|
I think they (including me) are tired of all the cliche HDR shots---not HDR in general.
Seriously, if I have to see one more sunset beach photo in HDR I'm gonna hurt someone. Or if I have to see another shiny car in HDR...look out.
I love HDR...I'm just tired of all the usual HDR shots we see. I wanna see something different!
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i tend to find alot of the traditional photographers have a poor opinion about HDR, maybe its the fact that it embraces new technology? i see it a bit like new music, some people have their style and dont like anything different or new whilst others have very eclectic tastes.
personally i love it and try my hardest to improve the technique but often get disappointed by some hdr images as they lack any real composition or interest.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
chris donbavand edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
I really like HDR, and I seem to get good support from my viewers. The biggest complaint I have is the "realness" of the HDR - which can great differ depending on your style.
I think it is great - but I am very much against HDR for portraits, people, and some animals. I'd rather shoot long exposure than use HDR in night shots.
It can also be easy to go crazy and shoot everything in HDR. Some people go craxy and loose the eye to shoot in traditional photography.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree, Tony. Some people do nothing but HDR and just like anything else--too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
And you will never find one HDR portrait that is flattering. Most animals are cool in HDR though...horses being my favorites in HDR.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think it's also important to note that no amount of HDR prowess can turn a bad photo into a good one. You've got to start with a compelling image in the first place.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like Jedisushi said,"You've got to start with a compelling image in the first place."
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There are times when HDR simply isn't needed or wanted.
I like it for the amazing contrasts and colors. There are times when you don't want or need eye popping colors or screaming contrasts.
Everything in moderation.
When you see something amazing, capture it in Raw and consider autobracketing because you may want to go to the computer later and see how it looks in tonemapped. But you may find some images are just better with minimal post processing.
As for someone bashing something simply because it is an HDR shot... good for them, I hope they are able to get enjoyment somewhere else. A great picture is a work of art and a well worked HDR is as well. Sometimes you find the perfect diamond, but usually it has to be processed to get the most out of it.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
yeah but you can make a whack image average using HDR!!
tony vargas, you are spot on yet again, the fine line between subtle and over the top is the threshold of good versus bad HDR, for me at least.
i must admit i go through a phase where i see most images in HDR and then all of a sudden i want nothing to do with it, like a dirty addiction, i do feel however, that when applied accordingly it is the best tool for the right job any of us could ever wish for and as such everyone should embrace it and push the boundaries rather than bitching about how it's cheating or what not.
tom.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"In fact they've probably seen some really nice ones not even realizing it was HDR!"
Well that's just the thing. I love HDR's, but I don't like overdone HDR's. I want the high dynamics, I don't want the too over the top dynamics.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think a lot of the anti-HDR backlash is the putting lipstick on a pig aspect. I personally like some HDR and although I've been doing HDR since 2006, I doubt you'll find more than a half dozen examples on my stream. The backlash comes from people who think applying HDR makes their crappy photos art. A pig is still a pig and a crappy photo is still a crappy photo.
If you want to do HDR and it makes you happy, then do HDR.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I remember when digital photography was the butt of jokes and die had photogs at the time dismissed it. They wanted to 'stay true.' What happened to them? They either went digital or recently paid 400x more for film and are struggling.
IMO, HDR is just another tool in the bag.
People mock things they do not understand.
Scott
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
some interesting points...=)
i can't imagine trying to make every shot an HDR, though i can see how someone would look at some HDR and try to use it every time.
normally when i'm shooting photos i throw out quite a few of them, with HDR it seems to be even more photos and after a session of shooting i find maybe two or three i like enough to continue processing. It could be that the bad ones really stick out and the good ones are more subtle that it doesn't stick out so much in your mind.
and most definately if the shot wasn't very interesting to begin with all the HDR in the world isn't going to fix it.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What is the problem with using HDR/TM for people? These are all 3 exp -2 0 +2.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
Serrator edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
 |
porch light faders [deleted] says:
They're way too played out and look way too unrealistic and non-traditional.
At least for my own tastes.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Check out my HDR Ring-Light Tilt-Shift page!"
heh, I'm sure the hype and backlash will both subside.
HDR and an overly zealous amount of sharpening seem to be appropriate for the current cultural proclivity towards the hyper-real or "x-treme" reality. I'm sure it'll die down, soft light will have a comeback, then go away all over again and everyone will pick their camp per usual and we'll all go on feeling insecure about the whole thing.
If you're not trying to make a buck off of it, why care? Art is the language and manifestation of culture and your individual contribution to it. Make things that feel like something you want to communicate, and the regret factor is minimal.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Interesting topic. I personally think that HDR images are supposed to be realistic or probably just a little tiny bit unrealistic but ultimately should be close to reality.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think part of it is the over saturation of HDR in the photographic community. You can't swing a broken camera without hitting 2 dozen HDR images (a lot of them poorly done). So part of it may be that a lot of photographers just feel a bit overwhelmed by the proliferation of it.
