HDR Intervention

charybdis

Alright, there seems to be an even higher than normal level of confusion about HDR here lately.

HDR is a capture technique based on the combination of multiple exposures of the same scene at different exposure values that are then combined to form an image that has a greater dynamic range than it would've been possible to capture with a single exposure.

Tone mapping is a post-processing technique used to compress the dynamic range of an image into a smaller range, often for the purposes of approximating the appearance of a HDR image in a medium incapable of representing such a large dynamic range.

Very often, people misrepresent tone mapped images as HDR images.

If your image is not a combination of separate exposures, it isn't HDR.

Just because you pumped something through Photomatix/Photoshop/whatever and got something out the other end doesn't make it HDR and it doesn't make it inherently good. Most importantly, it certainly won't make an interesting image from a photograph that was crap to begin with.

It's important to remember that these techniques are just tools; they can be used to good effect and they can be used to ill effect and the sooner people actually consider the aesthetic merits of what they're doing rather than just wanting to hop on a bandwagon, the sooner we can get away from this "HDR == bad" dichotomy.

Fajitas!

They're usually sh*te though.

sprinkles

As with any art form it's open to personal opinion/taste.

I don't particularly like most of the results but there are a few that I have actually been really impressed with. It takes a lot of skill [read: restraint] to produce a good HDR effect imo.

dazftw

Good(at a stretch):



Utter crap that we get:



Too many people who have a topaz filter or similar tbh

just my opinion :rolleyes:

Mr. Grieves

The irony is that a tone-mapped HDR photo of a scene with high dynamic range should look more natural than a non-HDR capture of the same scene, because our eyes can handle far greater dynamic range than a sensor/screen. But it's very rarely the case; people use HDR for effect.

I think the historical limitations in the dynamic range of film (or paper, more accurately) has influenced our idea of how reality should be (mis)represented in a photograph - we favour pure black shadows/silhouettes etc. over the alternative.

sprinkles

@dazftw

Now I feel nauseous..

Thecageyone

Thanks for the lesson ...
:rolleyes:

charybdis

Fajitas! wrote: »

They're usually sh*te though.

That's sort of what I was saying. Images that are claimed to be "HDR" are almost universally, as you say, "sh*te".

My point was that they're being referred to as "HDR" in error and that calling an awful image "HDR" is no salve to its inadequacies.

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

The irony is that a tone-mapped HDR photo of a scene with high dynamic range should look more natural than a non-HDR capture of the same scene, because our eyes can handle far greater dynamic range than a sensor/screen. But it's very rarely the case; people use HDR for effect.

I think the historical limitations in the dynamic range of film (or paper, more accurately) has influenced our idea of how reality should be (mis)represented in a photograph - we favour pure black shadows/silhouettes etc. over the alternative.

The history of photography is littered with things that were originally technical compromises that became defining characteristics of the medium: monochrome, limited colour palette, limited dynamic range, focus, depth-of-field, exposure, motion blur. The artefacts of these compromises form the visual language of photography and when they aren't honoured the result is often incoherent.

Trying to literally capture what the eye sees is foregone to failure as the technical democracy of photography cannot convey the ideas the viewer is imbuing the scene with. However, figuratively capturing what the eye sees is altogether more possible, if not still very difficult, as a skilled photographer can use this visual language to convey they meaning of a scene by only using an exclusive portion of the information in it.

In my own musings on the subject, I can't get away from the idea that the fundamental essence of photography isn't about capturing your vision, it's about learning how to see.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Thanks for the lesson ...
:rolleyes:

I would've thought, as someone who is trying to learn about photography, that you'd welcome new information?

And if you were born in 1975 as your pix.ie name would suggest, you'd think a 35 year old would have a bit more decorum than making snarky comments on a legitimate discussion.

stcstc

I think that the "normal" look to hdr is more to do with the user than the technique

tone mapping is the same, although tone mapping has been around since long before digital photography

charybdis

i think your explanations are spot on. and i do have to agree most of the examples do look sh*te like you say

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

That's sort of what I was saying. Images that are claimed to be "HDR" are almost universally, as you say, "sh*te".

