What is the "general" opinion pro/con of HDR?

superduckz

I apologize if this has been beaten to death in other threads, I did do some quick searching and may have missed it.

Anyway, I've been playing around with the free stand alone download of Photomatix and I find myself simultaneously intoxicated and mildly mortified by it. I feel like I just got a free taste of HDR cocaine and now I have to resist using it too often or I might get hooked. I started out keeping it as "real" as possible just to add a bit of depth (which worked well actually) but then started having fun with the effects. Some of what came out was really dazzling but so far from "reality" that I didn't even think of it as "mine". Even though it DID convey a good deal of the emotional impact of the scene, it ultimately created a photograph that I never really visualized mentally and never really set out to capture. But now that I've toyed with it I'm starting to re-evaluate some past scenes that I think could benefit some degree of it.

I typed "HDR is" into google and it ghosted, "ugly, cheating and awful" as the first three choices so I imagine there is a lot of negativity out there. That said, can it be useful? If so, how far is too far? When is it a "good" idea and when does it cross the line and become a "gimmick"? How fine is the line? Any thought/opinions/rants very much appreciated.

Here's and example of the image I was talking about. The original is a "nice" shot but this one just supercharges the emotion of the scene. Even if it was completely unintentional...

mercphoto

You have some seriously strange artifacts going on around the tree branches in the sky region. Its stuff like that in many HDR images that make it hard for me to look at images like that. Sorry.

superduckz

No need to apologize. It's exactly the sort of opinion that I'm looking for. Call t like you see it.

Richard

superduckz wrote: »

...it ultimately created a photograph that I never really visualized mentally and never really set out to capture.

I think you've hit on the key problem I find with most of the HDR stuff I've seen. Rather than use the tool to realize a specific goal or personal vision, many people just muck about with the sliders till something looks cool to them. Used in that way, it's really no different from applying, say, a watercolor filter and calling yourself a painter. In many cases the HDR effects overpower the subject, composition, and (ironically) even the light in the image, which ends up looking flat and unnatural. When I see an image that screams HDR, I rarely pay any further attention.

All that said, I do use Photoshop's HDR function occasionally to blend exposure bracketed shots of scenes with a wider dynamic range than my camera can deliver in a single frame. When it works as intended, you can't tell HDR was used.

pathfinder

I have always been intrigued that folks who post extreme HDR images always mention specifically that "they are HDR", but we never tell folks that our color images are color, or that our Black and White images are monochrome.

I think the better HDR images are the ones that you have to examine carefully to determine if they might be HDR or just good, even lighting.

And I generally do like HDR images, as do lots of viewers. If you examine current newspapers or magazines, HDR images are to be found everywhere. Some are fairly subtle, but they are all around us. I also like the images that were captured with Kodachrome, which is kind of just the opposite of what HDR images look like, with deeply blocked up shadows. Its all good!

mercphoto

Richard wrote: »

When it works as intended, you can't tell HDR was used.

And that is where HDR shines, when you can use it to create an image that looks so natural, so real, that you can't tell its HDR. It just looks "correct".

superduckz

mercphoto wrote: »

Richard wrote: »

I think you've hit on the key problem I find with most of the HDR stuff I've seen. Rather than use the tool to realize a specific goal or personal vision, many people just muck about with the sliders till something looks cool to them. Used in that way, it's really no different from applying, say, a watercolor filter and calling yourself a painter.

That's a perfect description of essentially what I did and why I suppose I feel "wrong" about it. Yes there are a lot of days when I walk out the door with my camera with no specific goals in mind but I do have my own notion of "integrity" in my photo's as to how far I'll push them. I'm still struggling with that actually. The "type" of HDR shot I posted really crosses a line with me I suppose... and it appears I'm NOT alone.

mercphoto wrote: »

And that is where HDR shines, when you can use it to create an image that looks so natural, so real, that you can't tell its HDR. It just looks "correct".

Yep! I agree 100%. THAT is exactly how it should be and how I'll set out to use it in the future. Keep it subtle and use it appropriately.

Thanks for the comments.

Sam

It depends................I like HDR's that you can't tell if it's an HDR. I also like many extreme HDR's that leave no doubt about the processing.

I simply look at an image and if words like, wow, oh, ah, nice, beautiful, etc pop into my head I like it regardless of subject or processing.

Sam

arodney

pathfinder wrote: »

I have always been intrigued that folks who post extreme HDR images always mention specifically that "they are HDR", but we never tell folks that our color images are color, or that our Black and White images are monochrome.

I think the better HDR images are the ones that you have to examine carefully to determine if they might be HDR or just good, even lighting.

Agreed. If it shouts HDR, it wasn't processed well expect to produce a "look" most have tired of years ago.