And I think part of that has to do with the accessibility of HDR for everyone. Most other aspects of photography require some kind of investment of effort or equipment. For example, macro photography requires special lenses, which not everyone can afford. Even many types of image processing require some kind of investment of time and skill to learn. With HDR, however, there are so many options available, most of which can create an HDR image with the click of button, that virtually anyone with a camera can give it a whirl.
So some amount of snobbery might be playing into it -- the masses infringing upon the territory of the self proclaimed "real" photographers and all that.
But I say to each their own. I know that I will continue to play with the HDR process as I try to refine my own style. And I know that I'm still amazed and impressed by a well done image. So if that's any valid criteria, then HDR is definitely not played out for me.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think in B/W such as this one that I done....people really can't tell what the processing was. This one was btw a b/w HDR. The tone range it puts in a B/W is just like the old days in the lab processing b/w.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Emi7 - you are confusing the subject matter with the software/technique. There are lots of fine portraits made with HDR. You want to see something different? Look here for excellent HDR.
apogeephoto.com/feb2007/jaustin22007_1.shtml
Iris - I agree, there is excellent work out there from HDR.
I agree with Seeking Creativity. It is the artist that creates, not the hdr software, and there are examples of 9 brilliant HDR artists from Flickr here: The art of HDR
apogeephoto.com/feb2007/jaustin22007_1.shtml
Jim
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think as with most artistic genres, eventually some of the different types of HDR will split off and become something else. Right now, EVERYTHING that involves taking bracketed exposures and combining them is called HDR whether it looks like a brilliantly crisp shot or a advert shot for the circus. When talking to others, I always make a point of referring to the really tonemapped shots as "tonemapped" not HDR. I shoot a lot of bracketed exposures at night because I like getting the high dynamic range but when I post process, I bring all of the settings in Photomatix to where it looks most natural and non processed because I don't like the shots that I see on here that make my eyes hurt because they are so damn bright or colorful. I think once the split happens and we start referring to the "tonemapped" shots and regular HDR shots as completely different terms then the respect for HDR what you can really do with this process will be there
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For what it's worth my most viewed/commented/faved picture is this HDR
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Mark Turnbul *Darren looks at photo...adds as a fav*
lol
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
why not HDR?
there are many styles of painting. photo can also express in many ways include HDR. like impression of painting people do not like in the beginning, but they are appreciated now.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just going to throw my 2c in here
Too many people are making horrible HDRs
HDR is not for the pictures you snapped at a family reunion, or pictures of your child blowing bubbles. There is one person in this group that always posts pictures of their child, and the light blending is so low that the face just looks like it was 'embossed' in photoshop. Horrible.
Also, HDR is a bit of a gimmick
You can take any mediocre scene and make it look beautiful with VERY LITTLE EFFORT. Some see this is a good thing, but I can empathize with photographers who give themselves ulcers trying to get the shot they want just perfect.
If you only do HDR, then HDR is all you do
There are other great interesting techniques out there...hop in.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
Sailor's Heart edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
Sailor's heart -
"You can take any mediocre scene and make it look beautiful with VERY LITTLE EFFORT."
sounds like you are proving Zuiun's point that there is a factor of snobbery - if it's all about effort and not the merit of the picture, why aren't we out there with our paints and canvasses, or using pin-hole cameras?
Also, if people think HDR's so bad, why, again as Zuiun said, is the photography world so saturated with it? People must think it's great. And of course they do, because, in general, the shots are more striking and arresting than single exposures.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
u n s e e n | images edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
|
@chidginness: Also, if people think HDR's so bad, why, again as Zuiun said, is the photography world so saturated with it?
Because it is so easy to make an image that would be impossible with film. All you need to do is buy a program and it will do all the work for you...that is one of the reasons why there are so many HDR shots around.
I am guilty of this as much as everyone else. Lately when I go out shooting, instead of taking the time to compose, meter and adjust, I just take an initial meter reading and bracket 6 or 7 shots because I know I will have gotten it right at least once in that stream and or I can merge all of them together to get the shot right...that unfortunately makes me and the rest of us lazier photographers. I think that is what rubs the "purists" because doing HDR is easy, shooting a brilliant shot with 1 image is significantly more difficult
And before I get flamed to hell, I for the most part love HDR shots
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Darren,
Most of the professional photographers that I have read about before and after digital camera's still take many, many pictures trying to make sure they get a few keepers. Not much difference there except now with digital we do have instant feedback that should help us hone in.
Shooting a "brilliant (single image) shot is much more difficult"...well maybe, in some cases a single shot will never be able to accomplish a great looking image in my opinion, where using HDR could.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
chidginess, call it snobbery if you want....it's truth.
I don't understand your comment about canvasses and pinhole cameras.
I never said it was all about effort, but there is something unattractive about a technique that takes almost no effort before post-process. Even my Mom can do HDRs.
The internet is overpopulated by HDR because people become enamored the first time they see one. Remember how you felt when you first saw an HDR picture. I bet you said "Wow, I want to do that". I know I did. And I did do many HDR. And then just like a child grows out of a toy, I got sick of it.
