HDR is overused?

pm63 · Apr 16, 2008

It seems that the way to take a good photo these days is to take 700 exposures, never mind the composition or other factors because the end result is guaranteed to be good, pile them up in your favourite image editing application, play around with the sliders to get a ridiculous cartoony/artificial look, bang on a load of vingetting and export. Are single exposures in decline?

I have nothing against dabbling with a little HDR, but I notice now there are some photographers who use it exclusively, as opposed to single exposures. It seems that due to the cool effect they give, anyone with a bit of Photoshop knowledge can be a great photographer.

I acknowledge that it does take skill to find a HDR suitable subject and there is a difference between a good and a bad HDR, but there is no doubt that it is easier to make a photo look good with HDR than a single exposure, due to the cool effect it gives, which is why I respect the work of photographers such as landscaper David Noton, who uses his trusty ND grad's to get most of the effects he wants.

Is HDR overused and how do you respect "HDR-only" photographers in relation to "normal" ones?

ScottS · Apr 16, 2008

Its a new thing for most people. They are just playing with it. Overused? I say no. Overplayed with? Yea, probably.

ScottS · Apr 16, 2008

*edit* accidental double post.

RMThompson · Apr 16, 2008

I think I am going to start a form post, that I will copy and paste from now on:

HDR/Selective Coloring/Filters/Lens Babies/black and white, are all tools that used in the right circumstances can benefit certain photographs. However, these tools are often misused, and while not overused per se, have been used poorly.

Garbz · Apr 17, 2008

I would say that it's currently being missused. This subject relates mainly to personal opinion and I am biased because I don't like the look of about 99% of the HDRs out there. Either go all out and make it an artistic wonder, or make it so subtle that people would not recognise it as a HDR.

I think it's over used incorrectly and kills many otherwise good photos.

FitzTML · Apr 17, 2008

When I first saw an HDR image I thought it was cool. Now it seems like a gimmick or crutch. It kinda reminds me of the music remix some years back (slightly before the iPod hit) it became popular, everyone had Acid to mix and loop their favorite songs. some people did a good job, a lot of it was awful.

I think HDR will find it's way, mature and evolve in the years to come. CGI took some time to evolve (and it still is). CGI can go artistic like Pixar, or realistic like a lot of summer movies. I think HDR will find niches too.

abraxas · Apr 17, 2008

HDR is a reasonably complex process. Getting them right would take a lot of practice. Therefore, you're probably going to see results of a lot of learning.

Once photographers get a handle on it, I think it will make quite a difference in the norm.

Technology changes- what are you going to do- Beat 'em all up?

fightheheathens · Apr 17, 2008

when people first started photoshopping stuff, people said the same thing.

im sure when color film came out, people thought it was tacky and over used and B&W film was the only truly artistic photography...
and im sure painters said the same thing when film first started to become and artistic medium

EOS_JD · Apr 17, 2008

Garbz said:
I would say that it's currently being missused. This subject relates mainly to personal opinion and I am biased because I don't like the look of about 99% of the HDRs out there. Either go all out and make it an artistic wonder, or make it so subtle that people would not recognise it as a HDR.

I think it's over used incorrectly and kills many otherwise good photos.

I agree....

nicfargo · Apr 17, 2008

It definately has it's place. I think it's overused when it ruins an otherwise great photo...but that's all opinion so it's really not something we can quantify and measure.

Dubious Drewski · Apr 17, 2008

I think this issue will become increasingly important as camera sensors increase in dynamic range. I have no doubt in my mind that eventually, sensors will have a dynamic range equal to or beyond the human eye - creating "HDR" shots right out of the camera. I don't think this is a bad thing, because I'm sure it will be look much more natural than the faked and stitched HDR images we see now. It just has to look more natural, because that's how our eyes see the world.

This is a prediction that I am making now: Once these super sensors become available and popular, a new feature will appear on cameras allowing you to put an upper and lower limit on the dynamic range(Will probably be a colour space option or something). This would allow you to emulate the "limited" ranges of film or current DSLRs. I'd bet all the money in my bank on that one.

rmh159 · Apr 19, 2008

I think what's being over-used is the opinion people can take a crap photo and load it into a PC and miraculously make a beautiful one, HDR or otherwise.

Wozza · Apr 20, 2008

I think HDR can enhance a good photo. If the composition is bad, the subject is uninteresting ect, there is no way HDR can 'save' the image. It's like how some people say you can turn an image B&W if it doesn't work.

I use HDR for some things, but I think as long as the picture doesn't look 'photoshop' then it's cool. Sometimes HDR is the best way to get a realistic capture.

Bigcity · Apr 20, 2008

I don't think it's overused - although I do see it used on photos that don't benefit from it whatsoever.
My main beef with it is when people who don't know what HDR is or does compare a pic of yours to a HDR one and think yours in so bland and their's is amazing.

JerryPH · Apr 20, 2008

My biggest laugh is whenever someone says "look at what my camera can do"... and its a picture that is so HEAVILY photoshoped and HDRed that it is unrecognzeable.

Is HDR overused? I don't know and could not care less. We are each free to explore whatever path we wish in this wonderful hobby. If one wishes to saturate themselves with nothing but HDR, feel free to do so. Same for any other post processing technique or any other form of expression that exists out there.

I don't see HDR being used any more or less than any other form of post processing.

In the end, as was mentioned, no amount of picture manipulation is going to make a crappy picture into gold. The primary control still and always shall reside in the eye, finger AND brain of the person weilding the camera.