HDR

[beano500]

Sparked by a comment by a tutor on my current course:

Tutor said:

HDR ... I feel this will spark quite a debate

my response said:

Ah, HDR!

Is it possible to love and hate such a devilish, all-pervading, nasty device in equal quantities as much as the technique of HDR.

When I first saw the effects, I loved it, wanted to recreate it and embrace it, dreamt up scenarios and imagined I might become proficient.....


...a feeling which lasted about 3, or maybe at tops, 4 whole seconds.



Now I find I enjoy compiling images which allow the tones of shadow areas and highlights to come together in some sort of balance, but the idea of pursuing the now-cliched HDR "look" fill me with fear that the effect has outstripped the artistry of composition and exposure.

Satan's revenge on Fox Talbot.......

Discuss....

[LukeBird]

beano500 said:

Discuss....

Oh god....

Personally I quite like the effect, it's quite easy on the eye and can make images 'come alive'.
I treat it exactly the same as any other post-processing (digging myself a hole here! ), it's just an addition to the photo. At the moment I haven't touched any of my photos in PS, partly because it's been a while since I've used PS and i'll have forgotten a fair amount and partly because I don't want to get onto the slippery slope of tweaking photos for the perfect shot. I'd sooner spend my money on better glass and try and get the shot straight away.
I'll have a play with HDR (when I can be bothered ) but my favourite effect is a simple B&W photo or a B&W with a highlighted area...

[sa_20v]

LukeBird said:

Personally I quite like the effect, it's quite easy on the eye and can make images 'come alive'.

Agreed, but having had a browse through Flickr the other night, there is just too much about - and the majority of images would look better either in colour or B&W IMHO.

[...Mole...]

I think one of my images sparked this debate a couple of months ago here

[GetCarter]

...Mole... said:

I think one of my images sparked this debate a couple of months ago here

Sure did

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[GetCarter]

BTW I've found it works really well sometimes on a single pic (and not noticeable if used sparingly)

[Simpo Two]

Depends if you want to use the technique to fit an overly-big dynamic range into one image (I do this a lot for wedding images), or if you want the vogueish 'creepy castle' effect. Like all effects, do you want the viewer to think 'Ooh, nice photo!' or 'Ooh, HDR'?

The Young Simpo came this way with a box of Cokin square filters. 'Ooh, Star 4 and grad tobacco!'

[Stigmundfreud]

for every 1 good HDR theres about 96^125 st ones. Now thats big numbers

[beano500]

Sorry to drag this one back up then....


...but not if it produces images like this:

GetCarter said:

BTW I've found it works really well sometimes on a single pic (and not noticeable if used sparingly)

Now that I do like. Bet you had to take that in RAW....

[paul911]

GetCarter said:

BTW I've found it works really well sometimes on a single pic (and not noticeable if used sparingly)

I’m perplexed Steve. Please show us the original, and explain your one pick HDR

Many thanks
Paul

[Cabinet Enforcer]

paul911 said:

I’m perplexed Steve. Please show us the original, and explain your one pick HDR

Many thanks
Paul

Usually you double process the raw file to get 2 exposures then hdr them together, this is essentially what some camera manufacturers now do internally (think sony did it first) with dynamic range expansion.

I think the problem with HDR images isn't so much the higher dynamic range, its the tone mapping back into a smaller range that makes em look gash, plus of course a really good pic doesn't need that much fiddle, so only rubbish ones get the full treatment. As usual if you don't go overboard then the result is just fine (as seen above).

[flat-planedCrank]

Used (VERY!) sparingly HDR can look ok

IMO, if the exposure is pushed much further than 'human vision' then it becomes distracting. It becomes the photo.

For most of the hdr pics i've seen it seems like the rule is: no shadow = better photo.



..but then other people love the effect, be boring if we all liked the same stuff




Cheers.

[andyquantum]

I tend to shoot a lot of my stuff in RAW, purely so I can rescue it when it goes tits, as it invariably does

1 touch RAW HDR's can be alright, it's something I've experimented with, and done in the right way I think it adds to the photo.

They can be dramatic



But it's very er...typical to use it on this kind of photo:



But a single point into the sun using HDR is more interesting




ETA - I like the odd look around this group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/raw2hdr/

Edited by andyquantum on Sunday 19th October 09:43

[GetCarter]

paul911 said:

I’m perplexed Steve. Please show us the original, and explain your one pick HDR

Many thanks
Paul

Well obviously I usually use 3 or 5 images. (Not that I do much HDR). Using a single photo (can't multiple image with moving subject!), You can bump up and down the exposure in raw and save the two files - then merge... but actually, I've found that messing with the 'clarify' function even with a single image can produce some interesting results.

Here's the original



and here just 'clarifying'



PS I stopped using Photomatix ages ago and use PSP Photo X2 to push the HDR - so if it's not called clarify - it'll be called something similar.

PPS... sorry, meant to make them the same size.

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 19th October 10:16

[miniman]

Stigmundfreud said:

for every 1 good HDR theres about 96^125 st ones. Now thats big numbers

But surely a glance at Facebook and even Flickr to some extent will tell you that this is no different to photography in general?

[paul911]

GetCarter said:

Well obviously I usually use 3 or 5 images. (Not that I do much HDR). Using a single photo (can't multiple image with moving subject!), You can bump up and down the exposure in raw and save the two files - then merge... but actually, I've found that messing with the 'clarify' function even with a single image can produce some interesting results.

Thanks for the before and after pics. Nothing wrong with the before pic, but the “clarifying” has definitely made a difference.

[Stigmundfreud]

miniman said:

Stigmundfreud said:

for every 1 good HDR theres about 96^125 st ones. Now thats big numbers

But surely a glance at Facebook and even Flickr to some extent will tell you that this is no different to photography in general?

Not really. The issue is that whilst the myriad of st photos (of which I contribute to) get the recognition they deserve = none, if you so much as sense a whiff of hdr its "Oh MY GOD THATS LIKE SO AMAZING"

et voila http://www.new.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=1...

typical response "cool shots indeed"

The best example was used by mr Dickinson and his shot of Dick Lovett in Bristol only he used multiple exposures and then blended rather than HDR. I see your point about groups such as Hit Miss or Maybe etc and like the OP's love of HDR I too was adicted to hdr and such stty scoring groups for about 2 minutes before I soon realised its nothing more than turd polishing.

Even that shot hat Carters put up I'd say could be done without hdr

We'll soon have 24bit sensors anyway so HDR will be no longer required, even the new 5dMK2 captures a much wider colour range thankst to its new processor

[miniman]

I don't think Facebook is an appropriate place to post quality photos nor to discuss them, frankly. Flickr is another story, but it has been devalued slightly by the takeover by Yahoo which has left it stuck somewhere between a photography site and a bulk image storage resource. Which is a shame IMHO but isn't that always the way when Yahoo get involved.

Anyway, I like HDR when it adds something, but as you say when it's overused to recover generally poor shots it is getting a touch tiresome.

What do you think of this one, for example:

[Stigmundfreud]

I dont want to ruin your Sunday

[miniman]

Stigmundfreud said:

I dont want to ruin your Sunday

No, go on...