HDR. anyone find it annyoing?

Todd Adamson · 02-25-2011, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by sevenarrow

There is bad HDR photography and some good HDR but 99% of the HDR is bad.

Ah. So HDR is just like every other kind of photography.

RioRico · 02-25-2011, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

Ah. So HDR is just like every other kind of photography.

By George, he's GOT it!

At least HDR generates less litter than do Polaroids.

C-Factor · 03-03-2011, 11:54 AM

Ok I can't remember the guys website, but there is a local Albuquerque, New Mexico photographer that does some amazing HDR panos. I would plug his site, but I can't remember his name......He has a bunch of 6' to 8' ones for sale in a brew pub near campus. I am going there tomorrow so I will get the web address so others can check it out. I generally wasn't a fan of HDR either until seeing these photos, which capture some beautiful New Mexico scenery in a tasteful creative way. Judging by the detail in the monster prints over at Kelly's I am guessing a digital medium format camera is used or he is stacking a lot of photos to get super fine detail. Anyway, I will get the web site so you can see for your self..

veezchick · 03-03-2011, 01:41 PM

I appreciate the creative benefits of HDR (and other techniques/FX), but the majority of the HDR images I see just look like sad attempts to fix/hide poor lighting and capture technique. Very few are done tastefully or well. It's one thing to exploit the HDR for an obvious effect, but why it's used in portraiture is beyond me. Why you'd take beautiful skin tones and give them an unnatural zombie-like look ... I don't get it. Landscapes done in HDR look rather like Viewmaster slides to me. Get the lighting right, and you just can't improve on nature. I'll be glad when the fad dies down. It's like the PS lens flare phenom all over again. Yes, annoying. And yes, subjective.

eddie1960 · 03-03-2011, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by veezchick

I appreciate the creative benefits of HDR (and other techniques/FX), but the majority of the HDR images I see just look like sad attempts to fix/hide poor lighting and capture technique. Very few are done tastefully or well. It's one thing to exploit the HDR for an obvious effect, but why it's used in portraiture is beyond me. Why you'd take beautiful skin tones and give them an unnatural zombie-like look ... I don't get it. Landscapes done in HDR look rather like Viewmaster slides to me. Get the lighting right, and you just can't improve on nature. I'll be glad when the fad dies down. It's like the PS lens flare phenom all over again. Yes, annoying. And yes, subjective.

I can't see doing anything with motion issues like portraits. it is nice to get the added DR for things like night shots where a whole range of issues limit it even with a good exposure
it's the cartoony stuff that drives me nuts, but as mentioned that's more to do with the overuse of tone mapping

e-bar · 03-03-2011, 06:07 PM

I think, when looking at a good HDR photograph, people shouldn't necessarily recognise it as a HDR photo, unless compared directly to a single "normal" photo of the same scene.

philbaum · 03-03-2011, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Ira

Put me in the extreme camp:

I absolutely love the stuff, although I haven't attempted it at all.

And I sure don't buy the argument that it doesn't look real, because 99% of photography is taking the mundane and making it look unreal as well.

My hat is off to the masters of HDR, and for me, the wilder and more intense, the better!

Ira, you're my new hero!

I admit likeing some very trashy hdr, some of it is a lot of fun to look at. Some people say we have 2 seasons in the Pacific Northwest of US, the light gray rainy season and the dark gray rainy season

Sure, i could take pictures of gray rainy days, but it doesn't sell in my experience.

I have one hdr that doesn't look very hdr, but people generally like it and it sold 4 times since Feb 2010. As long as people continue buying hdr pics, then i'll continue making them.

On a piece of artwork today - not mine: "Caution is the enemy of ART"

best wishes,

Mountain Vision · 03-03-2011, 07:16 PM

Generally speaking good judicious use of HDR can yield nice results.

I find less than 1% my shots or shooting opportunities can benefit from HDR. But occasionally I can create what I feel is a compelling image that otherwise would have been impossible.

But for the most part HDR is overused just like wide angle lenses and shallow DOF is overused....and I bet everyone on this thread is guilty of some of the above!

What people looking to expand DR should do is simply bracket on a tripod and then combine images using a split neutral density technique. You can even do this with a single raw file, provided it was shot at low ISO and can handle 1.3-1.5 stops total (generally something like 2/3 and 2/3 works for a good mid tone exposure). Again though, this only gains a little more than a stop.

"action" shots with people or those off a tripod can handle the single raw method, though it is much better to shoot 2 RAW about 2-3 stops apart. One for background and one normally exposed for the foreground. Just like a 2 stop GND would allow!

geauxpez · 03-03-2011, 07:45 PM

Scott Kelby has a great blog post on the subject. It is titled: "What They’re Not Telling You About HDR Images" and followed later by the statement: "….non-photographers absolutely love them!" Good article overall.

TOUGEFC · 03-03-2011, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by geauxpez

Scott Kelby has a great blog post on the subject. It is titled: "What They’re Not Telling You About HDR Images" and followed later by the statement: "….non-photographers absolutely love them!" Good article overall.

