bakedbeans
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 533
- Edit My Images
- No
What is your opinion of HDR photographs
- Thread starter erg121
- Start date
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 19,271
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why bother if you can't tell the difference
Because the photo IS better, and has much more details than the NON HDR version. The difference is, you dunno HOW the photo is so nice, you don't know for sure that its HDR, as its been used in a subtle, yet effective way...
I hope I am making sense.
- Messages
- 19,271
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OccasionallyThe problem is though that normally it's not used subtley
Bingo. Agree 100%. Its overused, badly used, and seldomly good. As a result, people say they hate it. Trouble is, they cannot ever say HDR always makes bad photos, it can and does produce some stunning works of art.
- Messages
- 19,271
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why bother if you can't tell the difference
Here is another example. My wife HATES any sweet and sour food. She refuses to eat anything with a lot of sugar in it. She is crazy that way. She doesnt realise, my secret ingredient in my home made tomato soup is quit a fair bit of Brown Sugar. I once ommited it as I had none, and she proclaimed "Thats not as good as normal". I did not tell her it was missing the ingredient she hated so much. If I had, she would suddenly hate my soup.
I can apply that same argument to HDR. Just bacuase you *think* you can't see it, does not mean it hasn't been used.
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's another issue I have with digital generally. The desire to extract every last detail possible from an image. Your eye's can't do that, why should a photo?
Sometimes blown highlights aren't a problem
bakedbeans
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 533
- Edit My Images
- No
Okay, I agree to that and it does make sense indeed.
bakedbeans
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 533
- Edit My Images
- No
You're comparing apples to pears here. It's probably not the sugar itself but the amount of it. As you said before, subtle HDR which enhances an image without being intrusive, could potentially be all right.
- Messages
- 19,271
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's another issue I have with digital generally. The desire to extract every last detail possible from an image. Your eye's can't do that, why should a photo?
Sometimes blown highlights aren't a problem
I agree with that too. Sometimes what is hidden in the shadows, and what you cant see, makes the world of difference. I feel with my BBC urbex set, I did that quite well. I just don't understand the "hatred" of a processing technique when it can be used well, albeit, very rarely
- Messages
- 19,271
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats all I ever wanted to point out. I hate badly done HDR. I love it when done at a level when the image speaks so loudly, the processing is ignored.
- Messages
- 19,271
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Can we all have an uber sized group hug now? I think us lot should go to the middle east to solve the crisis, and get a few desert shoots.
Its fine to disagree, but its silly to try and deny you said something on a forum where anyone can scroll up and quote you. Its silly to start throwing the "I'm allowed to disagree with you" speech around. You are allowed, thats fine. Its a discussion forum. You make your point, I make mine. You then say you didn't make that point when you clearly did and I'm going to point that out.
Well I'll type with my Spanish accent then. Viva la HDR!
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.
Holy generalisation Batman! HDR is disgusting? You've seen it all to generalise like that? No wait, how could you if you ignore it all the time? Its more than likely that you've seen HDR photos that you like because the person hasn't said they are HDR.
That's another issue I have with digital generally. The desire to extract every last detail possible from an image. Your eye's can't do that, why should a photo?
Sometimes blown highlights aren't a problem
Then you've not been paying attention
HDR gives you more, then you work from that. I add a lot of contrast to my photos. They've had blown highlights. There was a thread were everyone moaned about the blown out highlights in street lights and that was HDR. HDR IS NOT THE FINAL STEP!
All HDR. They've got shadows, contrast, blown highlights, detail where its needed, and they've got atmosphere that hasn't been lost due to HDR.
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then you've not been paying attention
Nope, I've been paying attention. Read what I say, I'm not actually slagging HDR, I'm slagging bad processing, or perhaps obsessive processing. :shrug:
Some of the images you've posted are pretty good examples of HDR done well, especially the last one. A few of them don't look right to me but that's the whole point, it's subjective, just because I don't like them doesn't mean to say they're bad, especially if you like them.
S
susie
Guest
See for those I like number 3 and the last 2, but the others don't do anything for me. Yes they are more subtle than most HDR ones I have seen but there is something that does not go ding in my brain with them.
generally if I was looking at pictures and saw some labeled as HDR I would not bother looking at them but there again I would not normally look at arty or portrait pictures either so its nothing personal about HDR!!
generally if I was looking at pictures and saw some labeled as HDR I would not bother looking at them but there again I would not normally look at arty or portrait pictures either so its nothing personal about HDR!!
Sorry, yes you did say digital in general. Fair point
Now what I read there was "I like some of those, and I don't like others." Since they've all been HDR'd then perhaps its not the HDR you don't like as you like the others that have been. What you don't like is the level of processing or the style. Thats my point entirely. HDR clearly works, just as RAW, black or white and colour all work. They can all be used to take things too far. They can all be used to create a huge variety of results. Some people will like them and others won't. I just wish that we could stop debating whether it does work or not, whether its real or not, whether its a valid technique or not and just use it or not.
