HDR done well

[hepcat]

I'm not usually a fan of HDR. It's usually over-the-top and bizarre looking to me.

This guy's work, though, is fascinating and well worth a look.

http://500px.com/GostRidr

He was mentioned in this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/pilot-showcases-stunning-photos-taken-inside-plane-cockpit-231503317.html

 

[Sparrow]

.... you are joking here, aren't you? ... they look like one of those cheap 1980's si-fi book covers

 

[FrankS]

Computer photo illustration.

 

[srtiwari]

.... you are joking here, aren't you? ... they look like one of those cheap 1980's si-fi book covers

Its a form of artistic expression, not necessarily intended to be 'realistic'.

 

[Sparrow]

Its a form of artistic expression, not necessarily intended to be 'realistic'.

Yes, yes ... I think I grasped that concept with Peter Jones work

 

[finguanzo]

Nooooo, that's not over the top. 🙄

 

[daveleo]

Everyone will decide for themselves if these are "HDR done well" or if indeed HDR can (?) be done well.

I personally think the final images here are wicked nice, whatever process created them. I'm not just being "politically correct", I really mean that I like these pictures and don't care a bit that a computer manipulated what was originally a photograph.

 

[Aristophanes]

It's just an aesthetic, one of multitudes in the broad realm of photography.

The Urban Maze photo is exceptional and the whole motif of urban surrealism reflects the technique well.

I find the airline flight deck shots a very good application of HDR, too.

 

[jsrockit]

Every photo is manipulated to some extent... whether by humans and/or machine.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I didn't like them They look 'over processed to me. That's not to say they're not well done, or follow the artist's intent—just not my cup of tea...

 

[Keith]

I've nothing against his approach but they are definitely not to my taste. Every artist has the right to express themselves how they see fit though.

 

[VinceC]

As someone steeped in the technical side of photography, I've grown used to the incredible artificial compression of dynamic range inherent in both film and, much moreso, in digital. HDR tries to recapture the full spectrum discernable by the human eye. It looks artificial to me and to those well versed in the tonal language of photography, but I'm not sure the tonal range looks nearly as artificial when shown alongside oil paintings from before the invention of photography, when the tonal language had not yet been stifled.
Just my thoughts. ...

 

[Sunti]

Looks like all other HDR to me.

 

[OurManInTangier]

What's going on here?! A thread about HDR, one of photography's most contentious issues over the last few years and yet everyone seems to be playing nicely - most bizarre.

I find the latitude of digital hugely beneficial both for work when I might really need it or in my personal snaps when its another useful tool. Those shots within the aircraft cabin would have benefited from some extra latitude between the values inside and those outside, its just a question of how far you push it. I don't mind some use of HDR as a creative tool but I'm afraid I find the majority of these just dreadful, like an absurd cartoon.

Each to their own though.

 

[daveleo]

. . . . but I'm afraid I find the majority of these just dreadful, like an absurd cartoon.

Each to their own though.

This is true (at least, I agree with it 😉 ) but a lot of people (like me) enjoy "comic art".
I actually had some of my comics hardbound into books !

I don't want to defend HDR (or any other technique), but my view is that HDR images
(99% of them) are not photographs anymore. They don't look
realistic, their treatment of light is always un-natural to me.

I think that some people expect the only value of HDR to be the extension of dynamic
range to a photograph, but I think most people who make HDR pictures (I don't by
the way) are using it not just to make extended range photographs,
but to take the image to another level (a higher or lower level is for the viewer to decide !)

Certainly not everyone's favorite cup of tea, but as you said "Each to their own . . . "

 

[Kenj8246]

... and yet everyone seems to be playing nicely - most bizarre.

No kidding. So far, at least. 🙂

 

[BLKRCAT]

Overdone, one of my friends was doing tonemapping which I guess isnt HDR. he was getting some decent results. like this.

 

[den_sh]

IMO, the only form of "HDR done well" is when you can't tell that the shot is done through HDR tools. The whole point of HDR is to increase dynamic range of the shot (decrease white clipping and decrease signal noise in the shadows) but NOT to introduce a funky graphic effects (tonemapping).

 

[willie_901]

Highly tone-mapped images are popular. This not surprising. Thomas Kinkade's art sold at levels high enough to support about a hundreds of Kinkade Galleries in the US, Canada and elsewhere.

For me the best HDR are made by averaging exposures such that the viewer isn't aware the image came from multiple exposures. Right now this is easier than ever before for outoors subjects using Efex HDR 2.

 

[porktaco]

ech. do not like.