HDR's? Whats the point?

[linpelk]

I personally don't care for the looks of HDR's. They remind me too much of Thomas Kinkade paintings for some reason..

 

[ann]

many of the images you all are referring to here, have been toned mapped to death.

There are many times when blending multi exposures together can be an important tool and if done properly are terrific.

Tone mapping can be a part of the HDR work flow or it can be disregarded.

 

[SrBiscuit]

couldn't have put it any better myself

agreed, and i imagine he's totally unfamiliar with how to produce a nice looking HDR.

chris, those examples you posted are fantastic...it defnitely displays how a well done HDR can enhance an image.

 

[GwagDesigns]

I'm always amazed scanning all the HDR type images on DeviantART, there are a ton of amazing examples to be seen there as well, it does take a while to master the skill and even once your good, you can expect to take a long time to create a single image

deviantART: where ART meets application!

 

[Enough Already]

I think the effect of HDR comes down to personal choice. To me, it should not look like HDR. It should be done to a point that the under exposed areas are brightened just enough to get the detail and likewise for the over exposed. As soon as you start over saturating the colors, I think its over done. On the other end of the scale, some of the images that look like they have been painted, I like that too as its beyong the point of recovering the details in over and under exposed areas and becomes something totally different. Again, its a personal preference.

 

[Mgw189]

many of the images you all are referring to here, have been toned mapped to death.

There are many times when blending multi exposures together can be an important tool and if done properly are terrific.

Tone mapping can be a part of the HDR work flow or it can be disregarded.

Uhhh if you are using Photomatix Tone Mapping can not be skipped if you wish to actually see an HDR image. At least I havent found a way to do it using photomatix I suppose maybe that is a feature of Photoshop or something I dont know though.

 

[ann]

i use photomatic and have just blended the exposure without tonemapping and/or tonemapped as well.

Perhaps i wasn't using it correctly but i can see the difference in the shadows and the highlights


on the other hand i have also used the tonemapping feature along with at least 5 different exposures and was happy with the results.

 

[Lyncca]

Here is one that I did that you most definately have to use HDR. I was in the dark end of a cavern and shot this. It still isn't the BEST quality due to my camera (I had to manually bracket 5 shots, which caused quite a delay between them - movement), but HDR for sure had to be used.

I also don't like the radioactive look, but sometimes I do like to push the image a bit to go for more of an artistic look. I still need to go try to rework this yet again - I want it to be as natural as possible, but I would rather go back and reshoot it first.

Otherwise, the best you would get would resemble something like these:
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg314/jh1882/Hamilton%20Pool/HamiltonPool039.jpg

 

[Enough Already]

Here is one that I did that you most definately have to use HDR. I was in the dark end of a cavern and shot this. It still isn't the BEST quality due to my camera (I had to manually bracket 5 shots, which caused quite a delay between them - movement), but HDR for sure had to be used.

I also don't like the radioactive look, but sometimes I do like to push the image a bit to go for more of an artistic look. I still need to go try to rework this yet again - I want it to be as natural as possible, but I would rather go back and reshoot it first.

Otherwise, the best you would get would resemble something like these:
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg314/jh1882/Hamilton Pool/HamiltonPool039.jpg

Very nice Lyncca. I just think its important to try to replicate as close as possible, what the eye sees. If parts of the scene are a little dark to the eye, then I think its fine to have the image that way. The objective of any photo is to show the person looking at it what it was like to be there. Lyncca, was the underside of this cavern that bright or was it a little darker?? I dont think you have gone too far with this one, but if the ceiling of that cavern was that bright due to the reflection of the water, then I think you nailed it, but only you can attest to that.

 

[rufus5150]

The objective of any photo is to show the person looking at it what it was like to be there.

I think that objective is pretty subjective.

 

[NateWagner]

I would agree. besides who is to say what it is like to be there.

I would argue that the point of a photo is to present it the photo as you see it, or as you would like to see it... of course that is a different argument for a different thread.

 

[Enough Already]

I think that objective is pretty subjective.

I knew I should have worded that a little differently.

 

[Lyncca]

It was darker, but you could still see all the detail, where you wouldn't have been able to capture that without HDR.

As for what is important in the image, it is up to the person capturing it I think. Sometimes I want to make "art" and other times I want to represent exactly how it looked. People have different preferences and I even have different moods that dictate what I want to create.

That is what makes photography fun