HDR Sucks!!!

[JG_Coleman]

The HDR images you say are less than awesome have little to do with the photographic skills of the operator, but visual skills using the software. That could be attributable to a badly calibrated monitor or more likely poor computer skills. I wonder how many people agree with your last statement about practicing photography more and using software less. For me taking the picture is just the first step. What I decide to do with it is where the fun starts. Id like to think of it as a 50-50 partnership between my photographic and software skills. All fun for me. My results arent always pleasing to others, or even to me. But I have fun trying and always pushing the envelope. I dont think anyone will ever become famous as an HDR photographer because there are so many of us. Some will be more consistent in creating awesome shots while others will remain mediocre to terrible. But no small handful will become famous because the software is too readily available so there is no mystery in the beauty of a well done HDR shot. Both the photographic and software skills will shine through on some. And they should be recognized.

i have to agree with you 100% bynx. taking the pic is fun...as fun as figuring out what im going to do with it later and exciting to think of what the outcome might look like.
the pics that i have that i like the best are the ones where ive spent time manipulating them. many of the pics in my stream have tonal changes, film effects, etc...some are more subtle, but some are heavy handed. ive never taken a picture and said "perfect...it's done". i always want to add what i think will really make it pop. some may think that means im less of a photog than a designer, but i like to believe that i have a fair balance of both. im my biggest fan. :blushing:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having fun with HDR, of course. But if, in the process of having fun, you make some arguably terrible HDR photos... you're work may just wind up on an internet webpage (similar to the one posted by the OP) that cites your photograph as an example of how terrible HDRs can be. That's all...

Clearly... that still doesn't really constitute a good reason to hate the HDR technique altogether... but for people that are just out looking for an excuse to hate HDR, the terrible beginner HDRs fit the bill.

It's an issue of context. We are still in the midst of a drastic shift in the field of photography from film to digital. The vast range of digital effects, touch-ups, and corrections that are possible these days still have yet to be entirely accepted by that portion of the public that have strong views on photography that were influenced by past decades of experience (or principles inspired by those decades).

All relatively new techniques in any kind of visual art form tend to come up against a whole lot of resistance in the beginning. It's really part and parcel to how society "regulates" its artistic traditions. There's a certain "gauntlet" that new approaches must endure to ensure that not just any wacky, nonsense "technique" is allowed to dilute the overall quality of society's art. If a technique makes it through those tough, introductory years with enough unwavering support in the face of adversity... then, in a sense, it has cleared the gauntlet.

HDR looks like it will survive, prevail, and eventually be more widely accepted in the future... but it's not really through the gauntlet yet. Harsh criticisms are still to be expected.

 

[SrBiscuit]

i agree with you there too. and perhaps i should have prefaced with the fact that i dont do HDR...i was speaking just in general terms of processing.

i think the statement "shit in...shit out" holds true.
no amount of processing with save a garbage photo.

 

[ann]

the phase garbage photo brings back a memory. i was at a workshop for capture nx2, the young man from Nikon said the following, this is great software; however, it can't turn a cow pattie into a good photo, it can make a good photo better, and a terrfic photo , great.

I thought, how honest of him, because it has been my experience that a lot of folks think pp will turn anything into great "art" (please don't let PP know i said that )

 

[Bynx]

*Ahem* there are a lot of people with camers. But few photographers.

/fin

By definition A photographer, from the Greek φωτός, "light" and γράφω, "I write", is a person who takes photographs using a camera. A professional photographer uses photography to earn money whilst amateur photographers take photographs for pleasure and to record an event, emotion, place, or person.

So whether you like some people's efforts or not if they took a picture with a camera they are the photographer of that picture. Now if you said few PROFESSIONAL photographers I would have to agree with you. And unless you take consistent pictures that others wish to purchase then you are a hack like the rest of us, hopefully, striving to always be better.

