Why do people dislike HDR?

[vintagesnaps]

A little goes a long way, and it seems like people don't use it sparingly enough. Even in yours Ron, it would be a beautiful photo but I felt like all I saw was that bright egg yolk orange schmear all the way across the horizon, just for me overpowers the scene.

 

[scotts2014se]

Because everyone has an opinion. Same reason as why some people dislike onions

Now wait a minute! Thats not an opinion, That's a fact!

 

[bc_steve]

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

I think you just articulated what I don't like about HDR. The dark areas just don't look right. This is especially noticeable when you look at the trees, I supposed because of all the branches and the shadows they would create.

I have seen some HDR that I like. Most of which you really have to look carefully to tell that it is HDR but on occasion I like some tastefully overcooked HDR. I can't stand the stuff that is overcooked to a crisp. It just looks like someone cranked every slider to 11 and called it a day.

 

[krbimaging]

My Camera has a HDR setting and I use it allot. However I use it to get varity in shots if I am in a hurry. I'll set the camera to take 3 I use a realistic setting and get 3 exposures of the same area. Sometimes the Internal processor of the camera produces a nice shot. Other times not so much..
Two Shots both using my camera's automatic HDR settings. The one on the right is a little over done but the chrome on the car really pops. Over all I have allot of fun with the HDR settings. They are fun to play with in camera and post production.

 

[ruifo]

I guess the most common reason people cite is that HDR looks unrealistic and/or cartoonish. It's understandable that the grungy, gritty look doesn't appeal to some, but what about the more realistic-looking images? Actually there are people who can't even tell if it something is HDR. They may even praise an image until you tell them.

I'm by no means an expert on HDR, but I like the more realistic images and I feel a photo can benefit a great deal from it if done tastefully.

Any thoughts? Ay other reasons you can think of why so many people are eager to diss HDR?

HDR is just one more artistic expression. You may like it or not, just like any other way of art expression, but it is still one more tool to master available to any interested photographer and/or artist.

I personally like it, specially those HDR compositions that deal well with light and keep the natural/realistic look in it. I use it from time to time for interior and landscape shots, depending on the light condition. I never used it for portraiture, though, although I would never say never...

 

[Steve5D]

Different strokes.

One thing about HDR: You're only shooting what's there. You're using the information collected by the camera and creating an image. What I hate are those programs; many of them advertise in the margins here, where with a few simple keystrokes you can transform an average looking woman into some gorgeous creature. Blemishes are gone, splotchy skin is gone. Hell, maybe even the shape of the eyes changes a bit.

That's what I call "unrealistic"...

 

[pixmedic]

Different strokes.

One thing about HDR: You're only shooting what's there. You're using the information collected by the camera and creating an image. What I hate are those programs; many of them advertise in the margins here, where with a few simple keystrokes you can transform an average looking woman into some gorgeous creature. Blemishes are gone, splotchy skin is gone. Hell, maybe even the shape of the eyes changes a bit.

That's what I call "unrealistic"...

before computers, it was called "beer"

 

[Dao]

At the end, that is just an art created by someone. Personally I do not like rap music, but it does not mean that is bad music. Just a different taste. If the final HDR image is present as a art, the sky can even be yellow. But course, if the purpose of the photo is more or less for information/education etc, it better to look realistic. Imagine a interior photos of the house for sell are all over cooked HDR or a photo of a frog for a text book looks like a cartoon.

One thing I do like about HDR is it allow me to make more contrast of the photo which I like sometimes.

i.e. 3 exposures combined and tone mapped

 

[MGRPhoto]

People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know. They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.

 

[limr]

People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know. They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.

And you can prove this?

 

[andrewochs615]

Maybe I should have worded the question differently. What do you dislike about HDR?

Also, my point was most people who diss HDR do so blindly. I have seen many a time HDR haters praising an image without knowing it was HDR.

Don't go on Reddit, they are full of crap for the most part

 

[Dao]

So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.

I thought all HDR images we see in our monitor are tone mapped because of the viewing devices do not support the entire dynamic range.

 

[MGRPhoto]

People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know. They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.

And you can prove this?

Prove what? Tone mapping and HDR are two completely different things. If you use the standard HDR tools within Photoshop and choose to not use any tone mapping then it will just look like any other photograph with no cartoonish effect.

Here is an article about HDR and Tone Mapping.

So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.

I thought all HDR images we see in our monitor are tone mapped because of the viewing devices do not support the entire dynamic range.

This is partially true but hasn't really applied in the last 15 or so years... modern monitors support very high dynamic range (whether it's native or not is irrelevant) and display images just fine without needing to decrease the range through tone mapping. A printer may have more of an issue though. That being said tone mapping CAN be done without causing the image to look like a cartoon. If tone mapped correctly it will look exactly like it did prior to tone mapping with maybe just some detail lost. Most likely negligible.


-----------


And here's another article about tone mapping properly... http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...ick-guide-to-realistic-hdr-in-photomatix-pro/
There are much more in-depth articles out there but this was the first one I found.


Just look at ronlane's post #10... especially the 2nd image. If he used any tone mapping it was done "properly" and looks natural. I put properly in quotes because you can certainly blow out the colors and make an image look cartoonish if you prefer that look and that would then be proper for you.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR.

I get the distinction you're trying to draw here, but HDRs processed in Photoshop or Photomatix, the two software applications for HDR that I've used occasionally, absolutely can produce images which lay anywhere on the the spectrum that eventually goes to the cartoonish end of things. Whether or not they do that through a combination of tone-mapping and HDR is really irrelevant... they are the "HDR softwares" that people use, thus what people typically call "HDRs" are the photos produced by such software applications.

Also, you are making this entirely about "cartoonish" images, but that's only part of aesthetic issues that some people have with poor HDR images as they are produced (poorly) by Photomatix or Photoshop. These include things like white clouds becoming gray, haloing on mountains and trees, ghosting on clouds and trees, etc, etc.

To clarify, very good HDR images can be produced with either application. Neither application produces these artifacts by default, but they both can in the hands of somebody that either doesn't know how to use them or lacks to the eye to see when they've gone into territory nobody ought to go when processing their photos.

 

[limr]

People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know. They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.

And you can prove this?

Prove what? Tone mapping and HDR are two completely different things. If you use the standard HDR tools within Photoshop and choose to not use any tone mapping then it will just look like any other photograph with no cartoonish effect.

Here is an article about HDR and Tone Mapping.

Note the bolded part in the quote.