Good link, and that quote is sooo true, non-photographers do absolutley love them!

RioRico · 03-04-2011, 03:59 AM

I said it before, I'll say it again: Context matters. Presentation matters. A cartoony HDR pic you wouldn't want on your screen or wall may be fine as a media cover, billboard, assemblage, whatever. Excess has its purposes. HDR pix get noticed, make a vivid impression. And that's why "non-photographers absolutely love them!"

**Ash** · 03-04-2011, 05:06 AM

Some more examples of strong HDR to good effect (not my own work):

...not everyone's cup of tea, but does show that HDR has its place.

**Rondec** · 03-04-2011, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by veezchick

I appreciate the creative benefits of HDR (and other techniques/FX), but the majority of the HDR images I see just look like sad attempts to fix/hide poor lighting and capture technique. Very few are done tastefully or well. It's one thing to exploit the HDR for an obvious effect, but why it's used in portraiture is beyond me. Why you'd take beautiful skin tones and give them an unnatural zombie-like look ... I don't get it. Landscapes done in HDR look rather like Viewmaster slides to me. Get the lighting right, and you just can't improve on nature. I'll be glad when the fad dies down. It's like the PS lens flare phenom all over again. Yes, annoying. And yes, subjective.

Fads come and go. This last year, I had an awful lot of Christmas cards sent to me that had photos of families that had been desaturated, maybe about 50 percent. The people looked ghastly -- sort of like they were all severely anemic or, maybe they had been living in caves for too long. But, for some reason or other, these families (all separately) decided to go with this look on their photos.

I am sure it was the photographer/studio who sold them on it, but I guess my thought is always that I would like people to look their best in the photographs I take.

**Rondec** · 03-04-2011, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Ash

Some more examples of strong HDR to good effect (not my own work):

...not everyone's cup of tea, but does show that HDR has its place.

These are digital art, not photography (at least as I, personally define it).

eddie1960 · 03-04-2011, 05:56 AM

A couple of them are scenarios i can see using HDR (1 and 4 in particular) though i find the tone mapping a little over the top, (a lot over the top in 2 and 5) 3# is the one i'm on the fence about. All of them though would be popular with the "non Photographer" i'm pretty certain. Actually that article also goes a long way towards explaining interestingness in Flickr as well

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HDR labs -Review HDR in K-7	redpigeons	Pentax News and Rumors	60	04-27-2010 09:43 PM
I really need to find...	Aperturae	Photographic Technique	6	12-18-2009 08:06 PM
HDR Software - Dynamic-Photo HDR	mithrandir	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	03-03-2009 08:46 PM
Where to find..	Seraf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	07-23-2008 03:36 AM
Can you find???	rmtagg	Post Your Photos!	8	04-13-2008 10:07 PM

02-25-2011, 07:25 PM	#31
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by sevenarrow There is bad HDR photography and some good HDR but 99% of the HDR is bad. Ah. So HDR is just like every other kind of photography.

02-25-2011, 09:28 PM	#32
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Todd Adamson Ah. So HDR is just like every other kind of photography. By George, he's GOT it! At least HDR generates less litter than do Polaroids.

03-03-2011, 11:54 AM	#33
C-Factor Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico Posts: 113	Ok I can't remember the guys website, but there is a local Albuquerque, New Mexico photographer that does some amazing HDR panos. I would plug his site, but I can't remember his name......He has a bunch of 6' to 8' ones for sale in a brew pub near campus. I am going there tomorrow so I will get the web address so others can check it out. I generally wasn't a fan of HDR either until seeing these photos, which capture some beautiful New Mexico scenery in a tasteful creative way. Judging by the detail in the monster prints over at Kelly's I am guessing a digital medium format camera is used or he is stacking a lot of photos to get super fine detail. Anyway, I will get the web site so you can see for your self..

03-03-2011, 01:41 PM	#34
veezchick Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 51	I appreciate the creative benefits of HDR (and other techniques/FX), but the majority of the HDR images I see just look like sad attempts to fix/hide poor lighting and capture technique. Very few are done tastefully or well. It's one thing to exploit the HDR for an obvious effect, but why it's used in portraiture is beyond me. Why you'd take beautiful skin tones and give them an unnatural zombie-like look ... I don't get it. Landscapes done in HDR look rather like Viewmaster slides to me. Get the lighting right, and you just can't improve on nature. I'll be glad when the fad dies down. It's like the PS lens flare phenom all over again. Yes, annoying. And yes, subjective.

03-03-2011, 01:48 PM	#35
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by veezchick I appreciate the creative benefits of HDR (and other techniques/FX), but the majority of the HDR images I see just look like sad attempts to fix/hide poor lighting and capture technique. Very few are done tastefully or well. It's one thing to exploit the HDR for an obvious effect, but why it's used in portraiture is beyond me. Why you'd take beautiful skin tones and give them an unnatural zombie-like look ... I don't get it. Landscapes done in HDR look rather like Viewmaster slides to me. Get the lighting right, and you just can't improve on nature. I'll be glad when the fad dies down. It's like the PS lens flare phenom all over again. Yes, annoying. And yes, subjective. I can't see doing anything with motion issues like portraits. it is nice to get the added DR for things like night shots where a whole range of issues limit it even with a good exposure it's the cartoony stuff that drives me nuts, but as mentioned that's more to do with the overuse of tone mapping

03-03-2011, 06:07 PM	#36
e-bar Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 35	I think, when looking at a good HDR photograph, people shouldn't necessarily recognise it as a HDR photo, unless compared directly to a single "normal" photo of the same scene.

