Why do people dislike HDR?

unpopular · Jan 31, 2014

I thought this topic was banned?

I don't mind HDR. I do think there are more natural methods than tone mapping. I don't like bad photos that are HDR. But i don't like bad photos. Except my own bad photos, they're just brilliant.

I do think that good HDR techniques require a solid understanding of exposure to get the best results, and that exposure ought to be deliberate, even in HDR. Simply shooting over/under some arbitrary amount, hoping that the detail you intend to capture is there with enough data that it's not all noise is important.

I think people don't like HDR because the methods aren't established yet, it sometimes comes across as a way to avoid exposure entirely.

table1349 · Jan 31, 2014

batmura said:
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?

Well, you list out all the reasons why you like HDR, you will have answered your own question.

robbins.photo · Jan 31, 2014

unpopular said:
I thought this topic was banned?

I don't mind HDR. I do think there are more natural methods than tone mapping. I don't like bad photos that are HDR. But i don't like bad photos. Except my own bad photos, they're just brilliant.

Well sure, because in that case you obviously chose them to be bad for artistic reasons. It's just the rest of the philistines are too dimwitted to get it.. lol

I do think that good HDR techniques require a solid understanding of exposure to get the best results, and that exposure ought to be deliberate, even in HDR. Simply shooting over/under some arbitrary amount, hoping that the detail you intend to capture is there with enough data that it's not all noise is important.

I think people don't like HDR because the methods aren't established yet, it sometimes comes across as a way to avoid exposure entirely.

Well I think it gets kind of a bad rap because a lot of the stuff that is HDR is so massively over the top that it's just icky. I've seen some well done HDR, but it seems to be a lot harder to find, whereas you can't swing a dead cat without slapping it against some really horrid HDR. I had a guy ask me once, well what do you consider good HDR? I replied, stuff I can look at and not say to myself immediately - ugh.. yup, that's HDR, no doubt about it.

unpopular · Feb 1, 2014

I think good HDR is HDR that is only apparent to people who know what "latitude" is.

ratssass · Feb 1, 2014

I've seen some well done HDR, but it seems to be a lot harder to find, whereas you can't swing a dead cat without slapping it against some really horrid HDR.

...very eloquently stated.And I couldn't agree more....

PBlais · Feb 4, 2014

HDR needs everything any photo needs and being HDR won't fix a crappy shot. HDR magnifies the shot. I'm not one to want over the top HDR but if you push it as far as possible you still need composition, contrast, color, and even a subject. If you looked at an HDR shot you thought was bad it would have been a bad shot not done in HDR. I like HDR a lot. I really like it when it is very realistic but then at second look it's got something extra.

There are people that hate black and white.

enzodm · Feb 6, 2014

batmura said:
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.

Actually, I feel this as an honor for HDR "haters": they are still able to appreciate, if HDR is well done

Gavjenks · Feb 6, 2014

timor said:
Designer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Nobody said, but the problem is that if the focus of your image is a technique, not a subject, then there ends up being very little creative variety between that and the NEXT shot where you use the exact same technique and it is also the focus of the shot.

If HDR is done for the sake of HDR, it's the same as shooting the exact same model or bowl of fruit 300 times. If it is done as an enchancing background tool only, then each photo stays fresh. And this is the main way that photographers have used HDR since the beginning of photography (in film, dodging and burning is essentially the exact same thing done manually instead of by algorithm)

BenjaminJ · Feb 8, 2014

krbimaging said:
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.

View attachment 65562 View attachment 65563

Automatic HDR done in camera and not post processing is not true HDR.

Sent from my galaxy note 3

Overread · Feb 8, 2014

I'm thinking on starting a church for HDR - actually two churches. One will be really strict and only accept one form of HDR produced in a very specific and certain way and used only in the most correct of situations.

The other will be more lax and mostly more a social club with a few rough ground rules like don't abuse it.

Then I'll pitch the two together in an epic battle to the death.

robbins.photo · Feb 8, 2014

Overread said:
I'm thinking on starting a church for HDR - actually two churches. One will be really strict and only accept one form of HDR produced in a very specific and certain way and used only in the most correct of situations.

The other will be more lax and mostly more a social club with a few rough ground rules like don't abuse it.

Then I'll pitch the two together in an epic battle to the death.

Cool. It's like braveheart.. for camera geeks. I like it.

photograpix · Feb 8, 2014

ronlane said:
It's ART and not a one size fits all. Some people will love it, some won't. But you can't stop doing your thing because of the ones that don't like what you do. Do it for yourself and the ones that do like it.

I couldn't agree more it same goes which camera is better Nikon or canon etc.