Anyone got an opinion on HDR

[momji1971]

Martin you old timer!

Think the problem is the over use. Think people get a new toy and have to use it no matter what instead of a little goes a long way.

Personally, I agree with Martin, I hate the over processed look in nature shots. Images end up looking like a Digital painting rather than a photograph.

BUT, I do use HDR software within my post but as low percentage luminosity masks helping to bring detail out.

Think a lot of influence in our younger generation comes from the fashion side of processing. Google 'Dave Hill', amazing images but maybe not suited to nature photography.

After working with photoshop since ps1, don't think I could be without it!

regards.
Stu.

[welshcameraman]

Mmmm!!! Stu, you're right I am an old timer :-)

My point is, HDR very rarely looks right, even when done by experts. Time after time I see rubbish efforts that look like a cross between a bad photo and a bad cartoon. The so called photographer takes half a dozen exposures (The camera even does the over-expose a bit, under-expose a bit, bits for you) and goes home to the computer. EASY!!!

I am of the opinion that the histogram is there to help with exposure, and with the aid of a filter or two we can get shots that are so much more satisfying...and pleasing to the eye.

And were pro labs really doing a similar thing years ago? I can't remember sending out ten slides to the lab and asking mr Kodak if he could send me back something decent. Or am I being pedantic?

Martin

[John_M]

Originally Posted by welshcameraman

Mmmm!!! Stu, you're right I am an old timer :-)

My point is, HDR very rarely looks right, even when done by experts. Time after time I see rubbish efforts that look like a cross between a bad photo and a bad cartoon. The so called photographer takes half a dozen exposures (The camera even does the over-expose a bit, under-expose a bit, bits for you) and goes home to the computer. EASY!!!

I am of the opinion that the histogram is there to help with exposure, and with the aid of a filter or two we can get shots that are so much more satisfying...and pleasing to the eye.

And were pro labs really doing a similar thing years ago? I can't remember sending out ten slides to the lab and asking mr Kodak if he could send me back something decent. Or am I being pedantic?

Martin

I was in my secondary school photography club in the early seventies, and we were shown all sorts of tricks to get better images from photos; I'm confident that the pros were up to the same (and better) tricks. There used to be quite a few books on the processing side of things, although I suppose they're all out of print now. Even the choice of film could be construed as a form of image manipulation.
I don't really see any difference between using filters and using software; doing either poorly gives poor results, done properly they give good results, but they're both manipulating the image.

[momji1971]

Only joking Martin, you only look 21 !

Think it's one of those things where you have a personal 'line' that you just don't cross. Where you believe true photography stops and make believe begins.

Everyone has a different opinion. I belong to a bird photograpghy forum where it was discussed that shooting a bird in flight using a high MP camera with a shorter focal length and then cropping in tightly took some of the skill away from long lens shooters who get the same image but in camera.

(its a lot harder following a bird tight through a 500mm than it is through a 300mm where the bird is small and then cropping later)

They argue it gives a false perspective of what a beginner would hope to achieve, a lie in a sense!

Think this is a similar thing. Does any of what I've said make sense?

regards.
Stu.

[Badllarma]

HDR or HDRI High Dynamic Range Imagery (everyone seems to miss the "I" out these days)

Was originally a tool to capture the full range of lighting on a film set via a fisheye lens or reflective globe in order to allow CGI (Computer Generated Imagery/VFX Visual Effect) to be blended in to the live action plates.

There is software that basically unwraps the images leaving a representation of the lighting within the scene this is then imported into 3D animation and modelling software where the image creates lights within the 3D scene to light the CG elements correctly. The stuff I used to use was experimental and a complete pain in the a**$ to get looking correct BTW

Anyway that where it all started why the hell anyone uses it in day to day photography especially landscapes is beyond me it looks fake and false and I always though the whole idea of landscape photography is to capture the natural scene and it NATURAL lighting but there you go......

It's over used looks bloody awful and has no real use in landscape photography in it's traditional form.

just IMO

[The_Moaner]

I use "Dynamic-HDR" with one Tiff image only. I use it just to enhance certain images and always try not to do too much to an image.

When I don't use that, I use "Nik Software- Color Effex Pro 3.0 and chose the "Tonal Contrast". Used in Photoshop CS4.

I do NOT use on any of my Wildlife images as that is NOT allowed for Wildlife/Nature comps. But there again, most of my Wildlife shots is Rubbish anyway.

[Stevio125]

I think I might start a new trend for MDR (middleish Dynamic Range),
I've never been managed a decent HDR but maybe thats because I'm not that keen on them?!
I have however tweeked the sky, mid and foregrounds seperatly in a shot so really whats the difference?
At the end of the day their are many occasions where the camera cannot capture exacly what I want it to in a single shot either due to focusing or dynamic range so why not use the software to get what is intended, as long as you know what your doing whilst taking the pic thats fine, there are a lot though that like black and white are done to try and make an average image any better.

[jaybie]

I think there is place for HDR where the DR of the scene is too great for the camera to capture in a single image. To me HDR is the blending of a series of images so that the DR can can be achieved. Dave (pressld2) I think that what you describe as blending in layers is really closer to what I would consider HDR processing.

I personally dislike the majority of the tone mapped images that you often see labelled as HDR many of them produced from a single image using software such as Dynamic HDR or Photomatix.

Don't really want to get into semantics here though

JohnB

[The_Moaner]

What puts some photographers off of HDR is when it is seen "overdone". Looking very unrealistic. When it is done in the correct manner it can look very good.
I guess we are all different in what we see, so some do a little less and some a bit more in doing their hdr. Some do it excellently which makes me feel inferior sometimes.
Long Live Photography.