Anyone got an opinion on HDR

[welshcameraman]

Am I the only one that really hates HDR. It very rarely,if ever looks right and seems to be an easy way out for people who don't really know how to expose properly or know how to use filters.

Like lots of us, I also have a flickr account and just get really peeved with the amount of poor quality HDR that gets uploaded. It's a shame that unlike here, they haven't got any quality control.

Rant over, anybody else got anything to add?

Martin

[pressld2]

I agree that there's a lot of bad HDR around but I do think it can make very striking images when done well. My biggest problem with it is that I can't do it. I've tried several times and always ended up binning the results.

Dave P.

[Richard G.]

Filters are a pain in the a**e, always have been for me, problems with flare, vignetting etc. HDR has revolutionised the way I take landscapes.

Admittedly, some work and others don't and it can be a matter of taste; I like some of those other worldly shots. At the same time, you can't just chuck a bunch of pictures into Photomatix, leave the settings at default, hit the process button and expect a perfect image to come out the other end. Often there's tweaking required and further post processing outside of your chosen HDR tool.

The more I play with HDR though, the more I think the possibilities are almost infinite, but maybe that's just the artist in me; I'm much more tolerant of post processing and image manipulation than many people, in fact I positively encourage it!

[John_M]

I think it's pretty much the same as any sort of image processing. I know people who think it's a sin to use photoshop for anything. I think the problem is that with the widespread use of digital cameras and the wide availability of processing software, there are a lot of people who take what are, essentially, bad photographs who then attempt to tweak them to perfection.
There are also a few who seem to get a perfectly good photo and then photoshop it to death.
Then there are those who make the effort to capture a good image and then use software to polish it to near perfection.
HDR can make some stunning images, but it won't turn an indifferent photo into a good one; and yes, it can look very unnatural, but so can some images captured with filters.
Bottom line is, if you don't like HDR, then don't do it. Certainly on the few occasions when I've tried it, the results have been - being kind - less than impressive, but I suspect that's more down to my lack of skill than any inherent defect in the HDR process.

[The Woodman]

Hdr?

[The Woodman]

Don't panic - High Dynamic Range - for those like me who've never heard of it. Wiki is a great resource.

[Tringa]

I think that HDR is an excellent tool to overcome the limitation in dynamic range of a digital sensor, but like anything else it can be over done. I try to get a natural looking effect. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I don't. One thing I have found useful is to process the photos in the HDR software and then look at them again a few days later. Often I then realise I have over cooked them.

I'm a member of a photographic forum where there is always fairly heated debate when HDR is raised: a lot have total loathing for it. It is all down to personal preference and as has been said there are people who think that doing anything to a digital photo is not on.

But in the heyday of film processing, techniques were used after the photo had been taken enhance it and no one objected. I also recall when the first semi-automatic (aperture priority and shutter priority) 35mm SLRs appeared there was talk of whether this was acceptable as it took away the full creative control from the photographer, but I reckon many of us use the A or S setting on our digital camera nearly all the time now.

If you want to have a go at HDR try Photomatix. The free version does put a watermark on the photos, but it is is free for ever, so you do not have to decide in a limited period.

I liked it so much that I bought it - apart from the OS and games, it is the only piece of software I have ever paid for.


Dave

[John D]

Originally Posted by Tringa

I

But in the heyday of film processing, techniques were used after the photo had been taken enhance it and no one objected. I also recall when the first semi-automatic (aperture priority and shutter priority) 35mm SLRs appeared there was talk of whether this was acceptable as it took away the full creative control from the photographer, but I reckon many of us use the A or S setting on our digital camera nearly all the time now.

Dave

I agree Dave. I can't understand why so many are against the use of 'software'.
Pro Labs were carrying out similar enhancements years ago. The only difference is that with 'software' it can all be done at home via a computer.
I remember getting some photos processed around thirty years ago at a well known high street chemists and then getting a Pro Lab to process some prints from the negatives. The difference had to be seen to be believed. Nothing much has changed 'what happens in the darkroom can make all the difference'.
Name a professional photographer who doesn't use software! Bet no one can.

John D

[squishy]

I think that, done in moderation, it is just another tool available to photographers. But there is rather too much of it on the internet at the moment.

Some people seem to use it where it is not necessary, just to make a photo 'stand out', but it often looks overdone and horrible.


I've seen photographs where people manually blend exposures themselves, just to get detail into highlight areas that would otherwise be blown out.


I've had a go at it myself a couple of times too:


In that shot, without blending photos, either the sky would be completely blown, or there would be no detail on the rocks at all.

[pressld2]

I've tried that a few times, too, Adam. Sometimes I've taken a range of exposures and had a go at HDRing them but then used them just to blend exposures using layers. I have always preferred the blended shots to the HDR but, just like James, I'm sure it's my lack of skill with the HDR software that is to blame.

Another thing I have done a few times now is selective processing of raw files. This shot of Crockford Bridge has had negative exposure compensation applied to the sky and positive compensation applied to the grass and trees. All done in Lightroom and exactly what I would have done via dodging and burning when printing from a negative in the darkroom.



Dave P.