I recently posted my last HDR, or at least last one for a while. It's time for me to move on to something else.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
Sailor's Heart edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
|
"I never said it was all about effort, but there is something unattractive about a technique that takes almost no effort before post-process. Even my Mom can do HDRs."
Sailor, I understand the spirit of your comment, but I disagree with that statement. Like I said before, no amount of expensive software or processing power can turn a bad photo into a brilliant HDR. If you're lucky, you might end up with a contrasty sky over an uninteresting foreground.
You can't make ice cream out of horse shit. HDR is no exception. :-)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Serrator, many film cameras come with "polaroid backs" so that you can get an idea of what you're shooting. ;)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jedi, I never said "bad photo", I said mediocre in my first post, but I disagree. I can look at my own bracketed photos and know they are bad before HDR. I guess I just have a different idea of what "bad" is.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hobby-hoppers get bored with their hobbies or interests easily because somehow they failed to appreciate what is good about it. HDR is created for good purposes, if some people misuse this technique, you cannot blame HDR, you blame the person who misused it and then ended up got "sick" of it.
I've seen some horrible HDRs (including my own), but I never blame HDR and never got "sick" of it because I know very well that HDR deserves better!
It takes only minutes to make great coffee nowadays, do you think there's anything unattractive about taking no effort before sweetening your coffee? HDR is a technique, and brilliant people created technology to make this technique easy, so welcome to the modern world my friend!
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sailor, I'm not sure how you disagree. The only HDRs that require no effort before post-processing are bad ones. I think we actually agree on that. :-)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh Casperonian!, talk about snobby now! I don't blame HDR, not at all. And I definitely don't blame myself. I blame others who overdo it. Which is nearly everyone who defends it. HDR is cool, just keep some other tricks in your bag.
Jedi, the statement "The only HDRs that require no effort before post-processing are bad ones." is an opinion, not fact. If you are passively aggressively taking a jab at my own pictures, well, I like mine better than yours, but I'm a little biased :P
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not at all Sailor. I think we've fallen pray to the ambiguities of internet debates like these. I think you and I actually agree for the most part, and I'll leave it at that.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Aye, I'm bowing out now, I've said all I have to say I think :)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ jedisushi -- you wrote:
You can't make ice cream out of horse shit.
Technically, I think you probably can. It just won't taste very good. ; )
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I once saw chocolate/spaghetti ice cream, but not horse shit ice cream.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think one of the problems with HDR is that it looks FAKE. There is no way around it. I like HDR, I really do, but even well done HDR looks fake. It doesn't look quite right because that is not the way the eye naturally sees things. The eye doesn't see the whole dynamic range, not all at once, in a dramatic/high contrast scene. HDR can be a cool effect, but it is not "realistic." In theory it is realistic in that it contains as much visual information as possible, but it does not match the way the eyes react to a natural scene. I have seen some amazing HDR images on flikr, and really like many of them, but sorry, they still look fake.
P.S. the peeps rendered in HDR above...they look like figures in a wax museum. Kind of a funky/weird effect,if that is what you are going for, but not exactly "natural."
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
Photo-Sensitive edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
|
well i would expect a lot of images to look "fake" most of my photos don't come out exactly how they looked to me, that's part of taking photos or doing any kind of art anyway, that's your interpretation of the image. what makes images of any kind cool is that it takes a different perspective than what the eye naturally sees and creates a new image. THIS IS WHY PHOTOGRAPHY IS COOL!
its pretty easy for anyone to take a snapshot and think it is an amazing photo. I would think it is additionally easy for anyone to take three photos at different exposures and think that is a good photo as well. wether it is or not is really the question. Which is what i have said. Anyone can slap some paint on a canvas and call it art just as anyone can take three photos and put them together and call them a good HDR. just because you can do it doesn't make it good.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
IrisSilverMoon edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
@srk, if there is some overexposed area at the highlight, i think the hdr will look realistic enough. i am not sure some of my hdr look real to you or not, but i really like them myself =)
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
wee_photo edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
|
@Sailor - my point with the canvasses and pinhole cameras is that these methods of capturing a scene are a lot more effort... does that make them any more worthy than using the latest digital camera?
I agree effort is important.... but not for its own sake. We should use the lastest stuff out there - cameras and software - if we want the best pictures.
@Darren - I know it's easy to make an HDR, but its easy to do other tweaks in PS too. But I think flickr is saturated with HDR primarily because people think it looks good, not because its an easy technique.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
SRK,
From another discussion I had on this that seems pertinent with a few adds:
Your statement that HDR images look "fake" because the human eye does not see all details in both shadow and highlight areas at the same time....well true, but just as much as the human eye does not see our images that we produce whether via a monitor or in print as a flat 2d image. The normal human eyes see things in 3d, so our attempts at reproducing real life fall way short....or fake.
Similarly the human eye sees much more DR than we can currently display either via a monitor or in print.
