Is it wrong..

[lyonsroar]

...to use HDR techniques if they are technically not called for in a given situation? I use HDR not only because the dynamic range in a scene is too large, but also because I like the way HDR looks. I'm assuming I am not alone in like HDR pictures.

I see people posting in the HDR discussion area things like: "HDR was not really called for in this situation" and "why did you HDR that scene, there was no reason to."

Is this just another case of "haters gonna hate."

Flame suit ON!

EDIT: 100th POST! YAY!

 

[Overread35]

To quote Chiller:

""My Camera , My Vision, My Rules""

 

[AnthonyB]

Yea at the end of the day the pics are still on your computer :thumbup:

 

[Abby Rose]

Nope, do what you want. They're your photos, if they make you happy then keep doing what youre doing, HDR included.

 

[burgo]

If that's what you like doing then go for it.

 

[jake337]

Or they may say those things when a photograph might look better without HDR.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

There is always the argument of art verses technical precision. I can shoot a wedding reception dance on a slow shutter speed and blur a whole room full of people dancing in candlelight. It would be a really cool looking shot with artistic value, but many people may say "I hate the blur, I would prefer a much more technical approach of freezing the movement more for a more in focus shot"

So like others said, do as you like if it makes you happy and I am sure you will always find people that like that as well, but if you are going to ask for opinions and advice, they will vary widely. However, being that I think much of the advice on this forum is geared more towards a more straightforward useable photo, you get more people leaning towards the purist approach. Hence the loathing for surreal HDR, overly saturated pics, wierd photoshop actions, and selective coloring.

One thing I will add though, surreal HDR has become sort of a novelty. The odds of you walking into a photography gallery and seeing some super surreal Photomatix tone mapped shot hanging is probably slim unless the wierd processing really adds something unique to the shot in a modern art sort of way. So with that said, again, I think this is why most people on here try to steer you away from that into a more tame territory, because in the long run, artistically, it will probably serve you much better. Once again, you can always do whatever makes you happy though.

 

[adversus]

Art is subjective.

Personally, HDR is cool if used properly, and not used to make every image like you are on an acid trip. A little bit goes a long way.

 

[ann]

the question is really imho, why use HDR for a scene that has a contrast range that the sensor can capture?

If you like the tonemapping effect then go right ahead and tonemapp away

 

[RobNZ]

Most of the images I have posted in the last 2 weeks or so are HDR images, and most have been tone mapped/edited in a way to try and keep them as true to life as I can get them, and if that isnt good enough because the light wasnt all that good to begin with it gets more photohopping, more than the usual levels curves, saturation, sharpening. Which I think is the whole point, HDR got tarred with the surrealistic brush by some folks and that has put alot of people off them.

HDR works for me because not only do I have the "correct" exposure anyway, but I have much more control in how the final image can be adjusted, its kinda like comparing a freshly opened beer to one that has been poured and left sitting on the bar to get warm and flat for an hour or so, you can still taste the beer, but it wont have the fizz, aroma, bite, or the refreshing thirst quenching ability, but it's still a beer.

Remember the composition is exactly the same as a non-HDR image, but an HDR image gives you much more control in how the final image can look.

But then again HDR images also take a whole lot more work post to really bring them to life and they are not usually suitable for scenes with movement.

As someone said above, its my camera, my scene and my vision.

Scarily though, the images on flickr that seem to get the most views and comments, compliments can quite often be the more surrealistic HDR's, which when done really well are stunning IMO, but you have to wade through a lot of sh@t to find them, lol.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

HDR works for me because not only do I have the "correct" exposure anyway, but I have much more control in how the final image can be adjusted

If you have the correct exposure, then you don't need HDR, thats sort of a contradiction. I think the problem is that people have misconceptions of what HDR is. Many think HDR means surreal acid trip images. Which is fine, but why don't we just call them TONE MAPPED, and call images that have an expanded dynamic range for the sake of obtaining a balanced and natural exposure HDR. I know that technically most HDR are tonemapped but I think if you didn't show some eye melting picture and call it HDR, people wouldn't get so uppity about it. If you just said "how do you like this insane tone mapped effect" you would just get a "yeah I like it or no I don't" response. Not all the drivel about proper HDR.

Its kind of like "look at my macro shots" and you have a bunch of pictures taken hand held with a kit lens at its MFD. Most people are going to jump on you about not being TRUE macro, but if you post saying "closeup of flower" you won't get as much negetivity about it. I think its all in the details and how we refer to things or whatnot.

 

[RobNZ]

HDR works for me because not only do I have the "correct" exposure anyway, but I have much more control in how the final image can be adjusted

If you have the correct exposure, then you don't need HDR, thats sort of a contradiction.

Agreed, and depending on the image that may often be the case, but I have often processed an image that didnt "require" HDR just to compare and everytime a coconut the HDR version always looks better, sure the RAW may get close with a bit of work, but I bet that "work" will take much longer..

My work flow goes like this at present.

Step 0: Usual checks for composotion, focus, interest etc, discard/ignore or move to step 1.
Step 1: Load the images into HDR merge, tonemap export to photoshop.
Step 2: Play with the levels til it looks right and any other global adjustments.
Step 3: Load the original RAW file with the correct exposure and adjust normally, export to photoshop.
Step 4: Add the RAW file as a new layer over the HDR and play with the opacity slider to see what % it looks best at, I usually find that the raw ends up being close to or at 0% when compared this way, I also use this method to get my colours more accurate in the tone mapped image.
Step 5: Level, lens correction, process local adjustments, go work on something else for awhile, come back make any further adjustments, sharpen, save.

As you can see it is alot of work, so the primary image better be halfway decent for me to invest my time, but as far as I am concerned if I am going to produce a piece of art that others may one day appreciate and associate my name with, I know I gave the image the best shot I had to share what I saw and how I want it seen.

Obviously this is not for everyone, or for every shot, far from it, but for landscapes and still life, its an option, and a nice option to have.

Be prepared to complicate everything and work damn hard.

 

[oldmacman]

I think the haters "hate" when a photog uses a technique as a crutch and foregoes learning proper exposure, framing and lighting. As many have said before, making an image an HDR cannot bring an mediocre image into the realm of awesome photo. As with anything worthwhile, it is good to get a great understanding of the foundation of photography before branching in to one specific technique exclusively. I have found that shooting RAW permits me to get the dynamic range I am looking for, others may disagree.

When members point out deficiencies, there are usually other underlying issues in the work. There are purists as well, but there is no photography without processing. Even if you shoot film, choosing the shutter speed, filters, paper, enlarger filters etc all add up to processing the image.

 

[D-B-J]

I think the haters "hate" when a photog uses a technique as a crutch and foregoes learning proper exposure, framing and lighting. As many have said before, making an image an HDR cannot bring an mediocre image into the realm of awesome photo. As with anything worthwhile, it is good to get a great understanding of the foundation of photography before branching in to one specific technique exclusively. I have found that shooting RAW permits me to get the dynamic range I am looking for, others may disagree.

When members point out deficiencies, there are usually other underlying issues in the work. There are purists as well, but there is no photography without processing. Even if you shoot film, choosing the shutter speed, filters, paper, enlarger filters etc all add up to processing the image.

Well kenrockwell says that people who use RAW are photographers using it as a crutch, cause they can't get it right in the camera.

I mean, really, there's always going to be haters. The point is, you take pictures and make a portfolio, and ppl will choose you based on the final product. Most potential customers aren't going to ask "oh, so this one was a five shot HDR, right? Did you use photomatix?" In all honesty, all that matters is the end product. Like others have said, art is subjective. Do your photo's how YOU want to do them.