Please step away from the HDR with your arms in the air...

[manaheim]

The idea of an HDR is to give more dynamic range than would be possible with a normal exposure.

The human eye can see something along the lines of "21 stops" of light, whereas a camera can only see around 7 in any single exposure. HDR helps that and gives you an image closer to what your eye would see.

That being said, there are many cases where an HDR is unecessary because the camera sees enough or nearly enough of the scene to be able to give you a solid representation without the HDR funkiness. An example would be a reasonably evenly lit scene.

Now can you do an HDR anyway? Well, sure, I guess... but most of the time you spend a lot of effort and either wind up with something that looks bizarro, or frankly just kinda silly.

If you like it, you like it... whatever works for you. I'm just suggesting that folks stop and think carefully about what it is they are trying to do and why.

Are you...

- Trying to get critical detail that would otherwise be lost? or...
- Trying to make a really WILD surreal shot of some kind? or...
- Trying to make an interesting photo out of what would otherwise be kinda a crappy one?

(or maybe something else)

Whatever it is, know about it before you take the shot and start HDRing your buns off. The results will likely be far better.

For me, I am almost always doing the first one. I get shots like this from that...

Not over the top, not wonky... just more detail in shadow and highlight.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I think there just needs to be a new name for the cartoon-like ones people call HDR these days.

I'm with you though (on the meaning, uses and reasoning behind HDR).

 

[MBasile]

I agree with your dislike for what most people call HDR's. However, I think the topic has been beat to death on this forum, and further ranting will not reach/persuade the masses to discontinue the cartoonish images.

 

[Josh66]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what "high dynamic range" means...

Most of the "HDR" shots I see could have just as easily been done with a single exposure, with more careful metering. Many, despite being "HDR", still have blown out skies or lack detail in the shadows.

I think what's really going on is that some people like 'that' look, but don't know what to call it so it becomes "HDR" - even though it isn't.


EDIT

I agree with your dislike for what most people call HDR's. However, I think the topic has been beat to death on this forum, and further ranting will not reach/persuade the masses to discontinue the cartoonish images.

I personally don't care if people keep making those cartoonish images (sometimes it works pretty good), I just wish they would come up with a better name for it.

 

[Big]

Damn Manaheim...my first definitely didn't come out like yours. Of course it was a practice test in my living room but it sucks compared to yours. It does seem to have that cartoon effect to it which I think sucks. Yours is amazing. :hail:

 

[Battou]

I agree with your dislike for what most people call HDR's. However, I think the topic has been beat to death on this forum, and further ranting will not reach/persuade the masses to discontinue the cartoonish images.

It's realism VS. surrealism so to speak, there will never be a "Correct way" and we know this. We don't want to change the masses and make them discontinue what they are doing. This is not the intent here to be honest, the intent is merely to generate an acceptance of what has become the minority in HDR processing . I literally had a full out EDR processed film image get the responce "is this suppose to be a hdr?"...That is just not appropriate. We just want them to stop hatein and that just because it does not look like theirs do, does not make it any less than what they are doing, and keep the door open for the realism that's all.

 

[liltimmy1313]

Yeah, I have been on this forum for less than a week and I already see it being beatin' to death. ''O | | | | | | | | O'' is right sometimes it works, and those cartoony ones need a different name.

Normally I go for a surreal shot but, hey that's my preference. Sometimes I go HDR just because it's an easy way of fixing metering and clipping and other problems.

There is really no excuse to HDR a crappy shot into something good though.

So, now I think I drop the HDR topic on TPF.

 

[manaheim]

Damn Manaheim...my first definitely didn't come out like yours. Of course it was a practice test in my living room but it sucks compared to yours. It does seem to have that cartoon effect to it which I think sucks. Yours is amazing. :hail:

hehe thanks.

And Battou... well... I want to change the masses. I'm a control freak like that.

 

[Bee Bee]

here here Manaheim - and fantastic shot xxx

 

[KmH]

The human eye cannot see anywhere near 21 stops of light. Not in the same scene anyway. Give the eye time to adjust and it can eventually approach that dynamic range. No doubt, it does better than a camera image sensor does.

Art is totally in the eye of the beholder.

 

[NickRummy]

I've been reading up quite a bit about the HDR stuff since it's new to me. I do agree with this to an extent.

The extreme ones to me seem more like something a graphics designer would do and not a photographer. It's kind of like taking a photo to use as an outline to make a painting or something. I've seen a good amount that really impress me and they definitely capture my attention but the photography elements seem to be less apparent since so much is changed in PP?

 

[manaheim]

The human eye cannot see anywhere near 21 stops of light. Not in the same scene anyway. Give the eye time to adjust and it can eventually approach that dynamic range. No doubt, it does better than a camera image sensor does.

Art is totally in the eye of the beholder.

The 21 stops thing is a relative approximation I've seen in a number of places. I've also seen it explained that really the human eye doesnt see that much anyway.. the brain just does some nasty tricks to make it appear as such.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Art is totally in the eye of the beholder.

I keep seeing/reading 'Art is totally in the eye of the beer holder'.

 

[UUilliam]

I personally like "HDR" But what i dont like is "HDR Surrealism to the maximum with halos everywhere"

"hdr" to me is Basically allowing the viewer to see the whole scene like you did instead of seeing a foreground but the sky being Over exposed
or vice versa (the foreground being under exposed)

Sometimes the "HDR Surrealism" works but only if you are trying to make a 3D cartoon...
Is this how they made Beowolf ? :S
would be allot easier if it was instead of being Computer Generated Images.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I've been reading up quite a bit about the HDR stuff since it's new to me. I do agree with this to an extent.

The extreme ones to me seem more like something a graphics designer would do and not a photographer. It's kind of like taking a photo to use as an outline to make a painting or something. I've seen a good amount that really impress me and they definitely capture my attention but the photography elements seem to be less apparent since so much is changed in PP?

I am a photographer who's done both commercial and art. They are approached quite differently. In commercial you please your client. In art you only have to please yourself and therefore anything goes. Compared to some of my work, HDR is nothing but I'll still call myself a photographer whether you like it or not. When this work hung in galleries a lot of people seeing it only accepted it as photo work because it was hanging in Photo galleries.

If you do not like my work, that's fine. I will not hold a gun to anyone's head to force them to like my work. To be honest, I couldn't care less. I'm weird and so is my work. I know from the get go that most of it is not going to appeal to the vast majority, so what?

What bothers me is people trying to impose their narrow view of things on others.