What's your take on HDR?

mhandy · Apr 20, 2011

I have only recently gotten into HDR and like to use it more for a realistic look than a dream like look. I found the following blog post helpful for beginners. Do you love it or hate it? why?

HDR techniques for the beginner |

analog.universe · Apr 20, 2011

I think I agree with you about the realistic look. I love HDR when you can't tell that it was done. It just looks like a perfectly exposed photo of an impossible to expose scene. When it gets intense effect like I can go either way. I've seen some extreme processing done really well, but most of the time overdone just looks overdone.

gina_d · Apr 20, 2011

My knee-jerk response is to give a blanket answer that I'm just not a fan. That said, I realized my answer was really a reaction to the HDR that is heavy and immediately apparent - it has that nearly illustrative quality. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing - I just don't happen to care for it and unfortunately, there are far too many bad examples out there (just like any other process really). It kind of gives it a bad name. So yeah, I don't love the heavy-handed, illustrative HDR but have no problem with the more understated approach that when done well just really enhances the photo.

Ccauceg · Apr 20, 2011

I used to think it was really cool, but then I just started liking it less and less. I also feel that its one of the most abused techniques (right next to the highpass filter

) when it comes to digital photography. It seems like some people do HDR just for the sake of a photo being in HDR. Its cool to get a large dynamic range, but in the end it looks pretty ugly IMO.

WesternGuy · Apr 21, 2011

I have been working at HDR now for about six months. I am of the same opinion as analog.universe - I like it best when you can't tell that it is HDR, although now that I have been working at it for a while, I can often pick them out as the images have too high a dynamic range to be a simple, single shot. I am generally not a fan of the "overcooked" look, but some of it is not too bad, as properly done, this approach can give a "painting look" to the final product - overdone, it has, in my opinion, a "clownish" look to it that I am really not a fan of. Like so many other aspects of "photography as art" there are things folks will like and things they will not and the "overcooked" HDR images are one of the things that not everyone likes. Whether this "artsy" side of HDR will last, who knows? I don't believe that HDR, in the true sense, is a passing fad, I believe that it is here to stay. It will remain a tool/process for those who want to go that extra-mile to capture the essence of an image that current technology cannot capture by itself. It may also be the case that this HDR processing may drive the creation of new sensors that will capture a wider/higher dynamic range and render the current "HDR process" as we know it, obsolete...we can only hope. :mrgreen:

Cheers,

WesternGuy

manaheim · Apr 21, 2011

HDR is a tool like anything, and there is a right and wrong way to use a tool.

People will say that it's artistic so you can do what you want with it, and I can't say I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean the end result of what they come up with is necessarily going to be a pleasing or impactful result.

You can use a paint brush however you like, but stabbing someone in the eye with it isn't necessarily art.

Bynx · Apr 21, 2011

First off, differentiate between HDR and tone mapping. No one should have an issue with HDR, but its when they go tone mapping it so the HDR can become visible is where there are problems. If only there werent so many people stabbing us in the eye, we would like it a lot more.

gina_d · Apr 21, 2011

manaheim said:
HDR is a tool like anything, and there is a right and wrong way to use a tool.

You can use a paint brush however you like, but stabbing someone in the eye with it isn't necessarily art.

performance art?

HikinMike · Apr 21, 2011

I don't like the cartoon-looking HDRs. I prefer a natural-looking HDR. My preference is to shoot as many exposures as I need to cover the dynamic range and use layer masks and hand-blend them in Photoshop. I recently wrote a short "how to" article on HDRs called HDR Photography Using Layer Masks and Hand Blending Techniques in Photoshop

bentcountershaft · Apr 21, 2011

HDR is just like any other tool. Some people like to get a little heavy handed with it like they do with sharpening or when they set their saturation phasers on stun.

480sparky · Apr 21, 2011

bentcountershaft said:
HDR is just like any other tool. Some people like to get a little heavy handed with it like they do with sharpening or when they set their saturation phasers on stun.

Just 'stun'? How about 'Disintegrate'?

kundalini · Apr 21, 2011

What's your take on HDR?

Done well, it's well done. Done half-assed, you have a cartoon.

Derrel · Apr 21, 2011

It's quite badly played out at the amateur and hobbyist level. The vast majority of images done in that style look crappy to me. A few practitioners, however, can make some nice images using that method, but they are very few and far between. I consider HDR the gimmick of the "oughts" (you know, 2001-2002-2003,etc, till 2009). Much like the solarized effect of the 1970's (the Sabbatier effect), the Hosemaster of the early 1990's, and the star filter of the 1980's.