Susane
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,103
- Name
- Susane
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Royston Vasey
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 196
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When done well it is great but it's over done way to much.
If you can't tell it's HDR then it's done right for me.
If you can't tell it's HDR then it's done right for me.
100% agree!
Richard Peters
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,323
- Edit My Images
- No
I love HDR photography...it's the miss understanding of what most people seem to think that is (judging by the vast majority of photo's that are posted on most forums) that I hate.
Richard Peters
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,323
- Edit My Images
- No
As is the case with any processing. The funny thing is, most people out there wouldn't dream of processing an image within an inch of it's life the traditional way, yet slap it in some software that over saturates, creates massive halos and ruins skin tones for you and it suddenly becomes acceptable :nuts:
You say that but if you can't tell a photo has been converted to b&w then you probably failed
i dismiss it because its a worthless technique in my eyes. all the processes that can be used to enhance a photo have been derived from the darkroom. HDR looks fake, doesnt matter how sublte you can still tell the difference. if people are so worried about the range that their camera records in then why not turn back to film which is a chemical process. it records what it is exposed to, thats it. nothing added and nothing taken away!
this is proberly the most volatile topic there can be on a photography forum! people get very agitated
calm, were meant to be friendly
this is proberly the most volatile topic there can be on a photography forum! people get very agitated
calm, were meant to be friendly
mole2k
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i dismiss it because its a worthless technique in my eyes. all the processes that can be used to enhance a photo have been derived from the darkroom. HDR looks fake, doesnt matter how sublte you can still tell the difference. if people are so worried about the range that their camera records in then why not turn back to film which is a chemical process. it records what it is exposed to, thats it. nothing added and nothing taken away!
this is proberly the most volatile topic there can be on a photography forum! people get very agitated
calm, were meant to be friendly
So what do you consider tone mapping to be? It's essentially just a contrast map on a 32bit image.
Also you appear to be stating that film doesnt have a limited dynamic range and will record whatever the range of the scene is
.this is proberly the most volatile topic there can be on a photography forum! people get very agitated
Thats possibly because when some people have spent a lot of time and effort doing something for people to come along and say that its worthless, disgusting and not real photography well it kinda feels like a kick in the balls.
I'd ask you to look at the examples I posted if you think it looks fake. I really believe that mine don't. IR looks fake, technically speaking but used well it looks surreal and beautiful.
Richard Peters
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,323
- Edit My Images
- No
You say that but if you can't tell a photo has been converted to b&w then you probably failed
Did I mention I'm colour blind...
Lensflare
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The funny thing about all this is, HDR ISN'T A DIGITAL TECHNIQUE :razz:
It wasoriginally used on FILM in Hollywood to extend the dynamic range of film. It was used extensively, as a technique, with multi layered film to rpoduce a print with more detail in the shadow and higjlights than a straight dodge or burn could produce......so as to produce a print with more nearly the same range of contrast as the human eye.
The trouble that has been caused is because it is easy to buy a toy for your computer that turns any old picture into a tone mapped mess.
A good HDR image will have a wider range of contrast than a standard image - but it is still only about the same as a dodged and burned film print. Film HDR gave a wider range of tones again.
I love the shot of the Salford bridge - that, to me, is where HDR comes into its own.
As for the original shot - the chucrh. In the old days a photographer would spend two days setting up about 50 lights to light an interior of that magnitude to get the shadows balanced so they would have some detail in them on film.
Where you say HDR pictures look false because they don't replicate what the eye sees - you are just plain wrong there.:bang: A human eye has a dynamic range of about 12 stops....a digital image has a dynamic range of about 7 stops....a film image on neg film has a dynamic range of about 9 stops......and HDR image goes back up towardfs the 12 stop mark - so actually more nearly replicates what the human eye can see when it scans a scene.
That doesn't mean you have to like it now - but if you are going to dislike it, dislike it for the RIGHT reasons.
It wasoriginally used on FILM in Hollywood to extend the dynamic range of film. It was used extensively, as a technique, with multi layered film to rpoduce a print with more detail in the shadow and higjlights than a straight dodge or burn could produce......so as to produce a print with more nearly the same range of contrast as the human eye.
The trouble that has been caused is because it is easy to buy a toy for your computer that turns any old picture into a tone mapped mess.
A good HDR image will have a wider range of contrast than a standard image - but it is still only about the same as a dodged and burned film print. Film HDR gave a wider range of tones again.
I love the shot of the Salford bridge - that, to me, is where HDR comes into its own.
