The total dislike of HDR

How come no matter where i post on other forums, there is this hatred of HDR, like it should never be done in the style we all here are acustom to.
There are always negative replies, oh its been over processed!, to much color!.
Yet my rating from the other members on this forum is always very high, and nothing but positive comments from here.
Is it just our love of HDR is causing us to wear blinkers, not seeing the full picture.
Why so much resentment to a style that will always be a part of photography!
The interest in HDR is growing at a fast rate, and in my honest opinion is here to stay.

Please give your thoughts on this subject.

Paul

Take a close look at many of the HDR photos on this site and on other sites. In my opinion, many folks do not yet know how to successfully and/or optimally use the HDR software. As a result, many of the HDR photos just don’t look right, and in fact, are severely over-processed and are too surreal. Rather than make negative review comments, I just comment on the photos that I like. Everyone has their own opinion as to what they like or don’t like.

Thanks ilh2009 for you reply to the question.
I understand that some members do tend to go overboard with processing, i was one of them at one time but learned very quickly that it was not the way to go.
But no matter what, on one certain forum there are always negative replies, irespective of how good you image is.
It seems that one passes a comment about the image, and they may have a valid point, but everyone else follows like lost lambs to the slaughter, it like they do not have a mind of their own.
But what gets me more than anything else, is the fact that criticism is handed out, but no suggestions as how to resolve the problem.

Best regards Paul

Thanks, Paul. I know what you mean. I’ve been trying to get several of my friends into HDR but no luck as of yet. So, I’m just continuing to explore it more and more by myself. My first introduction to HDR was at a seminar I attended in Florida by Lewis Kemper (one of Canon’s Explorers of Light). I was so impressed by the results from HDR processing for high contrast images that I looked into it further and purchased two different HDR software (Photomatix and Essential HDR) packages. I like both of these packages and use them extensively. I’ve even thought about exploring other HDR software packages. Sometimes, if a scene is low or medium contrast or if a scene has motion in it, I just shoot a single image and then incorporate a tone mapping step into my workflow. I’ve also noticed that Rick Sammon (another Canon Explorer of Light) includes HDR in his training workshops. When two outstanding photogrtaphers like these embrace HDR, I know that it is here to stay.

One other thing to take a look at is blending an HDR processed image with a non-HDR processed image and then use layers and masks to optimize the final image. I usually do this with TIFF files. This technique works particularly well when you want to photograph a person or a model. Sometimes HDR doesn’t do such a good job with people. By combining the two images, you can get the best of both—a great person image with a real nice HDR background. This really works well with clouds.

Now i noticed that HDR does not work well with images of people, so i would rather keep it for buildings, cars, motorcycles etc, it seems to ork well with them if you go easy with the processing.
I have calmed downquite a bit on that side, in the beginning everything was to the max, but the more i gain experience, the more refined the images become.
I am still a learner when it comes to software like, Elements 7, Neat image which i have just got, and i am unabke at the moment to pass advice to anyone, but will be able to one day.
The more i see HDR, the more i m fascinated by what can be achieved with the processing, but of course you have to hve a good image n the first place.
I do think eventuly HDR will take off in a big way as it does what no digital camera can do, that is to show detail in both shaded areas, and bright areas.
So we all must keep beliving in our art form dispite what others say!.

Best regards Paul

By the way, this bloody keyboard is sticking, hence the mistakes.

Thats my excuse and i am sticking to it.

Paul

If you’d like an insight to future HDR developments, checkout Brightside Technology. This company, which has been purchased by Dolby Laboratories, is developing a high dynamic range monitor with the ability to show a range of 200,000 to 1 (versus the current 500 to 1 range for an existing LCD monitor). Also, I’ve heard that several camera manufacturers are considering adding additional range to the AEB (auto-exposure bracketingt) function on some of their future D-SLR models. Both of these efforts will go a long way towards expanding HDR.

Thats very interesting, but what i ask myself is, how much are these cameras going to cost when they are initialy launched.
I bet it would be worth while waiting until the prices fall, they do after a while as newer models are also launched.

I will take a look at Brightside technology, it will make for some interesting reading on the subject of HDR.

Out and about tomorrow, and i am taking my camera with me, there are sevral buildings in our town i want to capture and process.
A few churches, one dating back to the thirtenth century, around 1226 AD, and its smack bang in the town center, near the castle, which i will also be taking shots of.

Catch you again soon——- Paul

As you will have seen from some of my comments elsewhere, possibly, I am concerned at the number of contributors who seem to think that manuipulating a single image is HDRI. It is not: it is a pseudo-HDR process, and when accompanied by extreme settings on the sliders, produces gaudy, overmanipulated results whch may be art in the eyes of some, but they are not HDR Images in the original sense and purpose of HDRI.

