What is your opinion of HDR photographs

petemc said:
Also "right" is debatable :)
Click to expand...

It's subjective as is all art, colours, marmite and individual's work etc. What works for me is seeing an image that my mind says WOW to. Even when multiple individuals like the same work there is a good chance that they like different things about it.
 
For me its the end result of the photograph that counts, doesn't really matter how it has been processed to me. I picked up a photography book the other week (landscapes) and read the back of it describing different techniques that the photographers had used throughout the book. To my surprise a fair few had used the HDR approach and not one of them screamed obvious HDR to me.
 
erg121 said:
When ever I go out togging I tend to see photo's that in my opinion would look good as HDR pictures.
I have had numerous comments on my pictures, some positive and some not so positive so what are your thoughts on this type of photography?
I don't mean my pictures, just HDR as a whole?
Click to expand...

Don't like it at all. Was a bit trendy and everybody did it around me but actually, it's cheesy as ****.
 
What don't you like? Is it HDR you don't like or "HDR"? Tone mapping? The photos with the light smoothing set to low or the ones set to high? I keep saying this because I know that HDR has a HUGE range to it. From normal photos to extreme.
 
Lets have an example of how not to process a photo.

IMG_3627.jpg


Looks like your average stereotypical bad HDR work, but its not. Its RAW. Fill light, recovery, blacks pumped up. Contrast set to high. Vibrance to high. Exposure up +2. RAW allows you to destroy a photo in similar ways to tone mapping, "HDR". However, for some reason people seem to get how to use RAW and they use it well. I am 100% convinced that with the right level of understanding people can use HDR just as well as they do RAW. We've just got to move past this current stereotype and the constant "I HATE HDR. It killed Betsy my kitten and ate its liver."

If you're going to say HDR is bad because of results like the one pictured here, then RAW is too and you can bet your dynamic ass that Photoshop is too.
 
I've used HDR a lot.

It can enhance an image or spoil an image and I've done both!

Its simply another weapon in the photographers armoury to be used when appropriate and sometimes when not so appropriate.

One thing is clear though if the original image doesn't cut the mustard compositionally or if the subject matter is poor then using HDR won't necessarily save it!

You can't polish a Richard the Third as they say :)
 
I think that a lot of people can't really see where to stop with PP. Me included before I really think about it.

I tend to dislike it a lot, purely because of people who blatently can't take a decent photo without it. The HDR'd photo's don't look particularly good either IMO, but some people (non photography people really) love them.

When its done well though, Prime example being Pete Carrs Albert Docks panorama, I love it.
 
I think HDR is a wonderful tool - I just haven't worked it out properly yet so mine are aweful and I hate them - but that isn't the fault of the system, just the operator.

I also think you need to use it from the outset, as in recognise the situation from the moment you start to shoot and think - this needs HDR to get the best from it and shoot accordingly. Then when you process back at the lab you will have the ingredients to bake the cake with - and the HDR will provide the icing instead of just having sprinkled icing sugar on the top.

I will now go and put some more icing sugar up my nose and see if there is any inspiration, or whether i just get more crusty bogeys :help:

For those that have learned how to "see" in HDR and can do the job well I doff my very wide brimmed het to them.:notworthy:
 
Why? It has none of the normal issues that bad HDR has. It looks very much like a normal photo.
 
petemc said:
Why? It has none of the normal issues that bad HDR has. It looks very much like a normal photo.
Click to expand...

I think it's because I don't like the way it looks - fake. Let's say you would take the same shot without HDR PP but on long time exposure instead to get about the same light levels in. You would have a much more realistic picture without any heavy PP on it. Generally, I think HDR photography lacks in contrast. Especially in this picture, I really miss the dark and gloomy atmosphere and ambiance of a church/cathedral. But that's my opinion.
 
bakedbeans said:
I personally think it's horrendous.
Click to expand...

**can't resist any longer**

OK, you don't like HDR, but how do you know when you look at a picture whether HDR has been used? [I mean standard 3 exposures, processed in an appropriate program, tone-mapped and maybe tweaked in an appropriate editing suite] There are a huge range of HDR images from the extreme art stuff that can look fantastic [like forbbidenbikers, petes, etc] to incredibly subtle use that even a hardened HDR'er would struggle to identify, do you dislike those too? Not picking on you Baked Beans, it really is a genuine question, for you and others dislikers.

Most round here will know that I like HDR and use it myself, maybe not always totally successfully, but I don't see it as being any different to any other digital processing. All processing changes the original image recorded on the sensor [including, as mentioned, the in-camera process that produces a jpg] and therefore, the only thing that separates them all is individual taste - and long may that live, because otherwise photography may become very boring indeed ;)
 
bakedbeans said:
I think it's because I don't like the way it looks - fake. Let's say you would take the same shot without HDR PP but on long time exposure instead to get about the same light levels in. You would have a much more realistic picture without any heavy PP on it. Generally, I think HDR photography lacks in contrast. Especially in this picture, I really miss the dark and gloomy atmosphere and ambiance of a church/cathedral. But that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

HDR lacks contrast? Well thats true if you don't use it right. RAW files lack contrast, so you process them. HDR is no different. What HDR does is it gives you more detail to play with so when you do add contrast you have a better photo.
 
