A True HDR photo " The

[HughGuessWho]

Wow. The details in that wooden shutter is AMAZING!!

BTW, I will take no side, however, I say, it's your recipe.... cook it as long as you want.

 

[rexbobcat]

I like the lines, organization, and shadows. Very neat.
But I do agree. I would hate to have this forum filled with just this type of HDR.

What fun would that be? I mean it's not like people in other galleries here go "sorry dude, your landscape's horizon is crooked. Take that crap somewhere else. We have standards here."

 

[SCraig]

There are two distinctly different schools of thought as to how HDR is presented. One is the traditional use for HDR in generating images with higher dynamic range than is achievable with a camera alone. The second is the garish oversaturated treatment. While they may share the same roots and the same software they are as different in technique as film is to digital. In my opinion they should be in different forum areas because they are radically different uses of a similar technique.

Personally, I do have an interest in HDR when it is used to improve dynamic range but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever for that "Other" treatment (I don't even know what it is called). I would enjoy seeing true HDR renderings but not if I have to constantly wade through neon cars and green sunsets to see them. I would personally love to see the HDR forum split into two areas of interest so that they didn't butt heads and everyone could pursue their own interests.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

I love the image you posted, but I have a feeling this thread will not end well...

lmao

 

[Steve5D]

If doing a "true" HDR is so time consuming, I have to believe that it wouldn't enjoy a lot of postings, and the postings it would have would be from the same people.

Now that would be boring...

 

[EDL]

There are two distinctly different schools of thought as to how HDR is presented. One is the traditional use for HDR in generating images with higher dynamic range than is achievable with a camera alone. The second is the garish oversaturated treatment. While they may share the same roots and the same software they are as different in technique as film is to digital. In my opinion they should be in different forum areas because they are radically different uses of a similar technique.

Personally, I do have an interest in HDR when it is used to improve dynamic range but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever for that "Other" treatment (I don't even know what it is called). I would enjoy seeing true HDR renderings but not if I have to constantly wade through neon cars and green sunsets to see them. I would personally love to see the HDR forum split into two areas of interest so that they didn't butt heads and everyone could pursue their own interests.

I understand where SCraig is going with this, but to me it's no different than wading through all the photos in the General category and seeing everything from totally blown out crap to the OMG, that's awesome shots. The title alone gives no clue as to how good, or bad the photo is and in fact, what is "good" and what is "bad" is really a subjective opinion anyway.

If we're going toward some kind of "vote" thing here, my vote is to leave it as is. It seems we can't even agree on what is or isn't HDR to begin with. If anything I'd rather see a new category for "Tone Mapped" images for super saturated single shot, non-HDR images.

 

[fjrabon]

I've only ever heard one person who only referred to manually multiple exposure blended images as HDR. I've talked to hundreds and hundreds of photographers who consider photomatix type pictures to be HDR.

Sure, I agree that images that have only been tone mapped shouldn't be called HDR, but saying an image that has been created from multiple exposures but also tone mapped shouldn't be in this forum is just absurd. This forum basically would serve no purpose other than to satisfy one poster's weird obsession. Because I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen people manually blend exposures on here.

Funny thing is, I do it all the time for my real estate work (my agents want as realistic as possible). Op did a very good job. But yeah, it's really time consuming to do it this way. Especially if you use more than three exposures. Requiring that this be the type of HDR that this forum is for would essentially kill the HDR forum. And the processed or whatever you want to call it forum would take over.

Making this only be for this type of image would like having a tilt shift only gallery. Completely pointless because so few people shoot tilt shift.

 

[Bynx]

While Vip may have used Photoshop layers to create this image, the use of Photomatix is much more sensible to use, since its a time saver. Teaching people to use it to create an HDR image is preferred over having them use it to create images which arent HDR and posting them here. SCraig is absolutely right and there should be another thread where images that dont follow the definition of HDR should be posted there. Whats wrong with making that split if some dont want to wallow through the crap to see a good image? Its not preventing the crap from being seen, its just keeping it together for you guys that like that stuff, myself included. But at least I would know what I can expect when I open one thread or the other and choose which I want to look at. Im not interested in looking at cats, and I dont think cats should be posted in the HDR forum. And seeing cats there is just as wrong as seeing the crap there. A place for everything and everything in its place. Simple.

 

[Steve5D]

If anything I'd rather see a new category for "Tone Mapped" images for super saturated single shot, non-HDR images.

I would welcome the creation of such a forum...

 

[Steve5D]

Im not interested in looking at cats, and I dont think cats should be posted in the HDR forum. And seeing cats there is just as wrong as seeing the crap there. A place for everything and everything in its place. Simple.