I suspect very many new users of the software simply can’t resist the temptation to churn out the sort of wildly coloured images HDRCreme seems to attract. Don’t let’s kid ourselves that these are the “Creme of HDR” images, even if their producers had fun in the process.
Maybe we need to change the name of this site to “Pseudo-HDRCreme”.

Naturalistic HDR Photography over on Flickr was set up for more serious proponents of HDR imaging, and its Group Administrator put the whole scenario in words which I cannot better:

""In image processing, computer graphics, and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range of exposures (the range of values between light and dark areas) than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range…)

As this pertains to digital photography, one of the limitations of digital is it’s inability to represent a broad dynamic range from the darkest shadows to the brightest highlights. Indeed this is one of the reasons that some landscape photographers still use large format film in the tradition of Ansel Adams. Film has a much, much broader dynamic range. Our eyes have an even broader dynamic range, which is also a reason why what we capture never truly looks like what we perceived.

HDR software like Photomatix was created to overcome the limitations of digital sensors and allow digital photographers to capture a dynamic range closer to film and even closer to what our eyes see, albeit with extraneous preparation, precision, production, and post-processing from the photographer.

Preparation means you survey the scenery for a shot that would lend itself to an HDR photo and carefully set up your shot employing the use of a stabilizer such as a tripod.

Precision means metering the shadows and highlights of the scene and setting up a bracketed exposure that would best capture the entire range

Production simply means creating the actual images (a minimum of 3 images are required for an HDR image)

Post-processing means merging the bracketed shots together, tone-mapping the results and making final enhancements.

What is naturalistic HDR photography?

It is photography that stays true to what your eye perceived in a scene, assuming you’re not color blind or high on drugs at the time of capture.

This does not mean artistic license may not be had to beautify an image. The idea is that the image is intrinsically natural in color and contrast and that those features are respected.

What is not naturalistic HDR?

Firstly, a digital HDR photo for all intents and purposes can not be achieved with a single RAW image.

Single RAW images processed in HDR software results in something called ‘pseudo-HDR’. Meaning, the software bypasses the merging process and takes the image straight into tonemapping. The dynamic range of a RAW image is exploited in order to mimic real HDR. However, a single RAW does have its limitations. It’s limited by how well balanced of an exposure you captured. The highlight detail and details in shadows cannot be recovered if the information was not recorded in the first place. Much of this detail will fall beyond the 2-stop limitation of RAW.

Secondly, it is the use of HDR software to go beyond what is an accurate or natural representation of something.

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."

I for one started by overdoing the processing side of HDR, and i just practiced on single images to get the hang of using Photomatix.
Now i have started to use bracketed images, three in total set at -1, 0, +1, and the quality of the combined exposures are by far better than a single image converted to mimic HDR.
Now the further i go into the processing side of the style, the more true to life i like to have my images.
So we all learn from experience what Hdr should look like, but on the other hand it should always be left open for interpritation.

Best regards Paul

Paul

I think we have almost all started our experiences with HDR software, by pushing the sliders to the crazier end because the results do look so different/attractive/colourful, or whatever. As you have found, there is far greater challenge in using multiple exposure and achieving a result which does not look at first glance as if it IS an HDR image. It is only the experienced eye that notes that detail in the shadow is clearly visible, yet the sky is not far too light, and knows they are looking at a well-toned genuine HDR image…given that challenge, I don’t understand why anyone with a camera capable of taking multiple exposures would want to play around with pseudo-HDR on a single image.
CWJ

Yes now i totaly agree with you, at the time i started i had not taken any multi exposure images and i had to practice on something, so a single exposure was better than nothing.
Now its a different story, i take three images set at, -1, 0, +1, no more no less, and the quality of the images is a lot better than a single image in Pseudo HDR.
But on the other hand, if people are involved it is almost imposible to get a multiexposure because of movement, and even though my Olympus takes 3.5 IPS its still not fast enough.
So what other alternative do you have there, none i think so you are left with one option, and thats to use a RAW file to try and get the best out of the situation.

Best regards Paul

Paul, I guess HDR is not a solution to every aspect of photography, is the best answer I can give you.
I would ask myself instead if it is an appropriate software tool to be using when photographing people.
Is it not the nuances of shade which adds depth and character to a portrait, for instance, and does HDR not emasculate these features?
It was never designed to cope with moving objects. Initially it was developed for use in architectural, undustrial and interior photography, and other high contrast situations involving stationary objects.
The limitations you place on yourself by using a single RAW image, is that whilst it provides you with “freezing” your moving object, there is only so much dynamic range which a single digital image can capture physically, so the result inevitably is not going to provide as extensive a dynamic range as a series of different exposures will capture.
If you haven’t already tried it, have a look at HDR PhotoStudio. It provides a great deal more for detailed image adjustment than Photomatix Pro, but I recommend you watch the video tutorials before trying it out, to get the most out of it. It also tackles single images.
I suspect within just a few more years, there will be cameras developed within affordable price ranges which will be able to expand their dynamic range within one exposure, if we have the patience to wait!