Printed and or viewed images on a monitor can be focused throughout the foreground through the background, human eyes do not see all things focused at all times.
I could go on and on but I think you should get my point, that just because a representation of a scene does not match reality exactly or perfectly does not necessarily mean we should discard the tool. Nothing we currently have today can represent any scene perfectly using our camera's...we can only approximate with our limited tools. So by representing a scene that both HL and shadow detail is visible can be considered to be a more accurate representation of a scene than just exposing for one or the other! Our eyes are adaptive to the light, so when you view a scene that has high contrasts, you may not be able to see all the details across the DR at one moment in time but by shading your eyes would allow you to see more in the shadowed areas of that same scene....right?
So I ask why is HDR imagery more fake than conventional images?? Both are fake so your assertions that HDR looks fake can be made similarly for all other imagery currently and what is the barometer to which one is "less fake?" I think it has more to do with your conditioning of what you believe a photograph should look like from years of LDR imagery...so yes a HDR/TM image should and will look different or you are doing something wrong. Now whether we use the term "fake" or perhaps a better term might be "different". I never heard anyone say that Black & White images look "fake" even though they do not represent reality...but I have heard them say things like "dramatic".
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Okay, as for real vs. fake.... fake is interpreted by those of us who have seen photos for years, from film and digtal cameras, who have a very limited dynamic range and color spectrum. Our eyes see things different, but we expect to see a photograph to not have the same affect. So when we see a photo with bright colors and shadows that are exposed and dramatic clouds... people think it looks fake, cause it's not what they're expecting to see out of a single photo. ( I agree the ones with extreme halos and anime-like cartoon feel don't appeal to me - even though Kris Kros does it well because he has great subject matter and strong composition)
Anyway, here's one from my recent trip:
My name is John, and I make HDRs. :(
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Serrator -- the one point that trumps all others: Our eyes are incapable of freezing time as a photograph does. heh.
Seriously, though, I think part of the "fake" thing comes from the fact that in every day life we really don't consciously think about the dynamic range our eyes are capable of. When we're in a living room during a sunny day, the lights are turned off, and our eyes can clearly "expose" both the interior and the objects outside the window, we don't stop with wonder and think, "wow! The human eye has astonishing DR -- I'd never be able to capture that in a single exposure on film!" (Well, Ok, I've been known to think that... but then I'm pretty odd.)
The other part of it is that we're all used to photos having a certain look. That look is, essentially, "fake" compared to what our eyes see, but we're used to it anyway ("back in the day" people originally had prejudices against "standard " photography -- go figure), so we assume it's the way a photo is supposed to look. Even "primitive" dodging, burning and exposure blending techniques, while producing the appearance of a wider dynamic range, still couldn't accomplish what the modern HDR/tone mapping workflow does.
What HDR does is represent a different way of looking at a photograph of the world. Because it's different from what people expect, it's perceived as fake. Infrared photography is no different. The infrared spectrum *is* there, so such an image isn't "fake," but to our eyes it looks very surreal. With HDR, the dynamic range is also there, but we're just not used to seeing it represented in a photograph (and, of course, another factor is that sometimes the DR can be represented too far for some people's tastes).
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
what make a hdr fake:
1, halo, even a very limited area between highlight and shadow, this makes hdr look very fake.
2, extremely dramatic cloud, especially those shot at a cloudy day.
3, oversaturated, even color bias make a photo look "dirty"
4, uneven luminance appear at many hdr photo, this makes photo fake too.
even the learned hdr user still becareful about those mentioned above, actually i noticed those fake elements appear usually.
if we can list out those things make hdr look fake, then we can avoid it.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
wee_photo edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
|
Zuiun,
Hehe...yep you are absolutely correct unless it is a still scene then I think the 3d vs 2d might trump! :) Great point though, they all fall short.
I think though that the term "fake" is sometimes used to try and diminish the HDR folks results whether they are trying to go for natural or surreal. Like I said above you never hear people calling B&W imagery fake. To me using the term "fake" is just a simplistic way to try and depreciate HDR creations for some reason.
I have to disagree too with another statement made earlier by SRK that "even well done HDR looks fake"...well today's camera's have a lower DR range than our eyes so until the DR of an image surpasses the DR of our eyes it can be made to look more natural than not. So that statement doesn't hold much validity at all.
What are the anti-HDR folks going to do when all you can buy will be greater DR camera's? Maybe there will be a program called "un-DynamicRanger" that will allow these folks to reduce their images back to the good old days of LDR imagery. :)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
As I said in my post above, I like HDR. I am not trying to bash it, just saying why I think many others don't like it. I think it is an aquired taste. And of course it is a valuable tool to have, and yes it all depends on the touch and the taste of the photographer/post-processer.
Hey, whatever turns your crank, floats your boat, artistically speaking, go for it. I don't judge another's photography as good or bad, I just like some and don't particularly like others...and even that might change depending on mood. A lot of pictures I post are just pictures that I feel like posting, not something I consider "art."
