Why do people dislike HDR?

[wyogirl]

I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR. I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.

That's okay Amanda, you can say that mine are bad hdr. It won't hurt my feelings, because I don't profess to be a pro at it.

Hey Ron! Don't be putting words in my mouth . I was actually thinking of an HDR that I tried and failed to make.

 

[ronlane]

I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR. I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.

That's okay Amanda, you can say that mine are bad hdr. It won't hurt my feelings, because I don't profess to be a pro at it.

Hey Ron! Don't be putting words in my mouth . I was actually thinking of an HDR that I tried and failed to make.

lol, I'm sure that it wasn't that bad. I'm still learning how to process them to look decent. Having the Nik suite helps because of all the presets that they have.

 

[Derrel]

What is unrealistic about an "overcooked" HDR is the lack of shadows, where shadows should be in the image according to the lighting.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ x 10.

A good portion of the bad HDR is done by people who use "the method" in the hopes of creating something out of a mundane scene...as if by bridging a wide dynamic range, they are somehow showing jus "something worth looking at". Bad HDR is mostly an exercise of technical mastery and artistic ineptitude. A badly-shot, wide-DR rendering of a garbage can at sunset is for example, not much of a subject, but far too many practitioners of extreme HDR seem enamored of the technique,the technique,the technique, and they often shoot rubbish scenes and then process the chit out of them, thinking that by doing that, they are "creating".

 

[imagemaker46]

I'm not a big fan of the poorly done cartoon style, but was playing around with it in a church in England last month and really like the results, it just wasn't overdone, but subtle. I won't spend a lot of time doing it, but will try it from time to time.

 

[ronlane]

I'm not a big fan of the poorly done cartoon style, but was playing around with it in a church in England last month and really like the results, it just wasn't overdone, but subtle. I won't spend a lot of time doing it, but will try it from time to time.

I usually don't think about hdr until I take a photo and chimp it and realize that I'm not getting what I want out of it. Then I try it.

 

[Derrel]

I saw some HDR shots done by a master level photographer in the tropics somewhere, maybe Jamaica or someplace like that. He had a small portfolio of about 15 shots, all exquisite scenes, in every way. He kind of threw it out there at the end that the shots were all HDR, and yet the scenes looked as natural and amazing as if you were there in person; he actually MAINTAINED some shadow density, as appropriate, to convey the feeling of "the light" that was there. The technique was used to enhance the rendering of the scene, rather than a simple coat of clown makeup slathered on top of some snappy-snaps.

I think skieur's comment says it best; bad HDR practitioners tend to eliminate ALL shadow, and they show us scenes that have absolutely zero connection with real world lighting, no regard for the sun as a source of light and shadow...they often take shadows and lighten them up so there are large masses of "shadow" that read as mid-tones, and that simply looks like crap. As amolitor mentioned maybe a year ago, there's a strong tendency these days to create HDR type photos where the source of the light appears to be "from EVERYWHERE"...which is simply ridiculous. Light from everywhere = light from nowhere, as in no definable source of light...

 

[D-B-J]

It's all about how you use it. I've uploaded a fair amount of HDR photo's on here without mentioning that they are, and people have not noticed. It's a tool, like many others, that is often misused.

For example, this is an HDR photo. Doesn't really look like it, as there are plenty of proper shadows and highlights. But without HDR you wouldn't be able to see the underglow, and I also had to add a fourth shot for the TV screen.


Dorm Life by f_one_eight, on Flickr


Best,
Jake

 

[cynicaster]

Often, the effect becomes the subject of the photo, rather than what is actually in the photo....and that gets old fast.

^^ Well said.

I’m not opposed to the technique perse, but it gets done to death on an internet seemingly obsessed with software hocus-pocus, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

When I first learned what it was, I was all excited to give it a try some day, but by the time I was actually in a position to give it a try, I had already become so sick and tired of seeing it that I never bothered. It's true--I've never even attempted the technique in my life, and have little interest in doing so.

I’m sure there have been HDR photos I have seen and loved where the technique was really strengthening the impact of the result, yet I had no idea it was even being used. In that case, kudos to the artist for using the right combination of knowledge, skill, and restraint to create something great.

Generally speaking, I think of such things as being analogous to salt on food: just the right amount enhances the result, but as soon as you clearly identify its presence, it does more to detract than enhance.

 

[Parker219]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/350178-desert-scene-tone-mapped.html

 

[Tailgunner]

It just dawned on me, I actually have an HDR photo/Canvas hanging on the wall in our den. The wife bought it for me back in September at an Art show

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR. I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.

So would it be safe to say you can't give us a definition of art but you know what sucks? lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[limr]

I think we all dislike the stuff that's poorly done, or done just for its own sake and not for the sake of the image.

Personally, I don't like a lot of HDR, even if it's well done, because it is just too...shiny. I know it's supposed to bring out detail, to increase dynamic range...these are good things and I don't want to disparage anyone who uses HDR to do achieve these things. For me, however, the image ends up feeling flat, without texture. Even when it's well done, it always feels false to me because it just seems strange to see that much detail in that much sharpness. I prefer more realism in photography. And before anyone tells me that there are different purposes/styles/philosophies that allow for less realism...yes, I know and I was not suggesting that there weren't. This is NOT a statement on how I feel all photography should be, but only what kinds of pictures I personally like to look at. Just a little pre-emptive strike

Ultimately, HDR feels to me kinda like diet soda: it has its place and some people consume it reasonably while others are addicted to it to their detriment. And I never drink it myself because it just leaves a chemical taste in my mouth that I simply don't enjoy.

 

[CycleDog]

HDR is only a tool. What matters is the skill and subtlety of the person using it. And in some cases, the cartoonish quality can be used to good effect, as in "Nachos of the Living Dead."

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[timor]

There is a fine line between "realistic" and "overcooked", IMO. If your intention is to produce an image with enhanced detail, don't overdo the HDR. If on the other hand you want to produce a surreal image with almost no connection to reality, then don't hold back.

I agree with that very much. Because WHO said, that photography has to look realistic ? Especially now, in the age of digital manipulation all sorts of pictorial methods are so flexible, so at hand and so simple. Wall calenders are waiting for fantastic pictures to take every office worker for a moment of dreaming, when the work becomes to boring. . That's one of a mayor function of photography: entertainment.

 

[robbins.photo]

I think we all dislike the stuff that's poorly done, or done just for its own sake and not for the sake of the image.

Personally, I don't like a lot of HDR, even if it's well done, because it is just too...shiny.

So we've gone from I know what sucks to it all sucks? Lol Ok, I'm preparing to be horribly offended in 3.. 2..

This is NOT a statement on how I feel all photography should be, but only what kinds of pictures I personally like to look at. Just a little pre-emptive strike

Ahh crap. Request to be horribly offended denied. Drats. Foiled again.. lol

Ultimately, HDR feels to me kinda like diet soda: it has its place and some people consume it reasonably while others are addicted to it to their detriment. And I never drink it myself because it just leaves a chemical taste in my mouth that I simply don't enjoy.

I've seen a couple of shots that have benefited from it but most of what I've seen, like you, just really isn't in my wheelhouse.