On a different section on this forum, ilh2009 told me that there is already a camera in development that has a greater range especialy for HDR, but until then i will be taking either my 3 bracketed shots, or use the shutter speed to capture five.
I generaly just use HDR for stationary subjects, buildings, cars, etc, unless the subject is posing for you, then several shots can be used, but i think you have to be very, very, subtle with the saturation so as not to spoil the overaul image.

Best regards Paul

I’ve also experienced the negative interest in HDR at other galleries. No doubt a point of perspective or how one chooses to define a photograph. I think many after seeing over processed HDR lump it into the manipulation category. I still know a few photographers who cringe at the idea of putting their film cameras down in exchange for the inferior DSLR. My first experiments with HDR was with sunsets and the fact that I could eliminate the need for multiple flash units to light the foreground. Though I’m talking about two different animals here it was these experiments that sparked my interest with the dynamic range. I enjoy it and write off the negative attitudes and comments towards it as hot air.
By the way, if you haven’t already come across the Trey Ratcliff tutorial on HDR post processing on site it’s very worth while.

Dean

Thank you dean for your reply.
I think there will always be photographers who shun the idea of HDR, and the artistic licence it allows its followers to use, but then why be in the majority who copy other photographers work parrot fashion, instead i want to be be a leader in a fairly new art form, and place my stamp on its progress.
I am sure there are members of the public that would willingly buy these images as works of art.

Best regards Paul

There are a couple of instances where single image HDR (or tone mapping) is appropriate: first, when the scene is low dynamic range (usually when the sun is behind you) and second, when there is action and/or movement. In this latter case, it would be impossible to do a three image HDR because of the movement and ghosting.

One other item: you can have some real fun doing HDR (either single image or multiple images) of people. Yes, I know that people usually don’t look good in HDR. But, this is where the fun comes in. Once you have the HDR image with people, merge it with the original non-HDR image and use layers/masks to get the original photo of the person(s) with the surrounding background in HDR. This works particularly well when doing cityscapes.

I love reading all your thoughts.If its not fun I aint doing it. Hdr is a load of fun . A art form thats not going away

I believe that we create our own reputations with the final image. There seems to be those who practice the HDR process who have yet to develop a sense of good composition. They tend to think that the HDR effect will make a bad photograph a great one.

Those photographers who have learned composition and demonstrate style prior to the HDR experience tend to display the best work!

In that regard, we should be more critical when viewing and rating images and be truthful overall. We tend to ignore and not comment or rate the photos that are obviously lacking. I am also guilty of this. Without this sense of judgement, there is no improvement!

I really agree with you .. specially with the last part…

Hm, I went through your comments lads and I fully agree. I actually wanted to open a new topic here. Well, I had a couple of questions/queries on some of my older HDR photos as they don’t really look like HDR??? I can honestly say every single image in my gallery IS a HDR, but on the other hand I have to say it depends on the camera, software you use and of course the photographer. My old camera had exposure compensation +2 0 -2 and also I have used PTGui (Linux) in the past to generate the HDR. I can confirm you will get a different picture if you change any of the aspects I mentioned before.

Other thing I wanted to say is, I am starting to question: How the hell should the HDR actually look like??? :)
If we go into detail, we know that it should be about dynamic range. That does not necessarily means that the image should be way overprocessed with some weird effects. I don’t know, what do you guys think? I received comments that some of my photos do not even look like a HDR… I think HDR should be a great looking photograph with a different (improved) display of highlights and shadows and cooked just right, no? :)

Any feedback appreciated!

Thanks for sharing interesting things with all of us. I like way of your thought process.
Colon Cleanse
Payday Loans
Reverse Phone Lookup

Honestly, I think that HDR is what you make of it. For me it gives me the option to get the eye popping photos that i really want. For others it might be different. But I feel its more of a tool with a wide range of possibilities that everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion on. So regardless if you’re using the technique to create a more surreal feeling photo or just trying to expand the dynamic range or your photos just a bit, its the tool that we all use to reach our own person goals and visions for our photos. Its art, There really isnt a right or wrong, Thats what makes it fun.These of course are my own opinions. Thank you all for listening!

Josh

I totally agree with Bob1140 and I quote " Those photographers who have learned composition and demonstrate style prior to the HDR experience tend to display the best work! " The longer you have been taking photographs and your knowledge of composition, light and juxtaposition then the better your image will be, Just like in the old days in the Black & White darkroom..It didn’t matter how much burning edges and dogging you did to an image , if t wasn’t well composed it didn’t work…My thoughts…Razfoto

I agree with Josh, it isn’t so much the technique that is used but the result. As Bob1140 said too. At the end of the day, does the photo create an emotional impact or not. Most great photographers didn’t become great because they could use a great technique but because they would find a new point of view, a new way of compositing a shot that made it unique and great. If we later discover they used a polaroid or some other technique was secondary.

I believe the same is true for HDR.