Rant: HDR

Molsondog

Gone

pathfinder

Like salt or sugar, or tomato sauce, too much spoils the dish! I agree.

The truth is that HDR images are everywhere these days, I see them in magazines, and newspapers all the time. Not usually garish ones, but ones with details in the shadows that are just not caught in a single frame of exposure.

Feel free to vent all you want!

Sam

I hates HDR too. Especially the over the top garish surreal over saturated ones, unless I like them then they are way cool.

I also hates the HDR images where you can't even tell they are HDR. I mean what gives with those? If your doing an HDR shouldn't it scream HDR? Of course if you can't tell it's an HDR then it's way cool.

So in conclusion, I hates them unless they are way cool, then I loves them. rofl

Hopefully this clarifies my position.

Sam

kdog

^^ Kind of sums up my thoughts on it too. HDR is no different than Photoshop, Nik, or any other post processing tool; they all can yield great results or crap, depending on the skill of the user.

pathfinder

Look at this picture!! I shot it in "Black and White"!!

Why does no one ever say that, but folks frequently point out that their image was done in "HDR" ??

I don't care if a craftsman uses a power saw, or a hand saw; all I need is to see is the furniture he ( or she ) makes..….

chrisjohnson

Agree with all comments.

Still, having used the default HDR mode on my 6D I find I cannot tell the difference between a "normal" jpeg and an "HDR". For me this is how it should be. The feature encourages me to take photos that I might not otherwise try and saves a lot of time in post-processing.

I don't like the exaggerated HDR effects many people promote. Just like I don't like something that is obviously photoshopped. But I am glad my new camera does HDR in camera. It is only going to get better.

Sam says he does not like this type of HDR. He is a better photographer than I am, but I do run into many extreme dynamic range situations where I need to compensate for the technical shortcomings of the camera in order to see what my eyes see. It does not always work without merging bracketed shots. HDR is not there yet but is well on the way.

Sam

Sam says he does not like this type of HDR.

Sam was being satirical. Employing a convoluted logic path that goes forward, backward, circles and ends in both camps simultaneously.

Sam

arodney

I hate bad HDR (like I hate most 'bad' things). IF you can't tell it's HDR and it is, better. The old, over used, pretty ugly HDR look should die away with every other over used photo technique used by people who didn't have the talent or understanding of creating their own look. Add over processed HDR with Polaroid Transfers, Light Painting, Grainy soft shots of dancers etc.

BinaryFx

When most folk think HDR, they think of poorly used tone mapping (overdone contrast, halos etc).

To me, HDR is “exposure blending” or “exposure fusion” - such as with Enfuse/EnfuseGUI, ImgeFuser, TuFuse, Xfuse, Optifix or similar.


Stephen Marsh

FlowingLight

Hear, hear!

Of all the HDR images I've seen, I like about 1% of them. They just look too unnatural in most cases. A well done manual exposure blend is, in 99% of cases, the better way to go.

Thelensspot

Sam wrote: »

....
So in conclusion, I hates them unless they are way cool, then I loves them. rofl

Hopefully this clarifies my position.

Sam

My feelings exactly. HDR is simply another photographic tool which when used effectively I really do love it. If overused and abused simply for HDR's sake, I can do without it entirely. I have seen some very nice HDR shots posted on DGRIN which I simply ooogggled and aahhhhed over. Sam posted a beach landscape once upon a time and Jo West (Cavalier) posted a PT6 (?) plane parked in a hanger both of which I thought were excellent! Having said that I don't like all the straight processed photos I've seen either...some of which are very professionally done shots and are highly acclaimed by many others.

So as long as HDR is used for good and not evil, it's just another technique to my eyes!
Please tip your waitress and drive carefully on the way home.

P.S. Do NOT visit my barn shots on the present DGRIN Challenge...

pathfinder

Interesting that this thread has popped up again, with LightRoom 6 now offering HDR rendering all within Lightroom.

