefer film images (higher dynamic range), or people will say that they can spot a 5d image (on the basis that it has a slightly expanded dynamic range) etcetc.

Just seems to me you should take a step back and think about why you troll HDR threads before you post. Again, nothing personal, just think it's a bit confrontational, with no solid agument.
 
i just see it as another way of processing pictures, its here to stay:). What i dont quite get is people seem to want to spend as little time as possible in photoshop, sure its nice to get it right in camera but with digital its more forgiving. Editing a picture is not a chore for me, i love spending time changing the picture around, no different to people who use film and play around all day in a dark room.

Every processing technique has good and bad examples, there is plenty of bad examples of B&W pictures, rescueing a badly exposed picture (blown highlights) or awful colours and hiding it behind a B&W because it looks better.

Look at the new age processing for studio shots such as Dave Hill or Jim Fiscus im sure alot of people snubbed them, now they earn mega bucks and in huge demand.

I love the digital world and the evolution of photography creating new possibilities... I also dont think there will be HDR mode for cameras, expansion of the dynamic range will be the way forward..
 
benneh said:
Well, firstly:



-->


here

-So we establish that you can see merit in HDR, even though you seem to feel the urge to troll a fair amount of HDR threads.



Eh?.. No shadows in HDR?, how's that work then?. Of course there can be shadows in HDR photography. It works in much the same way as a person deciding whether or not they want shadows in any photo (flash, exposure, grads for sky etcetc).

I accept that you don't like HDR, and when confronted with the majority of HDR nonesense that seems to dribble from peoples photomatix antics I can see why. But you seem to just bash HDR threads on sight, when in reality the limited dynamic range of current digital sensors is one of the biggest problems facing digital photographers. Thus people tend to prefer film images (higher dynamic range), or people will say that they can spot a 5d image (on the basis that it has a slightly expanded dynamic range) etcetc.

Just seems to me you should take a step back and think about why you troll HDR threads before you post. Again, nothing personal, just think it's a bit confrontational, with no solid agument.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you help old ladies across the street, but when it comes to justifying personal attacks on other members of TP you really haven't a clue what you are talking about have you ?
 
I don't want to come in and add fuel to a fire here however there is a misunderstanding between HDR and Tone-mapping.

As cameras extend their dynamic range (thus becoming hdr) and is commonplace we will stop referring to HDR as an opt-in post process but will decide how we want our image to be represented in dynamic range terms as part of our picture taking. This situation (or similar) being the case we can say that HDR is here to stay.

Tone-mapping however will most likely remain within programs like Photomatix or as plugins for Photoshop and will, similarly, remain a thing for one's taste.

It is noted that the RPS have passed Fellowships to members whose panels have both HDR and Tone-Mapped images. That should go some way to support it's value if not it's endurance.

I don't like the mud-slinging here and think you should apologise Benneh for the strength of your comments however Les you too should be aware that you appear almost Pythonesque in your dislike of HDR. You are quite correct, I feel, that natural looking and high quality images are more enduring but are you going to tell me you never owned a tobacco filter? ;)

I hope my comments come across the way they are intended and if they cause any offence I apologise unreservedly.

:thumbs:
 
Les McLean said:
I don't think snobbery has anything to do with it, HDR (for me) is similar to the fads like tobacco grads, or the glitzy filters that came out in the 80's -things like starburst, multiple exposure etc etc, they were just fads, and the novelty soon wore off.

I'll definitely accept HDR as a way of processing and presenting images when I see some evidence it works,
Click to expand...

That sounds like the voice of experience for me, and I think you MAY have a point in the idea that its popularity may fade, BUT I also very much like HDR photos.

I think you are too quick to dismiss it, I think the only way to discuss it would be to give some before and after shots and then to critique which is best. Some HDR pictures I've taken have not been 'added to' by the effect, yet some most definately have.
 
Les McLean said:
I'm sure you help old ladies across the street, but when it comes to justifying personal attacks on other members of TP you really haven't a clue what you are talking about have you ?
Click to expand...

I didn't attack you chap, I said that you "don't half talk some crap" (referring specifically to this never ending argument/discussion). Jebus, if I'm to be suspended for that then fair game!.

My point seems to have gone completely over your head :bang: :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top