venchka
Veteran
Like all software for photos: If you can see the effects you went too far.
What do you think about HDR images?
- Thread starter Tuolumne
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 50
- Views 6K
mikemyers
Established
Reading the above, I think of spices. Some people prefer food without, and others prefer it so spicy that most Westerners couldn't eat it. Both ways are good; it depends on what you like.
I got into HDR about a year ago. It turns out that my Nikon DSLRs make it so easy - just turn on bracketing for perhaps 7 shots, put the camera on high-speed burst mode, and I can usually get decent results hand holding the camera.
I took some photos this way for a hotel - now it's the only kind of photo they want. They love the effect.
When I got my M8.2 I was glad to be able to shoot infrared again, but it's nowheres near as convenient for shooting HDR as my Nikon. The M9 is better, but still not what I want. If I give up on hand holding the camera, and use a tripod, and avoid anything that moves in the photo, maybe I can do this with my M8, but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
At any rate, never mind all the nonsense about what is "good" or "bad". Some people actually WANT the kinds of photos most people who "know more" would greatly dislike. To me, that's no big deal. It's just different likes/dislikes (just like with spices....).
I got into HDR about a year ago. It turns out that my Nikon DSLRs make it so easy - just turn on bracketing for perhaps 7 shots, put the camera on high-speed burst mode, and I can usually get decent results hand holding the camera.
I took some photos this way for a hotel - now it's the only kind of photo they want. They love the effect.
When I got my M8.2 I was glad to be able to shoot infrared again, but it's nowheres near as convenient for shooting HDR as my Nikon. The M9 is better, but still not what I want. If I give up on hand holding the camera, and use a tripod, and avoid anything that moves in the photo, maybe I can do this with my M8, but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
At any rate, never mind all the nonsense about what is "good" or "bad". Some people actually WANT the kinds of photos most people who "know more" would greatly dislike. To me, that's no big deal. It's just different likes/dislikes (just like with spices....).
NathanJD
Well-known
HDR was my last digital 'fad' before i found my love for range finders and film. i was never very impressed by the gordy over baked examples that perpetuate flickr but instead i liked to use it during dramatic weather to see the definition in the clouds.
Ronald M
Veteran
I think they are great IF the photog does not try to lift all the shadows so far it looks like a cartoon. I try to make it look like a normal photo but without blown highlights and too deep shadows. 90% of them I see are junk.
Most of the time I just make two exposures and stack the dark one on top, make a luminosity mask, blur it 2 pixels, to show the brighter shadow details on layer below.
Another way is make the same stack, mask the top one, then brush away the parts of the mask by hand to let the bottom layer show. Use different opacity brushes.
Most of the time I just make two exposures and stack the dark one on top, make a luminosity mask, blur it 2 pixels, to show the brighter shadow details on layer below.
Another way is make the same stack, mask the top one, then brush away the parts of the mask by hand to let the bottom layer show. Use different opacity brushes.
antiquark
Derek Ross
HDR is only good if it's not possible to tell that it's HDR. (As others have already mentioned.)
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
If you can't tell it's HDR then what's the point? So far the images shown aren't impressing me on an HDR "technical level" (I'm not discussing exposure, film, composition etc) There's something immediately identifiable to me in these examples, like cross processed film, there's a signature.
I figure if you're going to HDR something, just do it. Then it's a matter of personal taste and degree. Like bokeh, high key, underexposure or any other tool what's the point if it's the same as a "normal exposure". There is none that I can see. Frankly if you want to HDR something just do it, don't ask. You're driving the car not that guy in the seat behind you.
My two cents.
I figure if you're going to HDR something, just do it. Then it's a matter of personal taste and degree. Like bokeh, high key, underexposure or any other tool what's the point if it's the same as a "normal exposure". There is none that I can see. Frankly if you want to HDR something just do it, don't ask. You're driving the car not that guy in the seat behind you.
My two cents.
Turtle
Veteran
Truth is stranger than fiction. HDR images often miss the mark for me at the most fundamental level. Some can look 'amazing' but unsettling in a way that is not good. Some are very well done but on the whole it holds no interest for me.
teo
Well-known
Simple. Since my work is photoshop and stuff, I hate seeing photoshopped images outside my work hours.
Lilserenity
Well-known
By and large I can't stand it.
But it's not because of what it is, it is as others have said how it is applied.
I see a lot, and I mean more than the good examples (of which I think there are very few) to 'save' an image that in terms of composition is a bad image regardless. And so HDR is used to lift it up to make up for the fact it's a poor photo. And because it's complete overcooked; it gets a lot of attention.
That said a couple of black and white prints I gave to someone before Christmas was returned with a chat with their son asking whether I used HDR (I guess the range of tones exceeded what he was used to.)