I find myself liking this tool quite bit, and I use it when ever I cannot get the dynamic range I need with a single shot. Lightroom's ability to edit 32 bit files is pretty neat. I do not call them HDR images, I just call the final tiff or jpg an "image". Most never are noted as "HDR" images, which is fine by me.

colourbox

pathfinder wrote: »

Interesting that this thread has popped up again, with LightRoom 6 now offering HDR rendering all within Lightroom.

I find myself liking this tool quite bit, and I use it when ever I cannot get the dynamic range I need with a single shot. Lightroom's ability to edit 32 bit files is pretty neat. I do not call them HDR images, I just call the final tiff or jpg an "image". Most never are noted as "HDR" images, which is fine by me.

Probably the reason 1) you like the tool and (2) you don't call them HDR images is because of choices Adobe seems to have made.

Lightroom HDR seems to be designed primarily to give us more dynamic range with less noise. But not to make photos look like neon spray paintings. The evidence for this are those very unhappy with LR HDR. They say the sliders don't go far enough. They say they can't get the same garish effects they can in other HDR software. One very prominent HDR photographer wrote a blog post that was extremely critical of LR HDR, whether someone agrees with his evaluation probably tracks closely with whether they think he does good HDR or bad HDR.

If Adobe made choices that makes LR HDR terrible for "bad" HDR and great for "I don't know if it's HDR, but it's beautiful," that's a good thing. Because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of high dynamic range; Ansel Adams worked very hard to achieve it.

Anthony

[..]

One very prominent HDR photographer wrote a blog post that was extremely critical of LR HDR, whether someone agrees with his evaluation probably tracks closely with whether they think he does good HDR or bad HDR.

[..]

The author of the blog the link relates to seems pretty arrogant, doesn't *seem* to appreciate the difference between HDR and tone mapping and oh, needs to proof read his blog to remove the spelling errors...

Anthony.

Peano

Molsondog wrote: »

Over-the-top HDR grates at me ....

You mislabeled your post. As the content makes clear, your rant isn't about HDR but about "over-the-top" HDR.

Any editing technique can be irritating when it's overdone -- sharpening, skin-smoothing, eye enhancements, D&B, saturation, etc., etc. So let's be fair. HDR is no more inherently irritating than any of these techniques. The key with all of them is skillful and tasteful application.

ziggy53

colourbox wrote: »

Probably the reason 1) you like the tool and (2) you don't call them HDR images is because of choices Adobe seems to have made.

Lightroom HDR seems to be designed primarily to give us more dynamic range with less noise. But not to make photos look like neon spray paintings. The evidence for this are those very unhappy with LR HDR. They say the sliders don't go far enough. They say they can't get the same garish effects they can in other HDR software. One very prominent HDR photographer wrote a blog post that was extremely critical of LR HDR, whether someone agrees with his evaluation probably tracks closely with whether they think he does good HDR or bad HDR.

If Adobe made choices that makes LR HDR terrible for "bad" HDR and great for "I don't know if it's HDR, but it's beautiful," that's a good thing. Because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of high dynamic range; Ansel Adams worked very hard to achieve it.

Anthony wrote: »

The author of the blog the link relates to seems pretty arrogant, doesn't *seem* to appreciate the difference between HDR and tone mapping and oh, needs to proof read his blog to remove the spelling errors...

Anthony.

I've been following Trey Ratcliff for some time and he uses an extreme amount of sarcasm in his writing, and I suspect that he also says outrageous stuff just for audience reaction and viewer hits. (Blame Howard Stern, etc.)

Yes, his HDR is pretty "over the top". Sometimes we learn what "we" want to do, and what we want to avoid doing, by looking at both extremes of too little and too much.

David_S85

ziggy53 wrote: »

I've been following Trey Ratcliff for some time and he uses an extreme amount of sarcasm in his writing, and I suspect that he also says outrageous stuff just for audience reaction and viewer hits. (Blame Howard Stern, etc.)

Yes, his HDR is pretty "over the top". Sometimes we learn what "we" want to do, and what we want to avoid doing, by looking at both extremes of too little and too much.

Yup!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glh3gTytlag