My thoughts about HDR photography: should it reflect reality or imagination?

[PeterN]

I am also in the boat of people who like it more natural instead of pushed a lot. I voted reality as almost all of the time thats what I want. Of course like most creative arts there is always an exception (have not found one yet, but don't doubt it exists) where I may prefer something "overcooked". To each their own, I typically don't share my opinions on "overcooked" HDR as it sometimes wouldn't be constructive.

BTW OP very nice job on those.

Thanks .
Well, it looks like you are in one of the largest boats .
Regarding the constructive or destructive (?) opinions - I think that negative feedback (especially with explanations why) is better than no feedback and even better than "nice photo!" reply.

I'm not voting.


It should reflect whatever the hell you want to create!

Do you mean that the photography is 100% subjective matter?

I normally only "overcook" my b&w HDR images.

But each to their own. If you wanna overcook it, do it.

But the point of HDR is just that, to get High Dynamic Range.

Overcooking B&W images only sounds like double impact on reality .

I really think it depends on what the customer wants. If they want me to 'overcook' the image, then so be it. Personally, I don't like it overcooked.

Your opinion looks completely opposite to the jake337's one. Interesting .

Stylistic choices.
Done well, either style can be great.
Done poorly, either style can suck.

+1 :thumbup:

I try to present MY vision , sure some won't like it ,some will like it , but in fear of the masses will keep quiet , and in some cases, the masses will love it and it will be crap with no solid artistic Merritt . Point is I think you should create the Art you like best ,present that style and hopefully gain some respect from the viewers . OR, you can follow the constantly changing popular style of the day ,and sometimes ,of the hour .

My answer to the question , Depends . I really think, A good number of the "HDR"s don't even need to be "HDR" in the first place

Well, according your opinion it depends on everything even more than I thought...

 

[vipgraphx]

I like all variations of photography. You can over process regular shots just as much as you can over process HDR.....so I am not sure the question is adequate. In any art form such as painting, drawing, sculpting, photography and so on..its all an expression of the artist. Some art (sculptures) sucks to me but its pure beauty to others, and the same with photography. HDR is just an avenue to produce a nice picture for people to enjoy such as , bugs, birds, black and whites, abstract photography and so on.

If its good its good!

I do think that you do see a lot of heavy tonemapped HDR but that I believe is because the process to do when using a short cut program like photomatix it easily happens when playing with sliders....if you were to take your multiple exposures into photoshop and manually blend the layers your result would be very different and those sliders that make it look fake are not there so you are left with a realistic looking photo.

It works on some images and others it sucks. But its not just the "over cooked" common looks its also the over sharp over over soft looks as well that helps make that over saturated hdr look even worse....After practicing for a bit I think most people find there nitch in the HDR world and can very great looking photos regardless if its "over cooked " or realistic...

if its good its good!!

 

[EDL]

It's all good. I choose "depends" because I've seen good and bad examples of both. It's your photo, you process it how you like it.

 

[Overread]

Eh its just a process - this is like asking if watercolours should mimic reality or work from imagination.

In the end all that matters is that the process is used correctly to display the final work that the photographer intended to present with the given scene and light. Sometimes that is going to be attempting to overcome the cameras limitations and display a scene more "naturally" - other times its going to swing all the way to the extreme and aim to create a cartoon like appearance.

Yeah there is lots of bad HDR - there are lots of BAD photos in general. I've never fully understood what makes HDR so deserving of such special attention or criticisms over bad focusing, selective focus application, selective colouring etc....

 

[EDL]

We could also delve into "technical" discussions on it. I mean, it seems HDR really does have a few staunch camps within its boundaries.

For example, some think a single photo tonemapped counts, some say it requires at least three separate images captured at different EV. Some think cooked is the point, some say natural.

I dunno why HDR as a subject seems to be so controversial.

Personally, my opinion is that it is because photographers (indeed, artists) in general tend to be very opinionated, strong willed and perfectionists to some degree. Throw in a dash of ego and voila! Controversy!

I'm generally oriented toward technical details, so for me, I buy into the "requires at least three shots" camp since that makes technical sense to me about what HDR is and why.

But, what I know for sure is that I like HDR, over cooked, natural, B&W, color, it's all good. Just like any photo, there are good ones and bad ones.

I'll admit that I like selective color too. Seems those who've been around the photography scene for a while scoff and dismiss it as fad, but well...again, it's art, all art is subjective. I like it.

 

[Devinhullphoto]

This is how I've been doing HDR lately. Not crazy with colors but shows detail.

