When HDR was not such a good idea.....

richpips

richpips

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,687
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
HDR users, you bought the program and HDRed everything in sight (OK maybe not everything).

What are your disasters so far?

I've found that HDR is great for some images, and rubbish for others irrespective of settings, that is it worsens the original.

Pics welcome.
 
My first try was on a windy day.............but its windy.....it'll be ok.........total disaster.......but i had to try just to get it out my system that you cant do windy shots...



Del.
 
My notable disasters were some landscapes taken at dusk with seconds+ exposures, and colourless skies.
 
The secret of HDR - not using it unless it is needed
 
The secret of HDR - not using it unless it is needed
Click to expand...

Yes, but just because a photo is good in it's own right does not mean that HDR shouldn't be used.

That is unless you have an aversion to HDR :D
 
I can never seem to get HDR's right, no matter how hard I try. Really frustrates me, which is why I rarely bother with them.

I get them all sorted in photomatix and they look good, once it processes the final product it looks rubbish, nothing at all like it did before i confirmed it.
 
I notice no-one's posted a crap HDR yet. Wonder why?

Try this abomination for size

6727926424863c4b7502df3.89031623.jpeg
 
I have been playing with HDR for some time, and results are quite good, you mention you have used it on night/dusk shots, personally i would not think this is the best way to use HDR as most applications in HDR are used to boost saturation and contrast levels, a dusk shot holds very little of that, and most likly using the HDR for dusk shots will only give very high noise. IMO...

Also I use raw and convert to 3 jpgs..

Lets see an example..

richpips said:
My notable disasters were some landscapes taken at dusk with seconds+ exposures, and colourless skies.
Click to expand...
 
Try this abomination for size
Click to expand...

that's a beauty.

I have been playing with HDR for some time, and results are quite good, you mention you have used it on night/dusk shots, personally i would not think this is the best way to use HDR as most applications in HDR are used to boost saturation and contrast levels, a dusk shot holds very little of that, and most likly using the HDR for dusk shots will only give very high noise. IMO...

Lets see an example..
Click to expand...

I've deleted the lot. Otherwise I'd have posted some.
 
2834456878_877995e191.jpg


i succeeded in making this 'snap' look like a cartoon! :lol:
 
Rocket said:
I have been playing with HDR for some time, and results are quite good, you mention you have used it on night/dusk shots, personally i would not think this is the best way to use HDR as most applications in HDR are used to boost saturation and contrast levels, a dusk shot holds very little of that, and most likly using the HDR for dusk shots will only give very high noise. IMO...

Also I use raw and convert to 3 jpgs..

Lets see an example..
Click to expand...

Uhm, really?
:shrug:
 
errr.... this thread seems to be missing the point of HDR completely?
There's producing a HDR just to get an effect, mostly using one shot and turning it into 3 images to tonemap for a certain effect. And there's the real reason for HDR's....
When you will either get blown highlights or underexposed shadows in a shot, so you need HDR to get exposed highlights and exposed shadows in the final production..
 
errr.... this thread seems to be missing the point of HDR completely?
There's producing a HDR just to get an effect, mostly using one shot and turning it into 3 images to tonemap for a certain effect. And there's the real reason for HDR's....
When you will either get blown highlights or underexposed shadows in a shot, so you need HDR to get exposed highlights and exposed shadows in the final production..
Click to expand...

Err this thread is what it is.

Folk buy HDR software, after seeing others pics on the web.

So they process lots of their pics and get some questionable results.
 
problem is... most people go 'oh wow hdr looks ace' then go mad, and up processing levels to high hell making everything shi........ really bad.
I will leave HDR as a last ditch attempt at achieving a particular photograph if I can.
 
I hate HDR, it just doesn't look natural, no matter how "well" it's done.

Some of the pics in this thread make me feel ill :gag:

A.
 