Yv said:
**can't resist any longer**

OK, you don't like HDR, but how do you know when you look at a picture whether HDR has been used? [I mean standard 3 exposures, processed in an appropriate program, tone-mapped and maybe tweaked in an appropriate editing suite] There are a huge range of HDR images from the extreme art stuff that can look fantastic [like forbbidenbikers, petes, etc] to incredibly subtle use that even a hardened HDR'er would struggle to identify, do you dislike those too? Not picking on you Baked Beans, it really is a genuine question, for you and others dislikers.

Most round here will know that I like HDR and use it myself, maybe not always totally successfully, but I don't see it as being any different to any other digital processing. All processing changes the original image recorded on the sensor [including, as mentioned, the in-camera process that produces a jpg] and therefore, the only thing that separates them all is individual taste - and long may that live, because otherwise photography may become very boring indeed ;)
Click to expand...

Very fair point indeed and it's a good discussion! :thumb: But: If you can't tell HDR is there, why is it needed and why do you do it? Seems like a waste of time.
 
petemc said:
HDR lacks contrast? Well thats true if you don't use it right. RAW files lack contrast, so you process them. HDR is no different. What HDR does is it gives you more detail to play with so when you do add contrast you have a better photo.
Click to expand...

Please read my post carefully. I was talking about that particular picture. So you're basically saying that if you use HDR you get more detail (eh?) and by "adding" contrast you get a better photo? Sounds to me like you'd say buy large format camera and you get better pictures.
 
bakedbeans said:
Please read my post carefully. I was talking about that particular picture. So you're basically saying that if you use HDR you get more detail (eh?) and by "adding" contrast you get a better photo? Sounds to me like you'd say buy large format camera and you get better pictures.
Click to expand...

Awesome idea.

large format :love:
 
bakedbeans said:
Very fair point indeed and it's a good discussion! :thumb: But: If you can't tell HDR is there, why is it needed and why do you do it? Seems like a waste of time.
Click to expand...

A subtle HDR can be used to regain lost details as all cameras have a limited dynamic range and cant capture all the shadow and highlight details in one shot so HDR can be used to 'even' out the exposure, give you the detail that would otherwise be lost. It doesnt have to be used to its more arty extremes and with the 'right' images and a subtle hand, is far more effective than other processing technicques for trying to recover the same detail. Well, thats how I see it anyway. ;)
 
bakedbeans said:
Very fair point indeed and it's a good discussion! :thumb: But: If you can't tell HDR is there, why is it needed and why do you do it? Seems like a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty silly. Some HDR photos have none of the "undesirable" aspects of "bad HDR". Therefore, those DETECTION methods are taken away. It still has HDR, and the additional quality associated with it, just the people who jump on the "we hate HDR train" probably won't know, as frankly, they haven't a clue what its for and how to use it.
 
Yv said:
A subtle HDR can be used to regain lost details as all cameras have a limited dynamic range and cant capture all the shadow and highlight details in one shot so HDR can be used to 'even' out the exposure, give you the detail that would otherwise be lost. It doesnt have to be used to its more arty extremes and with the 'right' images and a subtle hand, is far more effective than other processing technicques for trying to recover the same detail. Well, thats how I see it anyway. ;)
Click to expand...

That to me seems like a reasonable explanation of why you use HDR.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Thats pretty silly. Some HDR photos have none of the "undesirable" aspects of "bad HDR". Therefore, those DETECTION methods are taken away. It still has HDR, and the additional quality associated with it, just the people who jump on the "we hate HDR train" probably won't know, as frankly, they haven't a clue what its for and how to use it.
Click to expand...

I don't hate it, i don't /like/ it. That's a big difference. And you are right, I personally don't know how to use it, because I simply don't want to as I don't see the need. I would say that about 80% of all HDR images I have seen (which stated on the caption/it was obvious) where, in my opinion, horrendous. Now, where did I put that bloody train ticket again to HDR?! :)
 
bakedbeans said:
I don't hate it, i don't /like/ it. That's a big difference. And you are right, I personally don't know how to use it, because I simply don't want to as I don't see the need. I would say that about 80% of all HDR images I have seen (which stated on the caption/it was obvious) where, in my opinion, horrendous. Now, where did I put that bloody train ticket again to HDR?! :)
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, too many really crap HDR photos. HDR has been given a bad name as a result. if every single HDR image was fantastic, these debates would probably not exist...
 