03-03-2011, 06:53 PM	#37
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by Ira Put me in the extreme camp: I absolutely love the stuff, although I haven't attempted it at all. And I sure don't buy the argument that it doesn't look real, because 99% of photography is taking the mundane and making it look unreal as well. My hat is off to the masters of HDR, and for me, the wilder and more intense, the better! Ira, you're my new hero! I admit likeing some very trashy hdr, some of it is a lot of fun to look at. Some people say we have 2 seasons in the Pacific Northwest of US, the light gray rainy season and the dark gray rainy season Sure, i could take pictures of gray rainy days, but it doesn't sell in my experience. I have one hdr that doesn't look very hdr, but people generally like it and it sold 4 times since Feb 2010. As long as people continue buying hdr pics, then i'll continue making them. On a piece of artwork today - not mine: "Caution is the enemy of ART" best wishes,

03-03-2011, 07:16 PM	#38
Mountain Vision Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: America's First Wilderness Posts: 529	Generally speaking good judicious use of HDR can yield nice results. I find less than 1% my shots or shooting opportunities can benefit from HDR. But occasionally I can create what I feel is a compelling image that otherwise would have been impossible. But for the most part HDR is overused just like wide angle lenses and shallow DOF is overused....and I bet everyone on this thread is guilty of some of the above! What people looking to expand DR should do is simply bracket on a tripod and then combine images using a split neutral density technique. You can even do this with a single raw file, provided it was shot at low ISO and can handle 1.3-1.5 stops total (generally something like 2/3 and 2/3 works for a good mid tone exposure). Again though, this only gains a little more than a stop. "action" shots with people or those off a tripod can handle the single raw method, though it is much better to shoot 2 RAW about 2-3 stops apart. One for background and one normally exposed for the foreground. Just like a 2 stop GND would allow!

03-03-2011, 07:45 PM	#39
geauxpez Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Atlanta Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,196	Scott Kelby has a great blog post on the subject. It is titled: "What They’re Not Telling You About HDR Images" and followed later by the statement: "….non-photographers absolutely love them!" Good article overall.

03-03-2011, 08:46 PM	#40
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by geauxpez Scott Kelby has a great blog post on the subject. It is titled: "What They’re Not Telling You About HDR Images" and followed later by the statement: "….non-photographers absolutely love them!" Good article overall. Good link, and that quote is sooo true, non-photographers do absolutley love them!

03-04-2011, 03:59 AM	#41
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I said it before, I'll say it again: Context matters. Presentation matters. A cartoony HDR pic you wouldn't want on your screen or wall may be fine as a media cover, billboard, assemblage, whatever. Excess has its purposes. HDR pix get noticed, make a vivid impression. And that's why "non-photographers absolutely love them!"

03-04-2011, 05:06 AM	#42
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Some more examples of strong HDR to good effect (not my own work): ...not everyone's cup of tea, but does show that HDR has its place.

03-04-2011, 05:53 AM	#43
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by veezchick I appreciate the creative benefits of HDR (and other techniques/FX), but the majority of the HDR images I see just look like sad attempts to fix/hide poor lighting and capture technique. Very few are done tastefully or well. It's one thing to exploit the HDR for an obvious effect, but why it's used in portraiture is beyond me. Why you'd take beautiful skin tones and give them an unnatural zombie-like look ... I don't get it. Landscapes done in HDR look rather like Viewmaster slides to me. Get the lighting right, and you just can't improve on nature. I'll be glad when the fad dies down. It's like the PS lens flare phenom all over again. Yes, annoying. And yes, subjective. Fads come and go. This last year, I had an awful lot of Christmas cards sent to me that had photos of families that had been desaturated, maybe about 50 percent. The people looked ghastly -- sort of like they were all severely anemic or, maybe they had been living in caves for too long. But, for some reason or other, these families (all separately) decided to go with this look on their photos. I am sure it was the photographer/studio who sold them on it, but I guess my thought is always that I would like people to look their best in the photographs I take.

03-04-2011, 05:54 AM	#44
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Ash Some more examples of strong HDR to good effect (not my own work): ...not everyone's cup of tea, but does show that HDR has its place. These are digital art, not photography (at least as I, personally define it).

03-04-2011, 05:56 AM	#45
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	A couple of them are scenarios i can see using HDR (1 and 4 in particular) though i find the tone mapping a little over the top, (a lot over the top in 2 and 5) 3# is the one i'm on the fence about. All of them though would be popular with the "non Photographer" i'm pretty certain. Actually that article also goes a long way towards explaining interestingness in Flickr as well