What exactly do we expect???

I am at a loss here and would like some input.

As I understand it, HDR is about balancing the light, colors and features through multiple exposures so you can achieve images you normally couldn’t with one exposed image.

From what I have read, it isn’t about making some outlandish colors or saturated hues that make the image look like a painting, but more about bringing our the details of the image to look more like what the human eye would see.

I think sharp lines and normally saturated colors do much more for the image then running the “Grunge” option in Photomatix… IMO.

Brent

Hi Brentleim,

I share the same oppinion and I had basically the same query here a couple months ago (with not much of a response though). I think the purpose of HDR is not to make the “painted-like” picture. I think it is supposed to work for the photograph and extract the best of both worlds (dark shadows and bright highlights).

On the other hand, HDR could be considered as some sort of art photography I guess and I do not mind “painted” look if it works for the shot. But I have also noticed that some people think it is about oversaturated and unnatural colours and hues. (To be completely honest it also depends a bit on the software people use for merging as well.)

I think this topic would be for a broader discussion and I am sure there will be different responses but I agree with you.
High Dynamic Range imaging – there is no distortion of images mentioned there…

Again, just my oppinion.

I have to agree 100%. Hitting the Grunge button. And the using some sharpening or softening tools do not represent what HDR is all about. I myself would much rather see a well composed and thought out photo that has had the HDR process done to it to bring out the highlights and details that are normaly lost when the picture is originally taken. And not some snapshot of anything under the sun, that has been run through the HDR process, turning it into some sort of cartoon creation that lacks very little effort. And is done for the sake of doing it. Sometimes that can work in certain cases. And it can look really cool. But for me. I woould much rather see the photo retain as much of a natural look that it can. In the end it comes down to each individuals particular taste. So I guess there really is no right or wrong answer for this. Do what turns you on and enjoy it.

The “purpose” of HDR is to do whatever you like with it. Some photographer prefer a natural look, some prefer a hyperrealistic look, and others prefer a more artistic (or cartoon-like) look. Are any one of these approaches “right” or “wrong?”

No.

What some people probably object to when they see “outlandish colors or saturated hues” are images produced by people who don’t particularly know what they’re doing. You can abuse all kinds of things and HDR is one of them. There are some perfectly putrid photos posted on this site created by newbies who don’t have an understanding of photography or HDR, but it “looks cool” to them. The best we can do is gently point them in the right direction and hope they get it and not go away mad.

HDR could be considered as some sort of art photography I guess and I do not mind “painted” look if it works for the shot
http://www.townsrealty.com