The problem I have with it is that HDR is an attempt to capture the colour range that the human eye can see, or at very least emulate some of the range you would get in a good print from a negative. But; for some reason it always comes out looking completely unnatural to me. And that's where my concern comes in about it strongest: in photographic taste and subject I'm enthused by the often overlooked, the boring facets of reality and everyday; so anything that appears removed from this reality in terms of processing I struggle with. It's a limitation in me I think -- but that's a whole 'nother topic!
If I am to be even handed, HDR looks unreal to my eyes, but then I do question how is that any different to me taking pictures of say, a deprived or struggling neighbourhood in good light and composing it in the most sympathetic manner I can? Is that not in itself manipulating the 'truth' too?
And I guess it is! But it suits my perception of the truth. Anyway, I'm beginning to think philosophically but this is not the time or place.
A good example of this is when I exhibited some photos of a struggling neighbourhood for my Impression Milton Keynes project. (The people there are -- those I have met -- lovely people though; and this is on the street, not in some convivial community hall get together thing creating some constructed reality...there I go again...)
Coffee Hall, MK, England (by me, Kodak Ektar and a chance evening of extraordinary light)
And here's another of Coffee Hall not by me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30890318@N06/3717106350/
So which is the truth?
How are any of these any more real? How can I claim a 'somehow' moral high ground because I've not used HDR? Is there some kind of moral complex in the use of HDR? Why is my picture more real than say a HDR image? Or maybe it's not.
Of course there is artistic vision too.
Anyway....
I could go on, maybe I will on my blog at some point!
Vicky
But it's not because of what it is, it is as others have said how it is applied.
I see a lot, and I mean more than the good examples (of which I think there are very few) to 'save' an image that in terms of composition is a bad image regardless. And so HDR is used to lift it up to make up for the fact it's a poor photo. And because it's complete overcooked; it gets a lot of attention.
That said a couple of black and white prints I gave to someone before Christmas was returned with a chat with their son asking whether I used HDR (I guess the range of tones exceeded what he was used to.)
The problem I have with it is that HDR is an attempt to capture the colour range that the human eye can see, or at very least emulate some of the range you would get in a good print from a negative. But; for some reason it always comes out looking completely unnatural to me. And that's where my concern comes in about it strongest: in photographic taste and subject I'm enthused by the often overlooked, the boring facets of reality and everyday; so anything that appears removed from this reality in terms of processing I struggle with. It's a limitation in me I think -- but that's a whole 'nother topic!
If I am to be even handed, HDR looks unreal to my eyes, but then I do question how is that any different to me taking pictures of say, a deprived or struggling neighbourhood in good light and composing it in the most sympathetic manner I can? Is that not in itself manipulating the 'truth' too?
And I guess it is! But it suits my perception of the truth. Anyway, I'm beginning to think philosophically but this is not the time or place.
A good example of this is when I exhibited some photos of a struggling neighbourhood for my Impression Milton Keynes project. (The people there are -- those I have met -- lovely people though; and this is on the street, not in some convivial community hall get together thing creating some constructed reality...there I go again...)
Coffee Hall, MK, England (by me, Kodak Ektar and a chance evening of extraordinary light)
And here's another of Coffee Hall not by me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30890318@N06/3717106350/
So which is the truth?
How are any of these any more real? How can I claim a 'somehow' moral high ground because I've not used HDR? Is there some kind of moral complex in the use of HDR? Why is my picture more real than say a HDR image? Or maybe it's not.
Of course there is artistic vision too.
Anyway....
I could go on, maybe I will on my blog at some point!
Vicky
VinceC
Veteran
It does seem that this process often is over-used to make up for poor latitude, incorrect exposure, or simply the lack of patience and planning to find those moments of perfect "sweet light" that used to have serious photographers rising at long before dawn or sitting poised shortly after sunset.
On the other hand, it seems to be a way to capture the color equivalent of a black-and-white negative shot with yellow-filter and carefully printed to preserve the full tonal range, in which you prevent any of the scene from washing out, and being selective and frugal toward anything that might fall into deep shadows. You can do this kind of printing off color film, especiallly with a polarizing filter.
On the other hand, it seems to be a way to capture the color equivalent of a black-and-white negative shot with yellow-filter and carefully printed to preserve the full tonal range, in which you prevent any of the scene from washing out, and being selective and frugal toward anything that might fall into deep shadows. You can do this kind of printing off color film, especiallly with a polarizing filter.
potratz
Newbie
Photography can be an art and if one desires to do HDR than they should. To each their own and personally I have seen many HDR images I thought were fantastic. If we were all the same that would be boring!
Shoot Away!
Shoot Away!
Similar threads
