Pseudo-HDR

HDR which involves the manipulation of a single image as opposed to the combination of multiple images taken at different exposure values, is referred to, correctly, as Pseudo-HDR. There is plenty of reference to the techniques to achieve this all over the Net.

There has been a significant backlash against “HDR” photographic images, largely, I suspect, as the result of so many Pseudo-HDR images being produced which bear little or no relation to the original scene captured, and should more properly be considered works of creative design of widely varying standards of competence.

Is it the intention of the owners of this site to focus on HDR, or Pseudo-HDR imagery, or continue to accept all types and shades of imagery, but under the banner of “HDRCreme”?

Waynewhuang on Flickr’s Naturalistic HDR Photography Group
(http://tinyurl.com/l2bd6z) writes: “Much of the crispy, crunchy, cartoony, ultra-thick clouds, overly saturated, flat, halo-ridden images you see around (admittedly some of them look kind of cool) are the result of dialing values up or down to extremes, often with only a single RAW image. I won’t say these kinds of results are aberrations from what the creators of HDR softwares intended, however the approach here is like using a photograph as a canvas to paint upon. That is an entirely valid approach, but at that point, the actual subject of the photograph becomes secondary and the practice ceases to be purely about photography.”

Looking through the selection of works on display at HDRCreme, an increasing preponderance of images seem to be the painting of canvases. If that is where the site is heading, that is fine of course, but I think the administrators should be clarifying what target user, and audience “HDRCreme” are aiming to attract…

without pointing the finger, i do see a lot of bad HDR posted on this gallery, but thankfully the majority is of a good quality.
now when i first started HDr, my images were, lets say OTT, and everything boosted to the max, but after a few weeks i started to cool things down some to a more natural level.
I learned from my mistakes, but i see others are not and continue to put out crap, over saturated images that just look bad, but dont get me wrong, if i see the need for the occasional image in need of being over saturated, then i will do it but they are very few and far between now.
The best part is that some of these images have a great potential if handled correctly, but alas they are not.

To me there are two catogories " creationists " and " Purists ", but they both need a touch of class about them.

Best regards Paul

I like to shoot one raw and convert. if i find a place and i think i will like the light i will shoot and create a pseudo hdr. I will then go back and create a true HDR. To me HDR is a tool not a means to an end.I know many would not agree with that but thats the beauty of all this

I am quite dissapointed that one-image tonemapping is considered okay for a HDR-site with the name “HDR creme”. One-image tonemapping is not HDR and will never be HDR, there willl never be no additional dynamic using one image. I don’t hold anything against one-image tonemapping – they make great photos too – but just dont call it HDR. I mean: I don’t call a portrait of an elephant showing the whole animal or a closeup showing a flower 8 cm frog for “macro” or “pseudo-macro” just because I used a macro-lens….

My interest is HDR and I think I will delete my pictures again. Somewhat dissapointed – also because this site is broadcasting the mistake abut one-image tonemapping and HDR as being nearly the same and therefore able to use same name.

I have decided to delete my pictures.

Two reasons:

1) Nothing is being done about the stolen picture (maybe more than the one I have seen – angelina..?) I can’t be in a place where this goes on
2) The name “HDR-creme” does not cover the content, since tonemapped pictures are accepted as HDR too.

I hope that you all will have fun

:-)

john-nyberg
Join the Club! I deleted mine a few months back for the same reason.
I never saw your portfolio, so I don’t know whether you would find the flickr site I mentioned, congenial, but judging by your commentary, I suspect we are probably like minds. I now look in only occasionally to see if we are still being subjected to the same old over-worked automobiles etc., and the same two or three stalwarts describing almost every image as “nice”!
There are less than a handful of superb contributors who have the stamina to continue, and I admire their work, which deserves greater circulation. The siteowners are doing HDR a disservice, IMHO, when the name and much of the content are so far apart.

