Why aren't there more posts here for HDR? Newbie question

[Braineack]

I'm offended by HDR.


let's keep this on topic folks.

 

[runnah]

I'm offended by HDR.


let's keep this on topic folks.

What is the topic? HDR sucking?

 

[NancyMoranG]

I'm offended by HDR..

Why? As a person still waiting to receive it I am not looking for 'political' type jargon just some info. I see many overlooked, which will not be for me. Have seen many fine results including some posted in this post. So isn't there a time for it?
Nancy

 

[cgipson1]

HDR is hypothetically used to Extend Dynamic Range...

If you take a single image (RAW)... of a scene that has a 20 stop Dynamic range... and that RAW image only captures 12 stops of that range (current sensor limitations basically)... no matter what you do to that RAW... you still only have the original 12 stops of dynamic range that it captured... no matter how many copies of it you make, and change the exposure on... and then merge in a HDR program.

Agreed?

Yes.. the image may look better than the original single image... because you actually are increasing the visible dynamic range to the full 12 stops in the original RAW (at least, if done properly! Lightening shadows, and darkening overexposed areas... but if the detail in these areas was not captured in that single image due to the dynamic range limitations... then there is no detail that can be shown no matter how much the image is manipulated!)

So you are still not going to get the full 20 stop range that the original scene had, unless you take multiple images at different exposures to cover the entire 20 stop range, and merge those (aka HDR)

Agreed?

Anytime you have blown out highlights... or total solid blacks with no detail... you are not utilizing HDR to it's full potential!

Agreed?

Don't get me started on Tone- Mapping.. which has NOTHING to do with HDR.....lol!

 

[runnah]

Most of the HDR images are all frosting and no cake. Taking a ****ty image and blowing it out results in a ****ty images that is over processed. I like HDR, its a great idea to get much closer to what the human eye sees. I just haven't seen many HDR images that combined a great photo and just the right amount of tone mapping and HDR.

 

[Braineack]

I'm offended by HDR..

Why? As a person still waiting to receive it I am not looking for 'political' type jargon just some info. I see many overlooked, which will not be for me. Have seen many fine results including some posted in this post. So isn't there a time for it?
Nancy

I don't really hate HDR. I just hate when people tonemap the crap out of images to try to make them pass as good. There's plenty of examples of good HDR out there (it really impresses me when someone can actually post a good HDR image), but there's so many poorly composed, executed, overcooked, tonemapped images that people try to pass off as HDR or "good" that I hate to look at and hate that it's a "thing".

 

[cgipson1]

I'm offended by HDR..

Why? As a person still waiting to receive it I am not looking for 'political' type jargon just some info. I see many overlooked, which will not be for me. Have seen many fine results including some posted in this post. So isn't there a time for it?
Nancy

I don't really hate HDR. I just hate when people tonemap the crap out of images to try to make them pass as good. There's plenty of examples of good HDR out there (it really impresses me when someone can actually post a good HDR image), but there's so many poorly composed, executed, overcooked, tonemapped images that people try to pass off as HDR or "good" that I hate to look at and hate that it's a "thing".

^THIS!! X1000

 

[amolitor]

I posted a thing a while back about how HDR techniques could be used to create a new aesthetic, but it didn't get a whole heck of a lot of traction.

HDR's problems are largely who uses it, rather than what it is. People who fool with HDR tend to be tinkerers who are collecting techniques, or people who like popped looks, or whatever. I haven't run across anyone trying to specifically use HDR methods to make an artistic statement, to say something new. And they could, which is really too bad.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you take a single image (RAW)... of a scene that has a 20 stop Dynamic range... and that RAW image only captures 12 stops of that range (current sensor limitations basically)... no matter what you do to that RAW... you still only have the original 12 stops of dynamic range that it captured...

And increased the dynamic range, possibly to the level that you want. If not, then multiple exposures are indicated. But if it works, then it's fine. Agreed?

Yes.. the image may look better than the original single image... because you actually are increasing the visible dynamic range to the full 12 stops in the original RAW (at least, if done properly!

Yep. You don't have to go over the top when increasing dynamic range any more than you need to use unsharp mask to the point that it's obvious.

So you are still not going to get the full 20 stop range that the original scene had, unless you take multiple images at different exposures to cover the entire 20 stop range, and merge those (aka HDR) Anytime you have blown out highlights... or total solid blacks with no detail... you are not utilizing HDR to it's full potential!

And breaking the HDR RULES again. Darn.

Agreed?

I can hear the sirens now. HDR police are on the way.

 

[The Barbarian]

 

[cgipson1]

If you take a single image (RAW)... of a scene that has a 20 stop Dynamic range... and that RAW image only captures 12 stops of that range (current sensor limitations basically)... no matter what you do to that RAW... you still only have the original 12 stops of dynamic range that it captured...

And increased the dynamic range, possibly to the level that you want. If not, then multiple exposures are indicated. But if it works, then it's fine. Agreed?

No.. because you still lack the detail that a full range would give you. And if anything is blownout due to overexposure... or dead black due to underexposure... it did not work!

 

[Murray Bloom]

I disagree with Charlie. While I'm pretty much an HDR purist, not every image has to be HDR. If, whether tone mapping is used or not, if the image achieves what its creator had in his/her mind's eye, that's fine. Whether others like it is another story entirely.

 

[cgipson1]

I disagree with Charlie. While I'm pretty much an HDR purist, not every image has to be HDR. If, whether tone mapping is used or not, if the image achieves what its creator had in his/her mind's eye, that's fine. Whether others like it is another story entirely.

I agree with the last part! (and I can't imagine anyone really WANTING a blown out fried tail on a pet picture! But hey, maybe that is just me!) lol!

I do think that the "That is the way I envisioned it" is often used to excuse / justify poor technique / composition!

 

[amolitor]

NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!

The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.

 

[Braineack]

Well I use HDR techniques to make the image look more like what the eye sees, so of course I post an image of a completely unrealitic looking scene with colors that burn the retinas.