I know I didn't start the thread but I was curious if this was considered too much?

 

[PeterN]

I like all variations of photography. You can over process regular shots just as much as you can over process HDR.....so I am not sure the question is adequate. In any art form such as painting, drawing, sculpting, photography and so on..its all an expression of the artist. Some art (sculptures) sucks to me but its pure beauty to others, and the same with photography. HDR is just an avenue to produce a nice picture for people to enjoy such as , bugs, birds, black and whites, abstract photography and so on.

If its good its good!

I do think that you do see a lot of heavy tonemapped HDR but that I believe is because the process to do when using a short cut program like photomatix it easily happens when playing with sliders....if you were to take your multiple exposures into photoshop and manually blend the layers your result would be very different and those sliders that make it look fake are not there so you are left with a realistic looking photo.

It works on some images and others it sucks. But its not just the "over cooked" common looks its also the over sharp over over soft looks as well that helps make that over saturated hdr look even worse....After practicing for a bit I think most people find there nitch in the HDR world and can very great looking photos regardless if its "over cooked " or realistic...

if its good its good!!

Well, I agree with your opinion. But the poll shows now 1/3 votes for realistic HDRs only, so there are enough people with the different ideas.

It's all good. I choose "depends" because I've seen good and bad examples of both. It's your photo, you process it how you like it.

+1 :thumbup:

Eh its just a process - this is like asking if watercolours should mimic reality or work from imagination.

In the end all that matters is that the process is used correctly to display the final work that the photographer intended to present with the given scene and light. Sometimes that is going to be attempting to overcome the cameras limitations and display a scene more "naturally" - other times its going to swing all the way to the extreme and aim to create a cartoon like appearance.

Yeah there is lots of bad HDR - there are lots of BAD photos in general. I've never fully understood what makes HDR so deserving of such special attention or criticisms over bad focusing, selective focus application, selective colouring etc....

Yes, it is just a process. But people have their preferences for process too...

We could also delve into "technical" discussions on it. I mean, it seems HDR really does have a few staunch camps within its boundaries.

For example, some think a single photo tonemapped counts, some say it requires at least three separate images captured at different EV. Some think cooked is the point, some say natural.

I dunno why HDR as a subject seems to be so controversial.

Personally, my opinion is that it is because photographers (indeed, artists) in general tend to be very opinionated, strong willed and perfectionists to some degree. Throw in a dash of ego and voila! Controversy!

I'm generally oriented toward technical details, so for me, I buy into the "requires at least three shots" camp since that makes technical sense to me about what HDR is and why.

But, what I know for sure is that I like HDR, over cooked, natural, B&W, color, it's all good. Just like any photo, there are good ones and bad ones.

I'll admit that I like selective color too. Seems those who've been around the photography scene for a while scoff and dismiss it as fad, but well...again, it's art, all art is subjective. I like it.

> I dunno why HDR as a subject seems to be so controversial.
Maybe because it is relatively new?

This is how I've been doing HDR lately. Not crazy with colors but shows detail.

I know I didn't start the thread but I was curious if this was considered too much?

This is definitely "realistic HDR", IMHO.
Don't you think that contrast could be slightly increased for the left and middle photos? And I like the static composition of the left image, it correlates with the RV's parked position, but does it work for the central photo?

 

[Devinhullphoto]

This is definitely "realistic HDR", IMHO.
Don't you think that contrast could be slightly increased for the left and middle photos? And I like the static composition of the left image, it correlates with the RV's parked position, but does it work for the central photo?

I see what you mean with the contrast. I'm relatively new to HDR so I still need to toy around and see what I like best and how to achieve that. Also I usually don't edit my photos too much in post. I really like them to look pretty close to how they do straight from the camera, so again I still have to find my way in general in terms of editing.

Thanks for the input!

 

[PeterN]

You are welcome

One more example of "HDR with purpose" - I don't think that image without HDR could catch the rainy shadows behind the illuminated spot on the building:


http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_7_1_sm.jpg

 

[molested_cow]

Reality or imagination?

Reality is relative and imagination is a part of the reality.

Everything you think you are seeing is what your mind is telling you. Your eyes are just information input device, like the lens, whereas to form an image it needs to be processed by the brain. To me photography, HDR or not, is what I use to portray what I want my audience to see. HDR is just a form of tool that helps me get there. Some of my photos are HDR, and can only be achieved using HDR, but most people who look at it focus on its content as opposed to technical aspects. Therefore to me, it's more important to categorize my own photos according to content type as opposed to the technique.

 

[DGMPhotography]

It's to reflect whatever you want!!!