JG Coleman -- thats a good point of the gauntlet. The whole revolution of film to digital has been a big issue the same as analogue sound to digital. In the beginning there were purists who said digital sound is no good and cant dupicate analogue. Well how much analogue is there floating around these days? In the printing industry the jump from continuous tone film/haltone to digital was thought at first not to fly. People wouldnt accept the inferior quality of digital images in print. Well price considerations made people accept the lower quality, which rose fairly quickly as the pixel count of cameras got better. The point is that there are always going to be people who will talk down about the new ways of doing things. Its these people that form the gautlet. They are the sand in the ointment that prevents smooth transition. But they are a minor irritant if you just ignore them and do your own thing. HDR is not only not going away, but cameras are coming out with an HDR feature.

And finally while HDR wont make a terrific picture from a lousy one, it has many times made an interesting picture from a boring one. The sheer clarity, and almost 3D quality of a well done HDR makes looking at the otherwise boring scene interesting to look at. Ive often seen pictures here that were very boring, but looked so touchable that it was nice to just look at the processing done. Now replace that boring sandy beach shot with an interesting scene that really shines after HDR treatment and thats a picture you can hang on any wall.

 

[AverageJoe]

HDR looks like it will survive, prevail, and eventually be more widely accepted in the future... but it's not really through the gauntlet yet. Harsh criticisms are still to be expected.

I think all new emerging mediums go through this, think of what the painting community thought of what early photographers were doing? I know it's a stretch but the concepts are similar.

 

[skieur]

The HDR images you say are less than awesome have little to do with the photographic skills of the operator, but visual skills using the software. That could be attributable to a badly calibrated monitor or more likely poor computer skills. I wonder how many people agree with your last statement about practicing photography more and using software less. For me taking the picture is just the first step. What I decide to do with it is where the fun starts. Id like to think of it as a 50-50 partnership between my photographic and software skills. All fun for me. My results arent always pleasing to others, or even to me. But I have fun trying and always pushing the envelope. I dont think anyone will ever become famous as an HDR photographer because there are so many of us. Some will be more consistent in creating awesome shots while others will remain mediocre to terrible. But no small handful will become famous because the software is too readily available so there is no mystery in the beauty of a well done HDR shot. Both the photographic and software skills will shine through on some. And they should be recognized.

I take the view that photographic skills and software skills are strongly integrated together. Visual skills are transferable. You need to recognize photgraphically that the colour balance is off, before you start adjusting it with software and you need to know the correct colour in order to know when to stop adjusting. That is both a photographic and software skill.

You need to recognize visually that there was more detail and less strong shadows in the scene that you shot versus the digital image before you can start adjusting it in software....and of course again you need the visual skills to know when to stop.

HDR is just one technique for working with an image. The challenge with this or any other technique is to make the technique invisible and the shot appear natural.

skieur

 

[Derrel]

Pretty funny article the OP referred us to. HDR does attract a lot of Digital Adams, looking to create silk purses out of sows' ears. Of course, that always results in a miserable FAIL! Occasionally though, somebody will photograph a scene that's good enough a source to create an HDR-type photo that has some real merit.

 

[Bynx]

Pretty funny article the OP referred us to. HDR does attract a lot of Digital Adams, looking to create silk purses out of sows' ears. Of course, that always results in a miserable FAIL! Occasionally though, somebody will photograph a scene that's good enough a source to create an HDR-type photo that has some real merit.

That can be said of every technique besides HDR. Havent you ever taken a lousy shot and thought it could be 'fixed' if it was in B&W or sepia or cropped or some plugin used, etc. Im amazed that HDR and the users are centered out in particular and that HDR is considered by the ignorant as a means to cover up a lack of photographic skills. I dont think HDR has ever made a photo look worse than its original untouched image. On the contrary, I have seen boring shots that looked interesting by the application of HDR. What HDR does for me is make me think whether I want to take a single shot of the scene or multiple exposures. Later I can decide what approach I will take. Its nice to have the option.

 

[Derrel]

Pretty funny article the OP referred us to. HDR does attract a lot of Digital Adams, looking to create silk purses out of sows' ears. Of course, that always results in a miserable FAIL! Occasionally though, somebody will photograph a scene that's good enough a source to create an HDR-type photo that has some real merit.

