have u noticed an over use of HDR?

just x joey · Jan 30, 2007

man, i lookd in flicker at photos tagged HDR, some of them are horrofic, so many people are over using this feature

newrmdmike · Jan 30, 2007

yes . . . its prolly a fad, give it a couple years and maybe the s hity ones will be gone

Steph · Jan 30, 2007

Could it be the new selective colouring?

ksmattfish · Jan 30, 2007

just x joey said:
have u noticed an over use of HDR?

No more than any other photo fads: over-saturation, under-saturation, duotone, vignette, soft focus, selective coloring, etc....

Arch · Jan 30, 2007

well you'll probably find an 'over use' of pretty much any technique on flicker. I do find some people use it when its not necessary.... thats the only thing that bugs me about it... but then alot of people are also just experimenting with HDR, so you cant really blame them.

Personally i think its all in the processing... iv done a few HDRI's where its only used to enhance the image slightly... or in a certain area... where as it can be used in an OTT way.... the same as sharpening, or the shadow/highlight tool.... subtlety is the key for me.

LaFoto · Jan 30, 2007

Too true, Matt, yet another fad, but I still hope to at least find out one day how to do HDR photos, and then I will try it, like I tried selective colouring once I had learned how to do it, only to find out that you best only use it very, very rarely, and I will be happy to know how to do it!

For some it is also a style they have chosen for themselves.
Chaq'un à son goût - may everyone be happy with what their own taste tells them...

burtharrris · Jan 30, 2007

Sorry, what is HDR?

c_mac · Jan 30, 2007

burtharrris said:
Sorry, what is HDR?

HDR is High Dynamic Range. Basically, you use either photoshop or equivalent software to combine (usually) 3 or more photos. Each of a different exposure of the same exact image. Doing this achieves a 32-bit image. which is much greater than the standard 8 bit and lesser common 16-bit.

the process is rather simple, but achieving a correct and nice looking image is more difficult and time-consuming. but this method is wonderful for outdoor/landscape shots. but as everyone said, it has its place and for me its not in every single photo...just my .02 there

burtharrris · Jan 30, 2007

Ohhhh ok. I think i saw that in a magazine once. Something about that's the way our eyes actually see things...

Anyone have an example picture I could see?

Thanks!

Arch · Jan 31, 2007

burtharrris said:
Anyone have an example picture I could see?

Thanks!

Put HDR in the search function at the top of the forum.... you should find plenty of images and info

ksmattfish · Jan 31, 2007

HDR means combining 3 or more bracketed exposures into a single photograph that has a dynamic range greater than is possible in a single exposure.

The "HDR look" that people are talking about is local contrast adjustment. Not all HDR images have this look, nor is HDR the only way to achieve the look.

Local contrast is comparing the lightness and darkness of a specific area of the image. As an example, take a BW photo of a face. If the lighting is soft and even, and maybe a little low, it wouldn't be uncommon for the whites of the eyes and the teeth to be almost the same gray tone as the skin of the face. If I go in and make the eyes and teeth as white as we imagine they are, it's way too much, and looks strange and unnatural. If I just lighten them just enough that they are a noticably lighter gray than the surrounding skin it will look more natural to the viewer, although if I use editing software to measure the tone, it may seem very dark from the tone I might imagine that teeth and eyes are.

Here are some examples of local contrast.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelson_check_shadow/index.html

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_contrast-contrast/index.html

This is a HDR image created from seven exposures. I don't think it looks like what people have come to think of as HDR, because I didn't go crazy on the local contrast.

Here's a borderline example. The local contrast manipulations are more noticable in the small, online version than a full sized print.

This shot was taken in heavy shade. Exposing for the couple I'd blow out the far background and sky. Expose for the sky, and the couple are a silhouette.

The use of heavy local contrast manipulation may be faddish right now because tone mapping software makes it easy to do, and people get a kick out of it ( me too! ), but painters have been using it for centuries, and I'm sure photographers will figure it out how to use it effectively too. HDR as a tool is stunningly powerful. It means that as long as my subject is suitable to take at least 3 exposures of the exact same composition, I can go way beyond the normal dynamic range limitations of my film or sensor.

I agree that in many cases it is overused, or not used effectively. But then again 90% of everything tends to be crap, newfangled or not. Once upon a time color photography was a cheesy fad.

(Ghastly) Krueger · Jan 31, 2007

Does anybody know if it can be done with PS elements?

JonnyVPA · Jan 31, 2007

do you think its possible to do HDR with film.... i dont know anything about it .. but if you can do it with film, i might be interested in experimenting with it

Arch · Jan 31, 2007

(Ghastly) Krueger said:
Does anybody know if it can be done with PS elements?

the 'merge to HDR' command is not in elements.

JonnyVPA said:
do you think its possible to do HDR with film.... i dont know anything about it .. but if you can do it with film, i might be interested in experimenting with it

it can be done with film... you can increase dynamic range in a number of ways anyway (without using the new software merge function).... but it will probably work with scans of the same scene at different exposures too.