A wise man once said, if you have nothing to say then say nothing. This whole discussion seems like a waste of time and effort. I could care less if it’s HDR or pseudo-HDR, if I like a photo, I like it. It’s interesting that those who have deleted their photos still see a need to comment.

ilh2009
Your images are one of the reasons for looking in from time to time. You are at one end of the spectrum available and believe me they stand out amongst the crayonbox cars -that is not a smoke-blowing exercise.
I am also interested to see if anyone eventually realises what can be done to produce superb imagery with HDR, rather than the wilder excesses.
I have never criticised individuals’ efforts, but where someone’s work has caught my attention as good photography, I tend to say so.
I started this thread whilst still contributing images, and am merely responding to other’s comments.

ilh2009 you hit it on the head; forget what it’s called; if you like it, you like it. Amen.

I am a new user of the site being very interested in HDR photography. I headed to this topic thinking that others would be sharing techniques as the topic says but instead only see grips about the site. Hmmm….. Why take the time to come here and post if you’ve decided to move on?

Like ilh2009 says, who cares what style was used, if the photo looks good then fine! Could this be a little snobbish on some purist’s part? OK, now don’t flame me too hard, I’m just trying to understand.

The photo of the welder is one of the best I’ve seen and I was curious to the technique in producing that one.

Photomatix user, Canon XSi

Golf Discount Coupons

ilh2009, inspiredlogic and shask,

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

If you entertained a site that showed the beauty and techniques of images based on black and white photography and people kept plastering color photos all over the place, then you would be disappointed, no matter how nice the photos were. There is a reason why we come to HDRCreme, and that is to view HDR processed images.

Now, I am still learning photography, HDR and everything dedicated to this art. I do, however, understand that selecting an image, choosing “Grunge” in Photomatix Pro, saving the file and then posting it to HDR Creme is certainly not HDR processing. I may be new, but I didn’t just fall off a banana boat either.

Its kind of like making out with your sister; it probably would be a lot of fun but its just wrong.

Brent

Even a CMOS sensor can capture around 6-8 stops of dynamic range. Just because only one image is used doesn’t mean that the dynamic range isn’t high. If we really want to be picky, we should call this site LDRCreme, because all of these images are tonemapped at a lower dynamic range so that they might read properly on consumer displays. Regardless of how each user determines their HDR images to be tonemapped, and regardless of how many raw image files each user processes, it seems that this site was created so that the admins/users might determine which images are worthy of attention and which images aren’t. So if you don’t like an image, give it a low rating. If you do like an image, give it a high rating. If you don’t think an image is HDR, you are right. Technically, none of these images are HDR. They are LDR.

Go have fun and don’t take it all so seriously. If you really do want to take it all seriously, then try helping those people who are bad at tonemapping, and good luck defining “bad.”

Hello everybody, this is my 1st contribution to a forum, and allow me to start with a ….question ( so I expect contribution from you !!!).

I see that you are already flighing high after the meaning of what is HDR, good or bad; I’m not still there, but need to understand what’s the meaning of -3, -2, 0, +2, +3 when it is stated that only one single file ( RAW or jpg) is used. Is it there some deeeeep meaning which I can’t see or it just a standard form not properly filled / cancelled ?
About my feeling on HDR I’m entusiatic and regularly check the new posted jobs.
I prefere the photos where HDR hepls to “simulate” the hudge exposure latitude ( or reading capability) of our EYES, rather than creating totally unrealistic images. I may be told to be conservative, but before I start experimenting in the direction that somebody else has decided ( which means within the limits of the HDR sw) I like the idea to use it as a tool to perform better in the temptative of recreating what our eyes can really see.
EBONY ( photo of the day on Sep 6th, 2011) is a good example: simple, sharp , perfectly defined and at the same time you know it is real, that somewhere you can meet that girl, that ebony skin !!.
Maybe in the future ………. I will also experiment, but do not know now in which direction!

Last time I checked, photography is an Art, not a science. The categorization of HDR and Pseudo is, in my view, a divisive and elitist attitude about art. This ridiculous ‘debate’ reminds me of the tired “Film vs Digital” divide/debate. Who cares? I know some awesome HDR shooters that use a single exposure and produce more appealing images than some shooters with in-camera bracketing.

If someone creates a great image, pleasing to my eyes, that’s all I care about. For those of you that think multi exposure HDR is, by default, better than single exposure, I respectfully suggest that you learn more about photography and post processing.