That can be said of every technique besides HDR. Havent you ever taken a lousy shot and thought it could be 'fixed' if it was in B&W or sepia or cropped or some plugin used, etc. Im amazed that HDR and the users are centered out in particular and that HDR is considered by the ignorant as a means to cover up a lack of photographic skills. I dont think HDR has ever made a photo look worse than its original untouched image. On the contrary, I have seen boring shots that looked interesting by the application of HDR. What HDR does for me is make me think whether I want to take a single shot of the scene or multiple exposures. Later I can decide what approach I will take. Its nice to have the option.

Answer: NO....if I want B&W I shoot in B&W in-camera. I do not use "plug-ins". None. If a shot I do is crap, I do not try and salvage it...I do not shoot that way...I'm not interested in "digital photography", but in straight photography.

If you've never seen an HDR attempt that was worse than the original image, you haven't seen the same hack work I have seen...

A crap shot is always a crap shot. Garbage in, garbage out. Many HDR practitioners are newbies who are enthralled with the technology,and try and put garbage in and come up with something decent. There are a **handful** of HDR photos I have seen that have been good, but the majority are as cliche and boring as the old sabattier effect (aka 'solarization' of the 1970's...

 

[Bynx]

I stand behind my statement that HDR is always an improvement over any of the shots which made it up. What you are calling bad HDR is actually bad Tone Mapping. I agree Ive seen many images that looked like they were done by blind monkeys let loose in a paint factory.
Im curious about something Derrel. You, being interested in straight photography, not interested in digital photography? Never use plugins? You actually shoot B&W in camera? Do you still shoot with film? If not, why not? Why are you in the HDR section? Shouldnt you be in your darkroom processing your prints? Ive spent many an hour in the darkroom and thoroughly enjoyed it. But not nearly as much as when Im in my digital darkroom with Photoshop doing things I could only dream of in the film world. You are really missing out on a lot. I hope for your sake you can climb down off your high horse and enter the digital world and enjoy yourself. I honestly dont know anyone who is proud to be able to just point and click.

 

[manaheim]

You don't "fix" an image by making it an HDR, any more than you do by making it black and white. If an image is suitable to HDR, a skilled photographer will identify that at the point of capture and has every inention of execution on that treatment during processing.

In these cases, the HDR image was never intended to be anything else.

For those images that appear to be "fixed" by HDR, all that really happened is the photographer realized after the fact that the image should have been hdr in the first place.

HDR isn't "liquid awesome". You can't just pour it all over image and make it better. You can pour it over any image and give it more dynamic range, sure... but dynamic range alone does not an good photo make.

 

[Bynx]

Well what's a good photo? What's a bad photo? If there is an image, its somewhat in focus, and its got enough light to see something, some are going to consider that a good photo. I keep hearing that you cant "fix" a bad photo with HDR. Well what the hell does a bad photo look like? Ive seen lots of photos I thought were bad. The same photos others thought were good. So who is it here who is deciding whats good or bad? I have seen lately quite a few images that I thought were very boring to look at, until the HDR was applied and they became very interesting to look around at to see the clarity and detail -- clarity and detail of an otherwise boring scene.

Some might find this interesting
Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More Blog Archive Special Friday Guest Post: How HDR Saved RC’s Star Wars Celebration

 

[manaheim]

A "good" photograph is obviously pretty hard to define, but they are pretty easy to call out when you see them.

There is some amount of "what people like" involved in each interpretation... there are photographs that I know aren't great, but I still love them... there are photos that I know are great, and I don't care for them.

That, however, is the subjective element of art... it isn't, however, an interpretation of execution of the image so much as whether or not something about the image appeals to someone.

I would suggest that may well be the case with you adoration of things HDR. Details, colors, and things you cannot usually see in photos really appeals to you on some level... regardless of whether or not the subject or composition is good.

 

[Bynx]

Bingo. I finally agree with you.

 

[manaheim]

Someone mark it on a calendar!