Perhaps my implying that all HDR was "fake" looking was a bit too sweeping. I think lots of techniques look "fake" but I still like them. Long exposures of moving water for example...fake...but I really like them.
It is a fascinating subject... fake vs. real. Of course you can't capture the total "reality" in a mere image of the reality. But reality (if objective reality even exists) isn't purely visual, I mean is a sunset so beautiful just because it is red and orange or is it so beautiful because of how it makes you feel? I think its both. A perfectly "realistic" picture is not necessarily better than a "fake" looking one...its whatever you like better.
I guess my point is that more dynamic range/more perfect image quality does not necessarily convey, artistically, any more of the "real" experience of a scene.
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
Photo-Sensitive edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
|
BTW, wee_photo, really nice touch on those photos above...have to admit, they look pretty natural and "real."
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Here is one of mine...FAKE...but I still like it.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
it doesn´t look fake, it looks more realistic than anything that could have been produced with a single jpg.
i agree with some post above that says people who say it looks fake is ´cause they´re used to normal photos that can´t caputre reality the way HDR does.
by the way, cool shot man!
Originally posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
pato_garza edited this topic 50 months ago.
|
|
the problem is, that we have a preconcieved idea of what a photo should look like.
HDR (done right), is how it does look in reality.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've always looked at it that HDR is a branch of photography pretty much like any other - there will be people who love it, and those that loath it.
There will be people who are good at it, and people who are bad, and there will be people who like the over the top unrealistic images and those who prefer more subtle efforts.
I don't think anyone shopuld be knocked for giving it a go, and enjoying the results of their labours. If other people like it, all the better, but it shouldn't impact you as a photographer what the opinions of others are.
I'm guilty of going ott with some of my photos with HDR/tonemapping, but in away its means of finding my feet with the technique. So long as I like the results, why does it matter if someone else doesn't.
As long as I can remember there have been people arguing that any post-processing of an image is a big no-no (forgetting that darkroom techniques have been around for decades) - but these days I rarely take a photo that doesn't have some form of post-process applied, whether its a simple curves adjustment or a full blown 7 exposure HDR mashup.
At the end of the day, its the photo thats important - a poor photo cannot be fixed by any means, and that is the thing we sometimes seem to forget (my hands are up on this charge, I'm guilty of trying to fix something thats beyond broken many times).
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@SRK, I understand where you are coming from I believe and agree that your comment that "all HDR looks FAKE" was a bit overreaching and incorrect. :)
My main point is that when we look at images that are different (HDR/TM) from the so-called norm, they will stand out by default, but to claim that they are less realistic/natural than the current conventional imagery is where I may disagree. First of all we must decide what is the norm? To me the norm or baseline should be that an image mimics, imitates, simulates or replicates a scene visually as closely as possible to what we perceived at that time. Once we establish this criteria, then we can discuss as to what appears to be natural or not with some credibility in my opinion.
The other issue although not necessarily directed at or to you is the term you used "fake". This term can be used to describe any image ever produced as I and others have noted, so I find this to be more of a dissing of this type work than a constructive type input or reasoning. I know I am being a little repetitive on this but when we have these little discussions I am wanting to try and be as concise and clear as possible since there is such an interest/disdain for this tool/technique.
Concerning your last few statements, sure images currently don't capture the smell, the touch, the wind...but in the context of this discussion we were only talking about the visual aspects of imagery I thought and whether HDR/TM can look more natural than a single image only. What one likes or dislikes is called preference but does not necessarily equate to a better or worse image... we agree on this.
Now regarding your last comment that a higher DR image does not provide anymore of a "real" experience I think could be open for debate but really doesn't matter to me on the touchy feel-ly aspects. What a higher dynamic can provide though is a more accurately represented scene than anything previously done within the realm of photography up till now, it will just take time for us the viewers to shed our LDR eyeglasses.
Btw it really is only a matter of time before the next gen mainstream cameras and monitors will catch up to the higher dynamic ranges of our visual spectrum, so I look at it as just trying to be ahead of the curve and using the software workarounds we have today.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@DJChewie,
I think you are dead on with your comment! Well said.
@DA.D200,
Exactly...no need to knock others whether they do hyper/mega/ultra-surreal imagery or try to match visual perceptions as closely as they can. Free world...at least in my part of the world, do what you like.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My stance on this, is the same as many others. I like GOOD HDRs, but not the overprocessed looking ones with the light smoothing set to the lowest level to make it look like a cartoon.
I TRY to make my HDRs look either realistic, or at least interesting enough where people enjoy them... the photo below is how it actually looked outside more or less the other night after a rain storm
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To me HDR is a play on light...It is an exageration of reality (if you so choose). It makes a strong impact of our visions which I find enjoyable and colorfully stimulating. It's just downright fun. Throw out the baggage and play...
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What I noticed about it is that it's not the technique or the look (unless it's one of those that looks like are made of melting plastic) but the name...
