Sam wrote: »
So in conclusion, I hates them unless they are way cool, then I loves them. rofl
Hopefully this clarifies my position.
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.
[..]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.
Molsondog wrote: »
Over-the-top HDR grates at me ....
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...
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.