Remember Polaroid Transfers, or Aaron Jones Light Painting? Or the grainy Nancy Brown images of the 80's? When they first came onto the scene, those like Nancy and Aaron, who came up with the idea and look deservedly got praise. Then a zillion photographers came out of the woodwork, copied the 'look', made it a tired process that never looked as good as the work of those who originated it.

HDR should be a tool to capture imagery that exceeds what a sensor can capture in a single shot due to limitations of our current technology. When it doesn't look like HDR, but shows a huge tonal range, it works for me.

MarkR

Star filters and selective coloring, anyone?

I've done images like the one the OP posted. Almost invevitably when I go back over old work 6 months to a year later, I end up tossing those edits in favor of a more natural look.

angevin1

superduckz wrote: »

I When is it a "good" idea and when does it cross the line and become a "gimmick"? How fine is the line? Any thought/opinions/rants very much appreciated.

HDR is a good idea when you want an image that has tons of dynamic range, like Arodney said.

Gimmick, ugly, cheat...these are all labels. Some folks have a need to ascribe labels to many things. Many times you'll hear labels such as these when you encounter someone that hasn't got the talent to pull off a great HDR image, like critics of many fields.

HDR is a technique and like all techniques a certain amount of work will be involved in evolving your talent to embrace the technique's. Especially if you want yours to please others.

I've seen photos or drawings with little, very little, tonal range that just floored me. and I've seen some HDR work here on Dgrin that has had the same effect on me.

jhefti

I like to make a distinction between photography and digital art. And without passing judgement on the latter, I prefer the former.

However, the distinction between the two is somewhat blurry (no pun intended). There are many times that I edit my shots to bring out specific qualities in the subject, fully understanding that the final image is not what my eye saw yet I still consider it to be photography and not digital art. The human eye does not work the same way as a camera, so there's no reason to expect a photo to look exactly like the image the eye saw.

Regarding the above shot, and the discussion about the various methods photographers of popularised over the decades, it's like almost anything with aesthetic value: a novel rendering method can be stunning when done once, trendy when done for a while, then cliche when done too much. One example that I find way overdone is long exposures of moving water; sure it looks pretty, but it's a way overused technique. Hell, even the Rule of Thirds can get boring when every shot in a gallery uses it.

Baldy

Scott Kelby had a wonderful blog post about HDR, saying photographers generally hate it but consumers love it.

Going way way back, it reminds me of how controversial Ansel Adams was back in the day because he amped up the contrast and saturation way past photorealistic, and his contemporaries didn't like it. But buyers did....

ian408

I had always thought Adams would have been happy to live in the digital world. He did a lot of his work using methods we take for granted in PS. And he took liberties in the field to allow him to do what he did in the dark room. Further, if there were two different prints made (within a period greater than a month let's say), they could be very different.

Back to the question. IDK. I prefer HDR that looks more natural but Baldy's right, if it's ultimately what sell photos then it must be good?

pathfinder

Baldy wrote: »

Scott Kelby had a wonderful blog post about HDR, saying photographers generally hate it but consumers love it.

I think this quote is quite insightful.

Lots of photographers rail against HDR, but lots of viewers really like it. It depends on whether the viewer demands a photograph look like photos always looked in the past, or is willing to accept a new appearance to an image. When color images first became common, there were those who felt color photography was not as serious a medium as traditional B&W - change is always hard.

It does get back to one's definition of photography versus digital art. What I feel is happening, is that the border between digital photography and digital art is becoming less distinct, more tenuous, as artists, and photographers push the boundaries of their crafts.

Three or four hundred years ago, some artists used camera obscura's to capture the outlines of their images before they completed them with oil paints. Now digital photographers use their camera obscuras to capture an image which they finally render in their digital darkroom, and ultimately apply their image to paper with pigments from their ink jet printers. We are coming full circle.

Technology is allowing the discrete distinctions between painting and photographing to become ever more tenuous. ( David Hockney wrote a lovely volume entitled "Secret Knowledge - Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters" about the use of camera obscuras, which deserves to be read by many visual artists, whether they craft in paint or pixels. )

HDR is fun to play with and certainly allows capable users to create stunning images, whether photorealistic, or surreal. Both techniques can be quite stunning visually IF well done. They can also be substantially less than stunning if done poorly, but that is true of color, contrast, sharpening, B&W conversion, or anything else we do in the way of image editing.

I have been bemused by the fact that many of my own HDR attempts are rated highly by viewers in my Smugmug Popular Photos Gallery, percentage wise way out of proportion to the total number of HDR images I have uploaded. Viewers seem to like them, even if I do not identify them as "HDR"

superduckz

Wow! Just getting back to this post. Thanks for the discussion everyone. Excellent comments and lots to ponder. I like the term "digital art" as an alternative to photograph. It's like an escape hatch to another level of imagery beyond the original intent of the photographer and while it's makes it more or less boundless it can still be critiqued in a similar way as painting and sculpture.