My point was that they're being referred to as "HDR" in error and that calling an awful image "HDR" is no salve to its inadequacies.



The history of photography is littered with things that were originally technical compromises that became defining characteristics of the medium: monochrome, limited colour palette, limited dynamic range, focus, depth-of-field, exposure, motion blur. The artefacts of these compromises form the visual language of photography and when they aren't honoured the result is often incoherent.

Trying to literally capture what the eye sees is foregone to failure as the technical democracy of photography cannot convey the ideas the viewer is imbuing the scene with. However, figuratively capturing what the eye sees is altogether more possible, if not still very difficult, as a skilled photographer can use this visual language to convey they meaning of a scene by only using an exclusive portion of the information in it.

In my own musings on the subject, I can't get away from the idea that the fundamental essence of photography isn't about capturing your vision, it's about learning how to see.



I would've thought, as someone who is trying to learn about photography, that you'd welcome new information?

And if you were born in 1975 as your pix.ie name would suggest, you'd think a 35 year old would have a bit more decorum than making snarky comments on a legitimate discussion.

Wow you are well up your own arse aren't you!? You create a smarmy, patronising thread, full of Wiki info - telling most on here what they no doubt already know! [I've done many HDR shots, just to learn how, I don't particularly like the technique] And then get all pissy when someone is a little sarcastic. I tell you, I can be a lot more. I was being gentle.

Go back to school and re-do math, I'm 34, not 35 :P [Born NYE '75]

legitimate? Seems to me this was only created after a few guys upped 'HDR' shots, looking for advice ... why not preach to them in their threads? Some so called photographers are just elitist wannabe dicks. And that's fine, but don't come looking for a row with me matey. No problem airing my views.

dan759

This is getting totally rediculous. If you don't like HDR, Tough sh*t. People are still going to do it, Attempt it, and most likely create images you don't like. get over it and move on. Elitest tw*ts.

Thecageyone

My thoughts exactly. Anyone who does like it will know how to do it already, we all have Wiki, google ... getting all pompous and high and mighty about it just makes you come across a cock tbh. Non of us are ultimate pros. We all make mistakes.

charybdis

Real classy, guys.

Calina

Knock it off guys or I will be handing out holidays from the photography forum.

Do I make myself abundantly clear?

Thecageyone

I see, no straight talking allowed. Said what I had to say anyhow. OP just needs to get down off the high horse is all.

dazftw

dan759 wrote: »

This is getting totally rediculous. If you don't like HDR, Tough sh*t. People are still going to do it, Attempt it, and most likely create images you don't like. get over it and move on. Elitest tw*ts.

That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it right? If you cant take critique then don't post right?

dan759

If its about the process and its giving constructive criticism and advice on how to improve your more than welcome to post

If its a "I hate hdr so therefore this is rubbish" reply, then whats the point of even replying? I figure we're all here to give advice and help one another yes?

Calina

I will close this thread if the fractious infighting continues.

Thecageyone

Wow, this is barely even a row and threats of bans and closing threads ... bit extreme IMO, and I've been around many, many forums.

I never swore or directly called anyone names, and didn't break down in tears when my age was brought into it for no good reason ...

People do have the right to their opinion.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Wow, this is barely even a row and threats of bans and closing threads ... bit extreme IMO, and I've been around many, many forums.

I never swore or directly called anyone names, and didn't break down in tears when my age was brought into it for no good reason ...

People do have the right to their opinion.

you haven't been round this forum... it escalates...quickly... we gots the big egos bouts heres we dos

Thecageyone

Wouldn't mind but I was the one insulted to begin with ... before that I'd only left a snarky reply, no real harm meant.

2 mod pms and warnings is a bit hefty for just speaking your mind within reason, but I'll leave it so.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Wouldn't mind but I was the one insulted to begin with ... before that I'd only left a snarky reply, no real harm meant.