What if the image of the cat is an HDR image?

Its inclusion in the HDR forum would not only be appropriate, but would fit the stringent guidelines by which you wish others would post...

 

[fjrabon]

What is the definition of HDR?

You keep talking like it's some firm, neat box. If the saturation levels have at all been increased, is that no longer a TRUE HDR? If it's been sharpened? Both those have additional processing past simply blending the exposures. According to you, that would make them no longer TRUE HDR.

What about images where the shadows have been dodged and the highlights burned for more detail?

At some point you're going to have to create arbitrary lines, that nobody would ever follow. Every photographer I know would call both a multiexposure and tone mapped image an HDR image, and they would call what's in the OP a HDR image.

And just because other techniques have also been performed doesn't make it not HDR. If it has been created from multiple exposures to give a greater than normally possible dynamic range, then it's HDR. Regardless of what else happens after the fact. That is way more simple than have like 3 different galleries according to your arbitrary definitions of what amount of processing is too much to qualify as TRUE HDR. A place for everything and everything in its place is not simple when it creates like 30 galleries, with stringent, yet arbitrary lines for what goes in it.

I'm also sure that the moderators and site managers don't want 21039847239845 different galleries that make all these absurd qualifications. I mean realistically people don't even post in the correct forum half the time now, when they're relatively simply and broadly categorized. You see HDR in general, you see street photography in landscape, etc. Can you imagine if we had 3 separate galleries for tone mapped only, TRUE HDR and whatever else is in between that?

You do realize you're the old man shaking his fist at the clouds, right?

 

[dandaluzphotography]

You do realize you're the old man shaking his fist at the clouds, right?

I hate appear to instigate, but this line is classic. lmao.

Also, that's a great description of what HDR is. I agree totally. Thanks!

 

[Compaq]

What I'm interesting in knowing, is where people place their "natural/surreal" line. I've had comments that much of my HDR shots (tonemapped) are overdone, yet I disagree. I consider some subjects to "need" a little more heavy processing, for me to truly like them. The thread I made with the digger, for example.


Gravemaskin 3 r by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


It wouldn't be the same if I aimed for a realistic look in PM, or manually blended the exposures. Then there's landscaping. I prefer these to be more natural, yet not "boringly" natural, for example:


Valen og tre r by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

and


Sola bak regnbogen 1 by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr



Overdone is a relative concept, in my personal opinion. The processing in the digger shot wouldn't be very nice for a landscape, but I think it works for the digger shot. At least that's the way I think.

No matter how you process, there should be a checklist in your mind. Check for halos, check for ghosting, check for weird tonal value relationships (shadow area lighter than nearby non-shadow area, for example). Just making sure these aren't present, would result in a better picture, even if the processing might be over the top for the subject. That's what most beginners fail on, in terms of processing.

Not quite sure if this is relevant to the thread, but those are the thoughts I sat with after reading.

 

[Steve5D]

Personally, when it comes to HDR and tone-mapping (two things which I consider related), I lean towards a preference for a heavier edit as opposed to a lighter edit.

Throw 'em in the oven an' let 'em cook!

Of course, anything can be done too often but, if something's done well, I'll look at it all day long.

Oh, and that photo of the digger is just sick. I don't care if it's the result of tone-mapping, HDR, or conjuring up a spell with chicken bones, blood and spit, it's dynamite...

 

[Bynx]

Its clear what HDR is. Its because you think it isnt clear is the problem here. An image made up of TWO or MORE images taken with different shutter speeds so the total dynamic range is greater than either of the shots with which it is made. If the processing is done with some finesse then you end up with a great image which should look better than any single image taken of the scene. Any further processing in Photoshop, which is always necessary after going through Photomatix, to improve the clarity, sharpness, or saturation of color is just part of the process. I guess the problem we have is trying to split what is just poorly processed versus what is processed for some output which is not so much HDR as a creation by the OP. Its those 'creations' like Vips chilli truck that should be in their own folder. Meanwhile HDR images that are just poorly processed can get the info on how to process them properly. To give out that info it would be nice to have a standard practice of posting the middle shot along with the HDR image so everyone can see where it started from. Im guilty for not doing this, but its always a good idea, especially for those that say the image doesnt look like an HDR, or that HDR processing wasnt necessary.

Anders, you know Im a big fan of your processing. But relative to a 'clean' HDR image that isnt 'overcooked' those images would go to the Tone Mapped folder. And that folder isnt a bad place. Its just a different place and would be in company with similar images put there by people with similar interest.