If you don't call them HDR much more people like it and then the reactions are something like "cool postprocessing" but if you say it's a HDR then it's "only a HDR"...
So yeah, I think the people that are using it as a spacy look are ruining the reputation of HDR, and have been doing so for a long time... It's a pity that people that are trying to use HDR for what it's meant to be used (to capture a higher dynamic range) are totally drowned in the mass that are using it as a special effect....
When I be king I'll rename the spaced out one to something else, as they rarely have a high dynamic range anyway, and everyone will be happy... =)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jonas,
I have also seen the same thing. In fact I don't or have not labeled any of my HDR images as HDR now for about the last year. I got to wondering why do I need to label them as such...I don't label usually any of my other treatments/techniques or tools that I may have used.
Now as far as other folks using it to do otherworldly type images doesn't bother me no more than folks switching from color to B&W and creating dramatic images. In fact in some small way the surreal HDR images helps to make my feeble attempts to try and create natural images look more realistic! :)
Just so you know even though you are not the king currently, I am still happy! :)
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR Photos with no concept are flooding flickr. Im against that. I want to see art not a techdemo.
And HDR its just a technnique doesnt deserve love or hate. Its like hating a knife, we should discuss about the food, not the tools that you use for making it.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think the reason I usually label my HDRs as such is because otherwise everyone asks anyway.
Posted 50 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
ok personally i am new to HDR...and from all the pics i have seen i don't think neon looking colors on photos are tasteful but however i do see like quite a no. of interesting night shot photos edited in HDR allowing light and details to be seen! maybe someone care to explain what sort of technique HDR actually is cos from what i am seeing it's just post processed photos in my opinion and some of the photos i would say is just overdoing it, the colors are too absurd...there must be a balance i feel to me HDR should be technique used to bring back lost details be it in environment which is too bright or too dark. Cheers! hope to see more fantastic work out there!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hdr is great when done correctly and with a little restraint. (ok, a lot of restraint) I think a lot of people start HDRing everything and lose perspective. The vast majority of the photos on this stream look like a frame from a video game or a George Lucas movie. Then some are amazing. its worth wading through all the junk to spot that one great hdr. just remember folks. NOT ALL PHOTOS NEED TO BE HDR!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Honestly, HDR or not, if you took the photo you should do whatever the hell you like. No one has the right to tell you not to do HDR. Personally I love HDR when done certain ways depending on the subject of the photo, thats why I usually make several different versions of a HDR photo: dark, light, extreme contrast, or painting. Painting HDR usually turns out to be my favorite.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I’ve just started using HDR and I’m enjoying it. I think some people make too much of a fuss about HDR. I just look at HDR as just another photography technique. When I take a photo, I try to imagine how it would look best. Should I capture the full dynamic range? Perhaps a black & white, a blurry, or a long exposure shot. I could set up lighting that will bring out the composition better. Maybe I don’t have much time so I take a quick shot that I can later crop. Not to mention all the adjustments that I can use in Photoshop to tweak the image.
There are many ways that we capture photos and try to bring out the best in them, HDR just another one of these. A bad HDR photo is just a bad photo, nothing more or less. Some HDR images may actually look good unrealistic, just as others look better when they are more realistic.
The photographer chooses their technique. If this is chosen badly, then it may result in a poor image.
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
Last Rounds edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
I'm very new to HDR. The reason I even looked into the technique is because of a photo contest. A few of the entries were HDR and everyone crowded around and ohhh and aweed over them. Obvously the public loves it, even if some of you guys don't. Some of the images looked quite fake to me. I actually thought that they had used something like "Topaz Adjust" on them in Photoshop. I talked to a few of the photographers and they told me about the technique.
So far, I've only produced crappy HDR images (the super bright, "fake" looking things...like I can produce in Photoshop) so I know it's easy to do. It's much harder to get a "good" HDR image. A lot of what I've tried (I like to shoot landscapes) looks better in the one exposure shot. Maybe someday I'll get a good HDR!
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wonder what's more boring.... bad HDR or talking about bad HDR
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've seen some really bad B&W's. Some really bad infra red pictures. Some really bad jpegs. Some awful shots of dogs. Many bad pictures of children and adults. Some very boring landscapes.....
Oh, and by the way, I've seen some really bad HDRs. but what do you expect? That they should all be good?
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Many of you are using the term "HDR" and "Tone Mapping" interchangeably. What produces the cartoony - over-cooked look is not HDR. It's Tone Mapping. All HDR is is the whole dynamic range. True HDR looks realistic. Pretty simple.
Here is an example. Be sure to zoom in:
www.davidpalermo.com/beach
And here are the images that went into that sample:
www.davidpalermo.com/hdrtest4.jpg
Another example:
www.davidpalermo.com/hdrtest3.jpg
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
davidpalermo edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
Well......
Many of you are using the term "HDR" and "Tone Mapping" interchangeably.
This is correct. However, a HDR also needs to be tonemapped (or similar) in order to be viewed on screen, at least in its full glory (whole EV range).
What produces the cartoony - over-cooked look is not HDR. It's Tone Mapping.
Wrong, any source image, HDR or "LDR" can produce "aweful" images. Having it HDR doesn't automatically make it good to tonemap.
All HDR is is the whole dynamic range.
Again, wrong. Define 'whole'. All that is in the viewfinder? Often not needed. The sun? Welders arc? It is not required that the whole EV range is covered by the used exposures, and most will leave some burnt out areas deliberately anyway to keep the global contrast.
True HDR looks realistic. Pretty simple.
No and no. It still takes work to make it 'realistic' (a dogdy concept anyway, I'd rather call it good looking or bad looking), sometimes it's just not possible. And easy? Well, I guess that depends on the skill, software availability, patience, image(s) source(s) and content, and determination for those who tries.
Example. This one is a bad (although some like it actually) HDR although several (enough) exposures were used. The walls of the buildings look way brighter than the sky, it's oversaturated (typically for tonemapping process), and the local adaption fails in the top parts of the hills (another typical error to see). To me, this is a typical example of trying to get too much out from the exposures than would be healthy.
Example. On this one the tonemapping works well, oddly enough, better than expected. Using HDR and tonemapping process I was able to obtain colors from the specular highlights on the pipes. The exposures still have blown highlights if not on all channels at the same time. This demonstrates that you not always need to cover the whole EV range present to make it good HDR/tonemap.
My point being that sometimes you only need a single exposure to "tonemap" certain parts in an image to locally bring out some extra contrast. Tonemapping is (part of) the process of making a photo into an image (or art?). Using additional exposures may be needed to bring otherwise overexposed parts into the image via HDR assembly, but you rarely need the whole range.
In final, the image as a whole is what makes an image good. I've seen some very good shots with completely blown highlights, without it destroying the image. To me, it's all about making the best out of a photograph (HDR or not), not a competition on how many EVs you can cover within the same image. Such images may have plenty of EVs, but that doesn't automatically make them more interresting.
I often "shoot for HDR" (with bracketing) purposes, even though the situation doesn't demand it. Also, not many shots in my stream are "realistic" in terms of that this is what my eyes or camera saw. I prefer interresting images. Overdone or faulty HDR/tonemapped images is for me not interresting, realistic or not.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
well there are many opinions and comments on this topic, which can only be healthy. Personally i do like hdr to an extent, and agree completely that it doesn;t always need to be used. To be honest if i had processed some of the over cooked stuff we tend to a lot i would shoot myself. I am no pro, but i know where to draw the line, i mean what is the point of making a good composition look crap by making over saturated and finish it off with that embossed look!!
simple is often best...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
karlrpet:
Many of you are using the term "HDR" and "Tone Mapping" interchangeably.
This is correct. However, a HDR also needs to be tonemapped (or similar) in order to be viewed on screen, at least in its full glory (whole EV range).
TRUE a "real" 32bit HDR image does need to be tonemapped before it can be displayed on most monitors.
What produces the cartoony - over-cooked look is not HDR. It's Tone Mapping.
Wrong, any source image, HDR or "LDR" can produce "aweful" images. Having it HDR doesn't automatically make it good to tonemap.
RIGHT - sort of. When I import images into Photomatix and hit default I don't get a cartoony sort of look. It's not until I start Tone Mapping do I get that look. It's just that I see so many over-tone-mapped images around here I have a feeling most people are just cranking up the tone mapping for that cartoon-y look.
All HDR is is the whole dynamic range.
Again, wrong. Define 'whole'. All that is in the viewfinder? Often not needed. The sun? Welders arc? It is not required that the whole EV range is covered by the used exposures, and most will leave some burnt out areas deliberately anyway to keep the global contrast.
HDR means High Dynamic Range. What I meant was HDR in it's most simplistic definition capturing more dynamic range than what your camera can capture in one exposure. I was not clear.
True HDR looks realistic. Pretty simple.
No and no. It still takes work to make it 'realistic' (a dogdy concept anyway, I'd rather call it good looking or bad looking), sometimes it's just not possible. And easy? Well, I guess that depends on the skill, software availability, patience, image(s) source(s) and content, and determination for those who tries.
As a photographer I strive for realism so my definition and what I try to do with HDR is to make a scene look like what my eyes saw. You're right it's not always easy to get there though!
On another note if I can capture the full dynamic range of a scene in one exposure - such as on an overcast day NOT shooting into the sun I don't need to Tone Map. I have captured it. Tome Mapping is fine if you like "that" look. ; )
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My most viewed shot. Made an essentially boring shot into something quite interesting. A crazy halo but i knew that's what would happen and it's what i wanted as it kind of shows the pyramid's widely regarded 'true' purpose.
So, completely unrealistic. Yes but...
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
there are times where i think HDR isnt to necessary, but it can turn a truly boring shot into something great (diamond from coal).
I just recently learned how to actually process HDR images, and ive noticed with some of photos ive tried to HDR, the style didnt fit at all.
for example, this is a original unaltered image of mine of a WRX.
It is fairly boring as is, sure i could do some effects to make it more interesting...
but when I process the image in HDR...
...makes a huge difference, this mite be "exciting" enough to catch someones eye in a magazine (opposed to the unaltered version)
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Art is rarely about 'reality'. From cave paintings to van Gogh's 'Starry Night' to modern portrait photography (with backlight, hairlight, reflectors, retouching...). What about shots that involve shutter speeds of more than 1/30 of a second where we get 'artistic blur' - cotton candy waterfalls and waves, guitarists with blurred fingers, blurred backgrounds as F1 cars speed by? They are all 'real', but none of them are 'realistic' - or do I have that backwards ;-). Art is almost always an interpretation - taking something 'real' and enhancing it for effect.
HDR is an artistic tool - so we shouldn't talk about it like it's a construction tool (as if there's a right way and a wrong way). If someone can take an otherwise uninteresting shot and make it stand out and grab attention, then I think that's great. If someone else can increase the impact of a floral or forest scene by tweaking the colours or the dynamic range I'm all for that as well. Keeping with the tool analogy though, we shouldn't have just one tool in our bag whether we're in construction or in photography.
What we're really talking about is personal taste - 'likes' and 'dislikes' - both for the artist and for the viewer. If I go to an art galary, I'll spend some time looking at photo-realistic work, but if there's work by Dali or Ernst, I'll end up there for much longer - but admittedly, hanging around me I have photos and paintings that more closely reflect reality ... perhaps because I too would find it jarring to look at 'the scream' all day every day, but things that are more natural have a soothing effect.
The people that are really making out like bandits when it comes to HDR though are those in the digital storage business. Instead of discarding shots which are uninteresting, how many people are now keeping 3+ exposures of those shots, plus the HDR image??? Time to buy shares in WD, Maxtor and Seagate ;-)
nleboe - yes, I'd rather look at the HDR image of the WRX - I just wonder how many people out there are trying to find out where they can get tinted chrome paint jobs for their cars - and if/when that sort of thing becomes reality, how many accidents will be caused by people being blinded by the reflections???
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
GigaWatt edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
scattered thoughts [deleted] says:
I feel that many people apply HDR but then never correct contrast or adjust lighting (dodge/burn). HDR by itself simply attempts to expand the effective bit-depth (dynamic range) of the image and, IMHO, tends to really mess with the contrast and aesthetic lighting. What was a low-tone becomes a mid-tone etc.
That is why portraits look funky, IMHO, because both the luma contrast and the chroma contrast get funky looking. Noses start to look like mushrooms ... yada yada ... But that can (and should) be fixed after expanding the bit-depth.
My one cent ... didn't even make it to two cents :))
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I completely agree, with scattered thoughts - almost...
If a person creates an image applying HDR but not making the additional adjustments you suggested, but - and this is the key - would have if they could have (lack of tools or knowledge), then yes, they have done themselves or their art an injustice.
If, however, they applied HDR and despite being able to do further processing, have chosen to leave a nose looking like a mushroom, then that's fine, and it is their art, our job as viewers is to decide we like it, or we don't. And I think most of us would say we don't (but that doesn't stop some awful messes (a '4-year old could do better' kinda stuff) being called great art and being hung in museums and galleries around the world).
Originally posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
GigaWatt edited this topic 44 months ago.
|
|
I work in an advertising agency and we constantly get to review professional photographer portfolios and let me tell you, a lot of them have jumped in the HDR bandwagon like you wouldn't believe.
Also let me tell you, it's not the kind of HDR you see here, they truly look spectacular when the pros do it, specially in hi quality prints like they use in thier porfolios.
There are magazines also that are using it a lot. Just pay attention to car and bike magazines for example.
Unfortunately the kind of HDR that most stands out are the ones that are poorly or overdone. It's just part of the learning curve I guess. Not everyone can crank perfect HDRs from the first try.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You put HDR software in the hands of someone who only has superficial knowledge of digital photography and very little artistic sensibility and next thing you know they all think they're on the level of a classical landscape painter.
Indeed most HDR I see here looks like absolute garbage and a good percentage that doesn't technically qualify as HDR (single tone-mapped RAW).
My thoughts are that many people see HDR as gimmicky and akin to a cheap Photoshop effect (I have a friend who thinks this) due primarily to these people 'expressing themselves' with these ultra saturated, pastelly, halo-ridden, photos.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree with GigaWatt. and just throwing it out there, you can get chrome paint jobs for cars or bikes.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree 100% with waynewhuang. Most of the images on here are nothing more than garbage. It has nothing to do with people 'expressing themselves' or 'creating art'. It's about people who play with sliders and think it's cool. They're destroying HDR's reputation and should find another shinny object to grab their attention. I'm not a pro, but I am learning how to use HDR as it was developed to be used.....it's not all that hard just do a little reading and some practice.
Posted 44 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
HDR /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to HDR discussion threads