Anorakus said:
Some of the pics in this thread make me feel ill :gag:

A.
Click to expand...

That's the idea. The whole premise was that we should post awful, rubbish and generally crap HDR pics. Hence the reason why this thread has contained within it a selection (admittedly small, so far) of awful, rubbish and generally crap HDR pics. Including my rubbish .. etc HDR pic

:clap::clap:
 
Trev Rich said:
errr.... this thread seems to be missing the point of HDR completely?
Click to expand...

No

This thread gets the point of HDR. And this thread knows what is good and what is bad HDR.

This thread knows perfectly well what makes good HDR. This thread is the nemesis of good HDR.

That, of course assumes that a thread has a personality ;)
 
Trev Rich said:
errr.... this thread seems to be missing the point of HDR completely?
There's producing a HDR just to get an effect, mostly using one shot and turning it into 3 images to tonemap for a certain effect. And there's the real reason for HDR's....
When you will either get blown highlights or underexposed shadows in a shot, so you need HDR to get exposed highlights and exposed shadows in the final production..
Click to expand...

Yes, I think some people here are thinking of HDR to be the high saturated style of image. Not what it really is.


Anorakus said:
I hate HDR, it just doesn't look natural, no matter how "well" it's done.

Some of the pics in this thread make me feel ill :gag:

A.
Click to expand...

Oh reeeeeally, Yes,what I think you are viewing HDR to be does look unnatural but what about an image on film with lots of dynamic range? Does that look unnatural? What about how you actually physically see a scene in person? Is the sky blown out when your looking at it? No because your eyes do the adjust for you, in a split second.
What you are meant to try to do with HDR is capture or recreate the range that you saw at the scene, trying to make it look natural.
 
Anorakus said:
I hate HDR, it just doesn't look natural, no matter how "well" it's done.

Some of the pics in this thread make me feel ill :gag:

A.
Click to expand...

I could be pretty sure you've liked loads of hdr images just not known they where hdr, the majority of good hdr images you cant tell the processing technique used and I know I for one purposefully dont mention any processing done unless im asked :shrug:.
 
Moz said:
Yes, I think some people here are thinking of HDR to be the high saturated style of image. Not what it really is.




Oh reeeeeally, Yes,what I think you are viewing HDR to be does look unnatural but what about an image on film with lots of dynamic range? Does that look unnatural? What about how you actually physically see a scene in person? Is the sky blown out when your looking at it? No because your eyes do the adjust for you, in a split second.
What you are meant to try to do with HDR is capture or recreate the range that you saw at the scene, trying to make it look natural.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I meant.
You will find that most of the bad "HDR's" are just tonemapped images trying to create the percieved effect of over saturation and whacky images.
The ones that don't actually try to create what the eye saw at the time instead of what one shot can give you.
 
richpips said:
Err this thread is what it is.

Folk buy HDR software, after seeing others pics on the web.

So they process lots of their pics and get some questionable results.
Click to expand...

Thanks for backing me up... They process lots of pix to get an effect...
thats different from looking at a situation, knowing they cant get the whole tonal range in one shot, then shooting 3 shots at that time, or raw for a moving shot...
 
I agree that HDR is used far more than it needs to be. I think it's just a novelty, it's the latest thing and everyone can do it so everyone wants to have a go. Sadly the overdone images seem to be the majority of HDR images around and this is starting to give HDR a bad reputation. Once people get sick of seeing the gamma radiated images and people are getting bad comments more and more because of them then the whole thing should die down.

The art to using HDR effectively is making it not look like HDR. If you can do that and can also judge which images will benefit from HDR then you have a useful tool.
 
I hate the really overdone ones which look like film on crack :gag: if done correctly though it can look great!
 
i tried it, hashed up a few times (most!) and sort of got it right a few times (not many), I'd rather stick to one shot, filters and knowledge of light. don;t get me wrong, I really am impressed by the work by others who are good at it...its just I'm not, stick to what you know and all that ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top