Why do people dislike HDR?

[krbimaging]

The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well. Even overbaked shots sell well. So before you generalize "people" understand that the common person on the street is really who you need to part with thier money. HDR's are unique and look like Art. Not just some picture...I think the common man will part more easily with thier money when they think they are buying art. No I know it's not always the case but the shows I have been to in the last two years that's what I have observed. Also you see it at the Galleries in Scottsdale, AZ.. So go figure

 

[runnah]

What I dislike is that people take a **** photo, HDR it to within an inch of it's life and call it great.

HDR is like cayenne pepper, it adds a little spice to an already good dish, but add too much and you'll ruin the meal.

 

[Steve5D]

The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well.

I don't understand why someone would hate HDR because it sells. Could you expound on that?

 

[JG_Coleman]

The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well.

I don't understand why someone would hate HDR because it sells. Could you expound on that?

Also, do you have any reason to believe that the HDRs you see in galleries aren't by *pros*?

 

[krbimaging]

The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well.

I don't understand why someone would hate HDR because it sells. Could you expound on that?

Also, do you have any reason to believe that the HDRs you see in galleries aren't by *pros*?

I used the "quotes" to imply that there are pro's that are anti photo modification. But I guess that only worked in my head LOL...I know and have talked to some that are very much against retouching a photo so a HDR is taboo. I even know a guy that shoots large format film and is so anti digital he doesn't own a digital camera at all. While his photos sell in a gallery in Sedona they don't get the appreciation he thinks they deserve since his medium is "a dying art" (his words and proper use of quotes) LOL. Anyway I consider him a Pro who is against it and at festivals he just spins off into a tissy when people are looking at HDRs.

 

[HolgerHarmsen]

I too, think that it's a bit too easy to take a good shot with HDR. It's a bit like photoshop before even getting the photo to the computer...

Harmsen Photo

 

[charlie76]

HDR vs. standard photos = steroid using baseball players vs. standard human Two totally different things if you ask me

 

[MGRPhoto]

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.

It's absolutely NOT irrelevant. Photomatix is gimmicky garbage intended to take a crappy shot and turn it into a fabulous cartoon. Photoshop doesn't apply any tone mapping unless you explicitly tell it to. At least the CS4 version I'm using doesn't. The issue here is the bastardized term HDR that people have come to relate to the cartoonish images. The end result of a HDR photo in Photoshop will give you something that no one will know was done with any HDR techniques.

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.

I'm not making it about the cartoonish images that is what the thread is about. When you look at a HDR shot that is done with a natural look you aren't going to know it was HDR without the photographer telling you so how would people know they are hating HDR at that point? If done properly you don't get any of those negative things you mention and one of the articles I posted explains how to do that.

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.

The previous sections I quoted from your post seem like you were arguing my points but then here you seem to agree with me....

 

[runnah]

I would also like to add that cameras these days are getting very good with the dynamic ranges of the sensors. So much so that I think HDR doesn't need to be used as much. I uses to take lots of interior shots that is do bracketing on, with my new camera I find that I don't need to do that as much.

Also I highly agree with using photoshop rather than a photomatix type program. Photoshop tends to do HDR right.

 

[MGRPhoto]

A year (or more) ago when I was just lurking the forum I came across a HDR post by someone who used layering in Photoshop with their own technique they shared and it had stunning yet very natural results. Some of the best I've ever seen. I wish I could find the post... I'll update if I do find it.

 

[vipgraphx]

Not sure if that was me ^^^^ as I did have a post about photoshop layering with realistic results.


People dislike HDR because people dislike what they don't understand how to do.

 

[vipgraphx]

I would also like to add that cameras these days are getting very good with the dynamic ranges of the sensors. So much so that I think HDR doesn't need to be used as much. I uses to take lots of interior shots that is do bracketing on, with my new camera I find that I don't need to do that as much.

I actually will have to agree with this..with the Dynamic range that these new cameras can get and Lightroom combined can yield very HDR like results…however there certain limitations where a single file just can not capture the whole range. and multiple exposures are needed.

Also I highly agree with using photoshop rather than a photomatix type program. Photoshop tends to do HDR right.

Ummm this is relative what is right to you may not be right to me.

I can do HDR with photoshop and get great results but sometimes the tone mapping part adds that HDR look many people like.

I can also use photomatix and get realistic photos out of it that do not look tone mapped but are.

 

[runnah]

I actually will have to agree with this..with the Dynamic range that these new cameras can get and Lightroom combined can yield very HDR like results…however there certain limitations where a single file just can not capture the whole range. and multiple exposures are needed. Ummm this is relative what is right to you may not be right to me. I can do HDR with photoshop and get great results but sometimes the tone mapping part adds that HDR look many people like. I can also use photomatix and get realistic photos out of it that do not look tone mapped but are.

Yeah it's subjective. I would say it's not as easy to make the blown out HDR in PS.

 

[MGRPhoto]

Not sure if that was me ^^^^ as I did have a post about photoshop layering with realistic results.


People dislike HDR because people dislike what they don't understand how to do.

I'm not sure if it was you or not as I don't remember the username... but it certainly could have been based on some of your work. I found this thread of yours http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/290591-true-hdr-photo.html and this is a fantastic example of properly processed HDR.

 

[vipgraphx]

Not sure if that was me ^^^^ as I did have a post about photoshop layering with realistic results.


People dislike HDR because people dislike what they don't understand how to do.

I'm not sure if it was you or not as I don't remember the username... but it certainly could have been based on some of your work. I found this thread of yours http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/290591-true-hdr-photo.html and this is a fantastic example of properly processed HDR.

Oh yes I remember this. I was in an argument with a guy named BYNX…I actually got many complements from that photo I did. I started taking interior shots for local realtors and this how I would
process/make my HDR's for them.


My thoughts is there is more than one way to cook an egg…why know all the ways. Same with HDR more than one way to cook it and its good to know how to do it all.

here was another posting of how to HDR realistic….given its just an example and the actual photo is not really that great..

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-hdr-tutorial-realistic-not-so-realistic.html