What do you think about HDR images?

I have to agree with most comments her in that a lot of examples that I have seen are over cooked. When HDR is done well, that is it not readily apparent, it adds to the photo.

Bob
 
Agreed on all accounts. I haven't seen many that I find realistic let alone attractive. The one Curt posted is the best I've seen yet! Bravo!
 
Nikon Bob said:
I have to agree with most comments her in that a lot of examples that I have seen are over cooked. When HDR is done well, that is it not readily apparent, it adds to the photo.

Bob
Click to expand...


Speaking of overcooked, some friends of mine own a beautiful timber home that they built themselves in the mountains nearby that has so much wonderful light and dark character it hurts the eyes! :p

Some photographer friend of theirs with a Canikon DSLR did an HDR wide angle image for them of the interior of the main living room ... printed and framed it and gave it to them for Xmas. It's horribly overdone and I have to say I really had to bite my tongue when they proudly showed it to me! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I've seen some HDR pictures that were subtle enough that they didn't scream "HDR!!" in your face. However, most HDR pictures I've seen have all the sliders turned up to eleven and are so completely over the top they make your eyes vomit.

It's a bit reminiscent of when home computers got cheap DTP software and multiple fonts, when people would get a thousand different fonts and use them all in the one document.

It's all about being tasteful, I guess.
 
f16sunshine said:
Is this at the old fort near the Keystone ferry dock?
attachment.php
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's at the fort. A fun place to shoot.
 
Brad Maestas said:
Agreed on all accounts. I haven't seen many that I find realistic let alone attractive. The one Curt posted is the best I've seen yet! Bravo!
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm still just trying to figure it out myself. I don't do it much, but I also hate the overcooked look of a lot of HDR. I just wanted to see if it could be done and still look natural. I'm not sure how much I'll use it, but I think it can be done well.
Curt
 
Just have a look through Flickr, HDR is 99% garbage. As several other posters have mentioned, the only time it looks good is when you can't tell it's HDR to begin with.
 
ethics_gradient said:
Just have a look through Flickr, HDR is 99% garbage. As several other posters have mentioned, the only time it looks good is when you can't tell it's HDR to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're not familiar with photography or not thinking about it, you may not be able to tell it's HDR. But you'll at least notice... "hm. This looks more like what I really see than most photographs do..."

HDR is no different than adjusting white balance. You can use it for garish ends, or you can use it to make the output of an electromechanical imaging chain look more like what our eyes provide to our brain naturally. The fact of the matter is that even good chromes show much less dynamic range than the human eye sees in a scene, and this is even more true for negative films and digital. Someone upthread pointed out that we've been trained to think photographs should be flatter than real life... personally, I'm intrigued by people's efforts to get the two closer.

(Even as I keep shooting with my FED-2 and now start developing--and printing on a homemade enlarger....)
 
HDR - I use Photomatix.
I no longer have Photoshop or else I'd probably try theirs.
To get a real HDR Image you should take multiple photos - same aperture - different shutter speed to get the over and under exposure. It is possible to HDR one image but the results are not much different than using the Highlight - Shadow recovery options in you normal Photo Process.

It is possible to HDR Raw or JPEG files.
The software usually has some alignment function - but for the best result you need a tripod - unless there is enough light to hand hold with no motion blur ...

If your Photoshop skills are sharp you can also manually layer the images in Photoshop (or Gimp) masking the different exposures to allow the appropriate layer to represent the high or lowlights.

The problems come from:
Added noise - it seems to show up in the shadows even with the exposure.
Movement in the subject - like leaves on trees - people walking - water - boats ....
And as everyone has said - over doing it.

Most of the software can be downloaded and tried for a free period have a go, you will either be happy or hate it.

I have used it several times for - peak sunshine midday shadows - but usually find that there is some distracting movement or change that creates a ghosting halo.

good luck.
 
If it's done in a manner that does not make the photo look like a cartoon, I'm personally okay with it.
 
ethics_gradient said:
Just have a look through Flickr, HDR is 99% garbage. As several other posters have mentioned, the only time it looks good is when you can't tell it's HDR to begin with.
Click to expand...

99 % of the picstures on Flickr (or just about any other free public upload site) are garbage - no matter HDR or not. I like HDR - yes some are overdone, but its just like anything else, really. Just another option. More we have the better.
 
grapes.jpg

I use Photomatix to get thing more natural, something that otherwise requires a lot of mid-tone tweaking in Photoshop. I also contact print and my darkroom procedure have to jump through hoops to build up mid-tones on sheet-fim. HDR seems to make life a lot more simple for natural images. This is an M8.2 3-shot.
 
Last edited:
HDR is better than real life. Which sounds nice, but its still fake. And it's the kind of fake I do not like.

I find it very suitable for holiday brochures.
 
CLE-RF said:
HDR is better than real life. Which sounds nice, but its still fake. And it's the kind of fake I do not like.
I find it very suitable for holiday brochures.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, photography is fake because is way off the mark visually.
HDR helps bring photography back into a normal visual visual range of contrast and colour.
 
I prefer to get up early and catch the HDR light, but I suppose one could always have a lie in and fake it ... the light that is :)



now where do I get HDR paper to print it on :confused:
 
Last edited:
Sparrow, I've always envied northerners who have hdr light all day long.
At my latitudes, hdr is there only for an hour at each end of the night.
 
downstairs said:
HDR helps bring photography back into a normal visual visual range of contrast and colour.
Click to expand...

Well if that's what it does then most people except me seem to live in a video game where everything has white halos around it.

I guess it can do what you describe, but as a rule of thumb, as soon as I see at first glance that it's a HDR it's not in any natural visual contrast range anymore. As the digital equivalent of burning & dodging areas of extreme contrasts it can be fine.
 
I think, that with most of these things, the gimmick can easily be transcended if the efforts are concentrated more towards the picture than purely that of an 'effect', and dare I say it, used with some taste.

Even then, it must suit its application, and I think it highly unlikely that it will improve a poor photograph, and could quite easily ruin one of great strength.

Improving the dynamic range of a B+W photograph is one thing, a heavily saturated mess of colour and dramatic skies is quite another.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom