|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
So, what is your opinion on hdr photography?
Not to start an argument about it. A debate? Maybe. Curious to know what other photographers here think about it in regards to areas in the business where it is being used, like real estate, architecture, etc. Do you prefer lighting the scene and using filters or using hdr? Jul 10 14 05:50 pm Link The best HDR images are those that don't look like HDR images.  . Jul 10 14 06:16 pm Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: I really kind of like the "hdr look" where the hdr look is the weird surreal colors and lack of shadows/highlights. Jul 10 14 06:18 pm Link Well generally I don't like it. Jul 10 14 06:18 pm Link Good HDR is good. Bad HDR is bad. Jul 10 14 06:27 pm Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: I agree. Jul 10 14 06:33 pm Link I think it's awful 95% of the time. But there's that 5%. Jul 10 14 06:35 pm Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: +1 Jul 10 14 06:35 pm Link Again and again it gets overused and abused by those who have very little idea of what they're doing. Like, here's my girlfriend riding her bike along the boardwalk...BAM! get some HDR into ya! Or, hey, here's my kid eating chips at Maccas... Boom, HDR the shit outa that little sucker. But then again if it's done subtly or with true artistic merit, it can be very effective. Sadly the latter is often not the case. Jul 10 14 06:42 pm Link A hammer is a great tool when used properly, but if abused can cause major damage / injury. Photoshop is a tool box use the tools right. Jul 10 14 06:42 pm Link odd double post... Jul 10 14 06:51 pm Link I like these two comments on HDR images: "The best HDR images are those that don't look like HDR images". And, "good HDR is good, and bad HDR is bad". HDR gives one the ability to do ANYTHING with the tonality of an image that they might desire. It is an absolute must for very high contrast scenes. I convert the RAW image to the TIFF format in every image I shoot, (that I decide is worth finishing), three times - one with the exposure setting "overexposed" by two stops, one with the exposure setting "underexposed" by two stops, and one with the Exposure left alone. I have NEVER exceeded a proper exposure, on an important image, I've done with a single exposure (exceeded the boundaries of the histogram), but, I like the infinite possibilities that the three conversions give, when processed in Photomatix, and Photoshop. I ALWAYS set a black point, and a white point, increasing the number of tones, when filling in the rest of the tonal range with information from the three conversions.. I also get more local contrast, smoother gradients, etc. these things can never be accomplished to this degree by just using the adjustments available with Photoshop tools. Of course, some don't use the tools with the best of skill, but everyone has to learn at some point. I, personally don't like the over processed look, but everyone has their preferences, and these tools give everyone the ability to achieve their own, special look. -Don Jul 10 14 07:20 pm Link Jul 10 14 07:35 pm Link There is a difference between HDR and Tonal Mapping. HDR is done with a series of bracketed images. Tonal mapping is done from one single image (most of the time). HDR looks more real. Tonal mapping looks like $h!t. Jul 10 14 07:37 pm Link amen to that! except the tone map thing is often done on a set of images shot and processed with HDR. the failure is in the really hideous tone mapped product Jul 10 14 07:41 pm Link me voy wrote: If I use your definition of "tone mapping" as opposed to true HDR, (a point I would not argue), I would have to say that the exact same look can be achieved by either, (unless the histogram has been exceeded in the single exposure). The Photomatix program accepts three TIFFS, converted from a single exposure, the same as it will accept any number of actual different exposures. I've done it both ways, and have gotten the exact same result. The same applies to any image I process in Photoshop. I always use BOTH programs to get the finished product. Jul 10 14 07:45 pm Link Don Garrett wrote: Just want to make sure people understand the difference. So far, most responses in this thread sound like people are referring to tonal mapping. Jul 10 14 08:02 pm Link As with most techniques, there's good and bad HDR. And by HDR, I mean the real kind, where you're roping in information that otherwise would have been lost. That fake HDR looks it and seldom offers any useful reason for its existence. Jul 10 14 08:15 pm Link -JAY- wrote: My sentiments exactly. Jul 10 14 08:19 pm Link Z_Photo wrote: I love the resulting halo effect on the really poor examples... clueless. Jul 10 14 08:21 pm Link Only for landscapes, Objects and buildings. Not people. Jul 10 14 08:27 pm Link HDR rocks... Tone-Mapping rocks... muddy, low contrast, crappy, muted and dismal color images suck...  