EdinburghGary said:
Thats the problem, too many really crap HDR photos. HDR has been given a bad name as a result. if every single HDR image was fantastic, these debates would probably not exist...
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I've already proved RAW can be used to produce horrendous photos but people love RAW because it can be used to produce great photos.
 
petemc said:
I read it carefully.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't. I said that this photograph of the interior of that church/cathedral lacks atmosphere and ambiance because of HDR - because you can see everything. It looks fake. If you enter that very same church, you wouldn't be able to see it. I personally think that photography is about capturing moments, expressions and feeling. Not polished up versions of reality. But I guess that's where we both have different views and which therefore is reflected in our work.
 
petemc said:
Exactly. As I've already proved RAW can be used to produce horrendous photos but people love RAW because it can be used to produce great photos.
Click to expand...

I disagree on that point with you as well. RAW is exactly what it says on the box - a raw chunk of information to be developed by the user. Most people didn't develop their rolls of films and most people don't want to develop their RAW frames either - that's why they go with JPG. RAW files are not a technique and cannot be used to produce great photos. It's simply a file containing uncompressed data whereas JPG is compressed and developed.
 
You said "generally" and then said "especially in this picture". You did say generally so you were speaking generally. After you made your generalisation about generally all the general HDR photos you then specified the issues with that specific image.

bakedbeans said:
Generally, I think HDR photography lacks in contrast. Especially in this picture...
Click to expand...
 
bakedbeans said:
I disagree on that point with you as well. RAW is exactly what it says on the box - a raw chunk of information to be developed by the user. Most people didn't develop their rolls of films and most people don't want to develop their RAW frames either - that's why they go with JPG. RAW files are not a technique and cannot be used to produce great photos. It's simply a file containing uncompressed data whereas JPG is compressed and developed.
Click to expand...

Um. You disagree with me? So you like the photo I posted? RAW is a plain unedited photo and using a RAW editor you can destroy it. Thats my point. A HDR image can be generated from a few RAW files. What you see online as "HDR" isn't. What you see is the tone mapped image, just like you never see a RAW file online you see the processed JPG. It is no different. What ruins the image is the user not the software. RAW is great. HDR is great. People are stupid, generally speaking.
 
petemc said:
You said "generally" and then said "especially in this picture". You did say generally so you were speaking generally. After you made your generalisation about generally all the general HDR photos you then specified the issues with that specific image.
Click to expand...

Pete, as much as you like HDR I still don't like it and I don't like most of your color HDR pictures on your website. Does that make me a bad person or photographer...? I just disagree to you and that's that. But I really like the frog-perspective skyscraper picture (6/35 in places) in b/w. That to me, is a great shot and has got contrast...
 
petemc said:
Um. You disagree with me? So you like the photo I posted? RAW is a plain unedited photo and using a RAW editor you can destroy it. Thats my point. A HDR image can be generated from a few RAW files. What you see online as "HDR" isn't. What you see is the tone mapped image, just like you never see a RAW file online you see the processed JPG. It is no different. What ruins the image is the user not the software. RAW is great. HDR is great. People are stupid, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am. I don't like your tone of voice though.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Most of the HDR ypou see is rubbish but when you get it spot on as with this

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2251797

then it looks amazing
Click to expand...

that photo could have been produced with one exposure with correct metering.

HDR is disgusting, it has now become an excuss for poor composition and skill. if people use the meter correctly and if need be use grad ND filters it is possible to get a balanced exposure with natural colours.

or everyone could shoot film :-)


basicly ive tried it and come to hate it, being honest if i see HDR in the title of the posted photos i dont look at them.
 
bakedbeans said:
I said that this photograph of the interior of that church/cathedral lacks atmosphere and ambiance because of HDR - because you can see everything. It looks fake. If you enter that very same church, you wouldn't be able to see it.
Click to expand...

That's the issue I have with the way most images are produced using the HDR/Tone mapping processing technique. To me, the vast majority aren't good. They are different, they do bring out detail you wouldn't normally see and as a result they often seem un-natural.
 
chris_tim said:
that photo could have been produced with one exposure with correct metering.

HDR is disgusting, it has now become an excuss for poor composition and skill. if people use the meter correctly and if need be use grad ND filters it is possible to get a balanced exposure with natural colours.

or everyone could shoot film :-)


basicly ive tried it and come to hate it, being honest if i see HDR in the title of the posted photos i dont look at them.
Click to expand...

I give up :bang:

Pointless thread, "hating a processing technique". When it works, it works. No one can deny it, even though they try.

Answer this, if you see a photo, which has used HDR, but one which you can't tell uses HDR, and you like the photo....does that make you silly?
 
dod said:
That's the issue I have with the way most images are produced using the HDR/Tone mapping processing technique. To me, the vast majority aren't good. They are different, they do bring out detail you wouldn't normally see and as a result they seem un-natural.
Click to expand...

Do you feel used right, and subtley though, it can be a good technique?
 
chris_tim said:
that photo could have been produced with one exposure with correct metering.

HDR is disgusting, it has now become an excuss for poor composition and skill. if people use the meter correctly and if need be use grad ND filters it is possible to get a balanced exposure with natural colours.

or everyone could shoot film :-)


basicly ive tried it and come to hate it, being honest if i see HDR in the title of the posted photos i dont look at them.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top