2 mod pms and warnings is a bit hefty for just speaking your mind within reason, but I'll leave it so.

dont rock the boat that mods you...

ever wonder what happened to 'shrimp' :eek::eek::eek::eek:

paulusdu

My humble opinion: HDR done right looks good
swans done right look good

The great thing like an "art" like photography is everyone has a different taste, some more passionate than others. But that can only be a good thing right ?
who wants to love something that has no passion in it?

I've never tried real HDR, looks far too complicated for me

I have tried "topazing" some shots, 98% look ridiculous, 2% look good

But if you post something on a forum like boards photography and want bland c&c, then i think you are on the wrong site. If you don;t like negative c&c, i wouldn't bother posting.

Maybe when i have time in the summer, i think i will give real HDR a try because i like to learn new things. I always thought that was one of the great things about picking up a real camera a few years ago, i get to try and learn lots of different techniques, and i still have so much to learn and play with. And not all of them work for me, if you don;t believe me can check out my pix.ie :-)

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

dont rock the boat that mods you...

ever wonder what happened to 'shrimp' :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Not rocking anything, just being honest. if that gets me in trouble so be it :cool:

Thecageyone

paulusdu wrote: »

I've never tried real HDR, looks far too complicated for me

I thought that at the beginning, it's really simple though. Well, to get the bracket shots. getting it right in Post can be the trickier bit. I really believe subtlety is the key to it.

magicbastarder

i'm just baffled as to how something as mundane as HDR has become so divisive.
baffled and amused.

DougL

sprinkles wrote: »

As with any art form it's open to personal opinion/taste.

I don't particularly like most of the results but there are a few that I have actually been really impressed with. It takes a lot of skill [read: restraint] to produce a good HDR effect imo.

I think you're right, restraint is the key. I think that goes for post-processing in general. For me, it has to look real. Although, I guess one person's real is another person's boring. I prefer to use filters, but that's just me.

I recently looked back on some of my images from around the time I started using lightroom...jesus was I heavy-handed with the saturation, vibrance, and clarity. Sometimes it'd be really handy to have a time machine so you could go back and make sure what you've produced actually resembles the scene you photographed. I sometimes find it difficult shooting in RAW because the images come out of the camera so flat.

DougL

Wow...that'll teach me to reply to a post before reading the whole thread.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, if the photo is good, judicious HDR could make it better. If the photo is bad, HDR isn't going to help you. Normally, I'm not a fan, but just this week, I came across a stunning B&W HDR image...wish I could find a link to it.

dazftw

dazftw wrote: »

I think that's a fantastic photograph!

pete4130

Sure why doesn't everyone head over to the photo assignment thread and have a look there.....and then you can all submit your own HDR/tonemapped images and see who comes out on top and put an end to this arguing!

sNarah

Oh Pete, you are such a smooth operator

Eirebear

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

The irony is that a tone-mapped HDR photo of a scene with high dynamic range should look more natural than a non-HDR capture of the same scene, because our eyes can handle far greater dynamic range than a sensor/screen. But it's very rarely the case; people use HDR for effect.

I think the historical limitations in the dynamic range of film (or paper, more accurately) has influenced our idea of how reality should be (mis)represented in a photograph - we favour pure black shadows/silhouettes etc. over the alternative.

I half agree with you here.

Yes, HDR/Tone Mapping should look more realistic to our eyes, thats kind of the point of it.

However are we really all striving for realisty in our shots? I mean we dont see anything in Black and White, however it often suits a shot better when used correctly.
We dont tend to see thingsin the manner of a photograph that has been shot with a wide aperture, yet often we want to shoot portraits in this manner.

If everything was "realistic" photography would be extremely boring.

My opinions on HDR?
it has its place, ive seen people on this very forum use it to great effect, AMcInroy (sp?) in his black and white cave shoots for example.
Unfortunately not many people do use it to good effect, never mind great.