Jul 10 14 08:30 pm Link me voy wrote: But my point is that they can look exactly the same. Unskillful, and/or unknowledgeable (sp?) use of these tools is another issue. That's all I am saying. Jul 10 14 08:44 pm Link I like it...like everything else it has it's place and like everything else there is a point of diminishing returns. Jul 10 14 08:46 pm Link The HDR fad reminds me a lot of cross processing fad, not in terms of technique or effect but in terms of popularity. It one of those things the "cool kids" do. The problem is a lot of shooters are more into the HDR process than the results. I would say that I have seen some great HDR images. I break HDR into two categories, "Wow" and "For the Love of God, what were you thinking". Unfortunately 99.999% into "For the Love of God". Jul 10 14 10:13 pm Link I suppose its a decent way to make an otherwise dull/boring shot look remotely interesting... Jul 10 14 10:32 pm Link 9.9999999999999999999999/10 times you do HDR, you definitely shouldn't have. Especially if theres a person in the photo. Jul 10 14 11:08 pm Link PrimePix wrote: Lipstick on a pig is still....well you know the rest Jul 10 14 11:14 pm Link Project Vain Images wrote: Especially not people... It looks weird(?!). Jul 10 14 11:15 pm Link I think HDR is named wrong. It should be DRC. Jul 11 14 02:28 am Link Learn how to expose a shot properly and how to dodge and burn in the dark room and it shouldn't be needed.  Jul 11 14 03:19 am Link When used correctly it looks great and can push an image to the next level. More often though the settings people use are too high that it gets the painterly or surreal look which I personally don't like. Landscapes & interiors usually benefit but it can make or break an image when used on people/portraits. You can dodge and burn in photoshop but that takes far greater time. Good workflow is pass it through a HDR merging software and tweak the settings to get as close as you can get to what you want then pass it through photoshop for the final touch. Jul 11 14 03:47 am Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: This is utterly true! Jul 11 14 04:18 am Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: Bingo. Jul 11 14 04:26 am Link HDR is a fad, a technique used to compensate for the lack of dynamic range in digital image sensors (compared to film). When the sensors improve some more it will go away. Jul 11 14 04:39 am Link Raoul Isidro Images wrote: That sums up my feelings as well. Jul 11 14 04:48 am Link Digital Vinyl wrote: Agreed. Today's DSLRs have finally surpassed what film was capable of in my opinion. The majority of those who still think HDR when they shoot probably were brought into photography that way. I'm shocked at how many still over use a tool as a style. Kinda like how so many won't shoot more than a f1.8 in everything they shoot. Easily obtained gimmick which makes one think they know what they're doing. But, I've found I'm the minority these days in realm of what a well done photo is. Personally, I feel a finished photograph is the sign of it's quality, not so much the technique involved. I joked about how newbies should print and hang their histograms seeing is that that is what they cared about most. But, to make a long drawn out comment slightly longer, HDR is a tool, not a style. Blocked up shadows does not necessarily mean a bad exposure, nor do blown out highlights. The right tool for the right project. Nothing more. Jul 11 14 05:14 am Link Digital Vinyl wrote: A quality photo is NOT NEEDED, but it is desirable. Jul 11 14 09:53 am Link I thought for sure I would see more posts here in favour of lighting the scene properly rather than using hdr. For me even the "best" hdr images still read as such and I just can't help but see it. Jul 11 14 10:11 am Link Mark Reeder Photography wrote: I think you are seeing fewer of those kind of posts, because nearly everyone realizes that HDR, and tone-mapping don't excuse one from "good photographic technique". Tone-mapping, and HDR require good exposure, but give so much more. If anyone thinks that ANY tool, in Photoshop, or an HDR program, is to fix something done wrongly, they have missed one of the most important lessons in image creating. And, again, I will state that ANY look can be achieved with Photoshop, and a good HDR program - better than the camera alone is capable of. Jul 11 14 10:30 am Link |
