Why do you hate HDR?

I don't like HDR (or any post processing technique for that matter) when it's used as a crutch for poor photos. Other than that, it's all gravy in the navy. :)
 
I have an HDR related question - why is it nearly every thread where HDR is used ends up with HDR in the title?

Does it matter?
 
Most of the time its used on mediocre images trying to make purses out sows ears.

Also many images have unnatural halos, and Pixar overcooked crayon colours.

IMHO a lot of the images don't need a camera at all, and would be better generated with some of the rendering apps.

Even shots by the so called experts tend to be vomit inducing.

Its an each to his own thing. I'm not keen on it at all personally.
 
Personally, I'm with PeteMC on this one as I just can't see what the major concern and fuss is all about. Each to their own, and if people were more tolerant of others ways and methods, then this world we live in would be a better place.

It's only a PP technique, the same as B&W, or Sepia et al. Any images I take that I apply HDR to are not meant to be what the camera saw, and I never pretend otherwise. They are not meant to portray reality, they are a PP technique used to create an effect. Simple as.

If people want to apply HDR to excess, or subtly, then that's their prerogative.

As for those who continue to state that it's generally applied when an image is rubbish in an attempt to make it good... well, we ALL started somewhere, we ALL have to learn, and we've ALL taken bad pics. Get off your high horses and give people a chance.
 
I remember seeing a post somewhere comparing HDR and lighting with a load of speedlights for interior shots and in that context (ie used properly and not as a crutch for crap photos) it's an excellent technique...
 
Garrie said:
I'd be interested to know what people think about the HDR I use in my gallery, is it classed as overcooked?!

Cheers
G
Click to expand...

Yep imo

Why?

puddleduck said:
IMHO a lot of the images don't need a camera at all, and would be better generated with some of the rendering apps.
Click to expand...


doesn't make you a rubbish shooter though, I've learned to strip it back with my minds eye...:)
 
I don't like them because they often look fake - erg121's are better than most but still look fake to me (sorry erg121), Just Dave's are pretty good, generally subtle apart from number 3.

To me it's like colour popping - on often overused and poorly executed tool. When done correctly and in a suitable situation it looks fantastic but unfortunately this is significantly under 1% of attempts in my opinion
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
Just Dave's are pretty good, generally subtle apart from number 3.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rick, #3 doesn't look over done to me, but everyone sees thing differently, though, :thumbs:, it was shot at about 6'30am I think, freezing cold,

#3
3077270443_9f84726579_o.jpg
 
I love HDR thats done right..
But I hate that people have to title there pix... "Scottish Mountains... HDR"
Why do it?
You dont say.. "Scottish Mountains.. Shapened with some curves and a lil' bit of saturation added!"
 
Not a problem Ricky, as I said earlier its down to personal taste.

Garrie takes an amazing HDR as does our good friend Sheppy.
 
Trev Rich said:
I love HDR thats done right..
Click to expand...
What's 'right'...? You're a judge about what HDR is are you...?

What you think is right, others won't and vice versa.

This is my point entirely.
Trev Rich said:
But I hate that people have to title there pix... "Scottish Mountains... HDR"
Why do it?
You dont say.. "Scottish Mountains.. Shapened with some curves and a lil' bit of saturation added!"
Click to expand...
Because someone will undoubtedly come into the thread and make a negative comment about the use of HDR and criticise the OP for not mentioning it in the thread title... :thinking:

I get a little fed up with many peoples 'holier than though' attitude to HDR images. OK, many don't like it... but just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean one should post "nice image, shame about the HDR' comments.
 
erg121 said:
Not a problem Ricky, as I said earlier its down to personal taste.

Garrie takes an amazing HDR as does our good friend Sheppy.
Click to expand...

Cheers Garv (hope all is well mate?). I agree Shepy is a legend even though he is a yellow car punching cone bas***d :p :lol:
 
Trev Rich said:
removed by me...
Click to expand...
Hi Trev

I got the email, so saw what you wrote... :D no need to remove Trev.

No, not at all out of the wrong side of the bed matey, I'm fine. It just frustrates me the way people, in all walks of life, are so intolerant of others opinions/likes/dislikes etc that's all.

HDR is such an over-criticised PP technique, and many come up with ridiculous comments as to why/how/when people use it.

Some HDR images are overdone - so are many B&W images
Some HDR images are to many, simply hideous - so are the images of many who find those HDR images hideous
Some HDR images are subtle - so are some selectively coloured images subtle

Each to their own I say.
 
I was trying to defend HDR..
And I still think people using "HDR" in the title is a way to grab attention.
Let the image do the talking is what I mean.

And yes it's all down to a matter of opinion.
 
Trev Rich said:
I was trying to defend HDR..
And I still think people using "HDR" in the title is a way to grab attention.
Let the image do the talking is what I mean.

And yes it's all down to a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
Cool, we're on the same side then...:)

I like HDR, I enjoy seeing what others manage to come up with. Some I like, some I like less. Some of Pete's images I like, some I don't. I try HDR on some of mine, and I like even less!!! hehe.
 
Anyone hate using the term HDR? Since the images we are seeing are not HDR they are Tonemapped..
 
I :love: HDR.
In the right hands it can make some shots look bloody awesome.

When they are really overdone is when I go off them a bit.

Here's my best HDR shot to date:



I'm very proud of this shot, and I don't think it would be the same without the HDR touch!
 
As I said previously Andy that shot looks fake to me, but it is very effective and I can't imagine the originals would be better
 
Just had a play with the original shot, as in 'non HDR', and it looks crap. I'm not even going to upload it and show it to anyone...........
 
Yv said:
I would beg to differ slightly, people that use it with restraint and properly often show their work, you just don't realise you are looking at HDR! It can also be used very effectively as an artistic tool, such as seen by peeps like forbidden biker, jimmy lemon, petemc, etc etc and it looks stunning. However, what most people sadly think of is the overblown stuff that 'some' might think is amazing, but personally I find vomit inducing :gag:
Click to expand...

That's a good point regarding whether or not we know it's been HDRed/tonemapped. I suppose that even 'good' shots with the treatment (which is of course totally personal whether it's 'good') are using it to make up for something that couldn't be captured first-time and because it's something of a specific process, that's why it's seen as 'one step too far' if you will. Exposure blending, the clone tool (and all that) is providing the same service for post-capture improvement, it's just much less obvious.

A lot of the shots posted in this thread are well-managed and not overcooked but they still look overprocessed to an extent*–*I suppose my love of high contrast gives me a pre-determined bias against HDR techniques.

Andy Fozzy's shot of the church (just an example) is a great shot and I expect it would look rocking when blown up to A2, but it lacks punch, lacks contrast which is my own style. Then again, if we all liked the same stuff it'd be a bit boring - when the next 'fad' technique comes along we'll be either slagging that or loving it.
 
I think the trouble with HDR is that it's an abused process, usually though applications with simple interfaces that people just use without reading the manual/understand. It ends up with an almost 'console game effect'

Just dave's shot of the cottage, tome, has a model railway look to it.
3125386402_5c54beccdf_o.jpg


Nothing wrong with that if that's what you intend to do and like the shot. After all, most photographs stay in the family and are not seen.

There's a famous advertising photographer (who I can't remember) who uses 'overdone' HDR type shots very effectively. I've seen some of his army stuff look very Call of Duty, which is what he intended.

At the end of the day, it's a subjective subject, so you'll always have differences.
 
Garrie said:
Anyone hate using the term HDR? Since the images we are seeing are not HDR they are Tonemapped..
Click to expand...

Finally someone talking sense.
 
LOL, just photoshop in a hornby steam train running past the cottage on the left of shot :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top