As for the original shot - the chucrh. In the old days a photographer would spend two days setting up about 50 lights to light an interior of that magnitude to get the shadows balanced so they would have some detail in them on film.
Where you say HDR pictures look false because they don't replicate what the eye sees - you are just plain wrong there.:bang: A human eye has a dynamic range of about 12 stops....a digital image has a dynamic range of about 7 stops....a film image on neg film has a dynamic range of about 9 stops......and HDR image goes back up towardfs the 12 stop mark - so actually more nearly replicates what the human eye can see when it scans a scene.
That doesn't mean you have to like it now - but if you are going to dislike it, dislike it for the RIGHT reasons.
pxl8
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh, has the HDR debate slot come around again?
Cards on the table before I chuck a point into the hat. I don't care what technique was used (HDR, tone mapping, staining prints with tea bags, etc) it simply comes down to I like it or I don't.
Now, all those who dislike HDR, consider this. Do you feel the same about the lighting in, well, just about every film made really. Film makers use lights all the time when shooting outside and really that's the same thing just done in a different way - adding light to the existing scene instead of digitally adding light later or even using a bit of fill flash. The aim is the same, to change and control the light in the scene for a more pleasing result.
Of course HDR can be done badly but that's true of anything photographic (focus, WB, exposure, panning, etc) so its strange that it generates such strong feelings. It's just another tool there to be used, abused or just plain ignored. Disliking an image simply because of how it was processed is really no better than saying you don't like images that have shot with a Nikon D200
Cards on the table before I chuck a point into the hat. I don't care what technique was used (HDR, tone mapping, staining prints with tea bags, etc) it simply comes down to I like it or I don't.
Now, all those who dislike HDR, consider this. Do you feel the same about the lighting in, well, just about every film made really. Film makers use lights all the time when shooting outside and really that's the same thing just done in a different way - adding light to the existing scene instead of digitally adding light later or even using a bit of fill flash. The aim is the same, to change and control the light in the scene for a more pleasing result.
Of course HDR can be done badly but that's true of anything photographic (focus, WB, exposure, panning, etc) so its strange that it generates such strong feelings. It's just another tool there to be used, abused or just plain ignored. Disliking an image simply because of how it was processed is really no better than saying you don't like images that have shot with a Nikon D200
Grockle
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 451
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My favourite B&W landscape photographer developed a unique technique. Anyone here really think that Ansel Adams' work looks fake? http://strongphotography.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ansel_adams_mountains.jpg
His zoning system gives output that to me looks very similar to tone mapping and sometimes HDR work.
His zoning system gives output that to me looks very similar to tone mapping and sometimes HDR work.
- Messages
- 11,048
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Chris
Infact a true HDR is made from 3 different exposures, covering a larger dynamic range all in together.... so in fact it's derived in camera, and assembled if you like, in the processing room.
Just like film.
Of course it looks fake. I bet you any money the landscape wasn't black and white on the day
Thats not how your eyes would have seen it The problem is often, but not always, people try to rescue a poor picture with some excessive digital technique - HDR, B/W even. If a picture is bad it's bad and no amoount of digital play is going to change it. Used intelligently on a good image these techniques have their place.
POAH
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
digital not the same as film where you can choose what type to give certain colours, saturation and contrast. so while you have to use processing to get your image there is a difference between natural looking and unnatural looking lol
a1ex2001
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I second that, but this thread has become pointless so I'm not going to reply some people are clearly never going to accept that digital processing is now part of photography and can be done well or badly. No one technique should ever be hated just for being a technique but HDR has become the new selective colouring, everyone hates it because it's done so badly so often yet in the right circumstances it can still be excellent.
At which point I'm going to exit stage right, uninstall all photo editing tools from my PC and only shoot JPG's with no processing because then every shot I take will be as the camera saw it. They will be rubish but at least I will be one step close to being a photographer.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
great idea, and just think how many more pics you can get on a card using jpgs that have had no processing and are exactly as the camera saw it
POAH
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't have aproblem with HDR so long as people don't claim they are photographs. HDR can produce some intense images but 95% of the ones you see are crap, bit like rig shots in automotive work lol
They are photographs. I'm a photographer. They're as valid as exposure blending which has been a film technique for decades. They're as valid as any digital editing technique.
- Messages
- 25,725
- Name
- Yvonne, pronounced Eve...
- Edit My Images
- Yes
it could even be argued they are more photographs than normal photographs, being as they are THREE photographs
[yes, I know, one whole from 3, taking the relevent data from each, before any pedant corrects me
]
bakedbeans
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 533
- Edit My Images
- No
If you can't take other people's opinions, why bother to post your pictures? I think that most of your images do look fake and straight out of a video game (now, there they would like awesome).