I think for now my skill set (or lack thereof in regards to post processing) will limit me to more traditional photography. But it's interesting to consider that there is another arena, so to speak.

arodney

Baldy wrote: »

Scott Kelby had a wonderful blog post about HDR, saying photographers generally hate it but consumers love it.

Yup, if like Scott, your main goal is to sell something, that's telling <g>

Plus his NAPP buddies seem to be in love with the over-done HDR effect, video's and books need to be written so I can see where old Scott is coming from.

jww

I think it truly depends on the shot. I have seen some shots that are amazing as HDR and others not so much.

mercphoto

Back to my original post, all the stuff about whether HDR is good or bad or what have you, THIS PARTICULAR HDR IS BAD. The reason being those stated artifacts around the tree branches. Especially along the right hand side. Even if you like HDR, this image has technical problems that keep it from being a good HDR.

jww

Yeah... that shot doesn't work in HDR. Possibly just as a normal shot and a darker exposure, or maybe some fun in B&W might help it.

superduckz

mercphoto wrote: »

Back to my original post, all the stuff about whether HDR is good or bad or what have you, THIS PARTICULAR HDR IS BAD. The reason being those stated artifacts around the tree branches. Especially along the right hand side. Even if you like HDR, this image has technical problems that keep it from being a good HDR.

I've been doing some more experimenting with photomatix. Now that the initial "wow" factor has worn off I see what you mean. There's a really annoying "glow" around the branches.

Here's another attempt on a different image that is much more toned down. It's still a wee bit strong I think but this one does actually approximate what I was setting out to capture when I was on the beach, camera in hand. I like it but I still need to keep dialing it back until the image stands on its own.

mercphoto

No, the shot is fine in HDR. Its the conversion that is bad. Do you see those artifacts around the branches I am referring to? Do you know how those got there?

jww

mercphoto wrote: »

No, the shot is fine in HDR. Its the conversion that is bad. Do you see those artifacts around the branches I am referring to? Do you know how those got there?

Yes, I see your point and yes that is a bad conversion. I still don't feel it is the best shot for HDR, but that is just my opinion. Sorry for any confusion.

arodney

Don't give up.

If you're using Lightroom and raw captures, one product that does a very good job of exposure blending (it could be argued this is called HDR) in a very natural way:

http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

mercphoto

This is what I consider a really good HDR.

superduckz wrote: »

I've been doing some more experimenting with photomatrix. Now that the initial "wow" factor has worn off I see what you mean. There's a really annoying "glow" around the branches.

Here's another attempt on a different image that is much more toned down. It's still a wee bit strong I think but this one does actually approximate what I was setting out to capture when I was on the beach, camera in hand. I like it but I still need to keep dialing it back until the image stands on its own.

jhefti

Certainly this shot looks much more natural. You've captured the subtle gradations on dark part of the tree very nicely, but kept the sky and brighter parts of the shot well within the dynamic range window. In addition, the saturation is more natural.

I am a bit puzzled though...since presumably you needed at least three separate images to get this composite--maybe more--it is surprising that the water lapping up on the shore seems entirely clean and without any motion or merge artifact. And in general, I would expect the waves to look off as well, due to the fact that they'd be in different positions for each shot. How is this possible? Just curious, as I don't do HDR.

superduckz

Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm quite a bit happier with this one too. I do have a few ideas for some more mechanical/motorcycle related images that I'm going to get a bit more deliberately unconventional with as far as the effects go but for landscapes this is the limit for me as to how far I'll push it.

@ jhefti I used three bracketed images to create this and as I moved the slide in photomatix (the stand alone version) it essentially morphed slowly from one waterline to the next. It did not blend them. There is a bit of barely visible overlap in the waves on the left side of the image but it does not jump out. I don't know if this is typically how it works. Maybe someone with more experience could comment.

grandmaR

I hate those photos that look so artificial. It is like someone wants to be a painter and doesn't have the patience to actually put the paint to canvas to make the picture. There is a viceral satisfaction to painting, manipulating the paint so that it is a recognizable subject, but has the painter's emotion and vision on the canvas. I like doing that, and I like looking at paintings. I don't like looking at photos pretending to be paintings. I find them souless and annoying. And I won't vote for them in a contest unless they are absolutely the best picture there.

I'm also not a fan of artifically B&W photos BTW. I think they lose something in the translation. Sometimes it is necessary, as when I'm trying to read a gravestone with lichen or something on it and the color distracts from the inscription to the point that it is invisible. I will often make the photo B&W for easier reading. But other than that I'm an old stick in the mud. I like photos that look like photos and aren't trying to pretend to be Ansel Adams photos.