HDR opinions

vulcan57

I have just been playing around with HDR on some of my photos over the last couple of days. Not being that up on HDR was just hoping for some C&C on these few.

















Thanks for looking

Antomus Prime

I'm reading up on HDR now and really want to start workin on some.

I really like most of them, although IMO one or two of them look like theyre too saturated, esp the ones with the people. But still as youre only starting with them i think theyre pretty goo. Can I ask what way you edited them?

DaireQuinlan

Horribly overcooked. You've removed any tonal information whatsoever from the images and made them look like bland grey porridge photographs.

Antomus Prime

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Horribly overcooked. You've removed any tonal information whatsoever from the images and made them look like bland grey porridge photographs.

A bit harsh sounding dont you think?? He said they were his first ones and was looking for feedback, not insults!

5uspect

He's right though. They're really horrible. Do you know what HDR actually does or did you just decide to try it on some images that don't really need it?

smash

Make it stop

DaireQuinlan

Antomus Prime wrote: »

A bit harsh sounding dont you think?? He said they were his first ones and was looking for feedback, not insults!

that IS feedback. In my opinion they're horrendous looking. There's haloing all over the place, he's flattened the shots into grey goo, whilst at the same time managing to grotesquely over-sharpen and over-saturate them. No mean feat.

The op has fallen into what's referred to as his 'HDR hole'. It's our job as right thinking people to help him out as soon as possible.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/861087

magicbastarder

+1 on the overcooked angle. they're among the most extreme examples i've seen. they don't look realistic in any way, shape or form, and they don't look good.

Antomus Prime

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

that IS feedback. In my opinion they're horrendous looking. There's haloing all over the place, he's flattened the shots into grey goo, whilst at the same time managing to grotesquely over-sharpen and over-saturate them. No mean feat.

The op has fallen into what's referred to as his 'HDR hole'. It's our job as right thinking people to help him out as soon as possible.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/861087

Fair enough yeah but I just thought your wording was a bit harsh, thats all.

Kenny Logins

To be honest, I have nothing against HDR when used well but I find these painful to look at, the effect is just too strong IMHO.

Misstaken

Not a fan of HDR at all.. some very well done shots can look a bit magical but I think it takes a very experience eye/processor to create HDR without turning a photograph into a cartoon. Sorry, not for me.

dirtyghettokid

i think beginners get hooked into what they think is a HDR look, but they maybe don't understand the whole thing.
hdr is meant to kinda show an evenly exposed image. the above images just show highlights made dark and shadows made bright. it doesn't look like an evenly exposed image by any means. the people also have very orange faces

hdr images can look really cool if they are done right.

check out http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/
while i don't like some of the images on this page, there are some that look really nice.

hdr is not everyone's cup of tea, but if you like it, stick with it and refine your methods a little more. read more about it.

EDIT: @vulcan57
are your images actual bracketed photos? or did you just use tone mapping a single exposure in photomatix??

vulcan57

Ok I asked for C&C and I got !! Seriously though I appreciate the feedback, the only way to learn for anyone good or bad. There is obviously an art to HDR and I aint got it ! LOL Ah well, will just have to read up a bit on it and in the meantime carry on with the straight forward photography. Thanks again for all the replies, if nothing else you've stopped me making a bigger fool of myself.

dirtyghettokid

vulcan57 wrote: »

Ok I asked for C&C and I got !! Seriously though I appreciate the feedback, the only way to learn for anyone good or bad. There is obviously an art to HDR and I aint got it ! LOL Ah well, will just have to read up a bit on it and in the meantime carry on with the straight forward photography. Thanks again for all the replies, if nothing else you've stopped me making a bigger fool of myself.

do you bracket your photos?
what software are you using?

DaireQuinlan

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

check out http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/
while i don't like some of the images on this page, there are some that look really nice.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74110319#post74110319

vulcan57 wrote: »

There is obviously an art to HDR ...

No. No there's not.

dirtyghettokid

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74110319#post74110319



No. No there's not.

that is your opinion. some people happen to like HDR, so why get so upset by it? it's their business if they have an interest in HDR photos.
it's just a bit of craic anyway.

as for the tutorial page, i stand by what i said in my last post that some images look alright.

i have my own methods for doing HDR and i don't use any info i read on that site. it's still handy enough for a beginner to read to get a grasp of the whole subject though.

smash

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

check out http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/
while i don't like some of the images on this page, there are some that look really nice.

The chick on the beach right?

But yea, there are some nice photos there.

dirtyghettokid

smash wrote: »

The chick on the beach right?

But yea, there are some nice photos there.

well i'm not a guy, but yea that's a nice photo

Kenny Logins

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

do you bracket your photos?
what software are you using?

You'd have a job bracketing that gull in the second pic. :pac:

dirtyghettokid

Kenny Logins wrote: »

You'd have a job bracketing that gull in the second pic. :pac:

i asked the question because some people who create images that they think are HDR aren't actually bracketed. some don't know what it is, they just throw an image through photomatix and that's about it

magicbastarder

vulcan57 wrote: »

Ok I asked for C&C and I got !! Seriously though I appreciate the feedback, the only way to learn for anyone good or bad. There is obviously an art to HDR and I aint got it ! LOL Ah well, will just have to read up a bit on it and in the meantime carry on with the straight forward photography. Thanks again for all the replies, if nothing else you've stopped me making a bigger fool of myself.

usually, HDR is used when there are extremes of light and shade in a pic which you want to pull definition from, but which usually can't both be accomodated in a single, simple exposure; most of your pics above would not have these extremes, so to go for a HDR look (as explained above, 'true' HDR uses several bracketed images) is trying to address a limitation which is not there.

what would naturally be bright highlights in your shots above have been pulled back to a murky grey, and there's no need for that.

out of curiosity, where were they taken?

kelly1

Has to be the most over-processed HDR I've ever seen! :eek:

Freddie59

Not really into HDR. If you don't mind me saying so the effect seems a bit strong.

Freddie59

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

check out http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/

Even some of them are a bit iffy. That one of the kids at the christmas tree really looks fake.

OctavarIan

Good HDR photos will look like these (although even the first one has a little bit of ghosting)





The extreme tone mapping churned out by software like Photomatix does more harm to your images than good.

the_tractor

+1 for overcooked.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Even some of them are a bit iffy. That one of the kids at the christmas tree really looks fake.

I like it, it's fake looking alright, but it suits the subject matter, a looks a bit 'dream like'.

Freddie59

the_tractor wrote: »

+1 for overcooked.



I like it, it's fake looking alright, but it suits the subject matter, a looks a bit 'dream like'.

Yeah, having looked at it again you're right.:)

jonniebgood1

OctavarIan wrote: »

Good HDR photos will look like these (although even the first one has a little bit of ghosting)

The extreme tone mapping churned out by software like Photomatix does more harm to your images than good.

Hey Ian- What method/ software do you use. As I see it HDR is useful in some cases to show different extremes of an image in the one shot that would'nt be otherwise possible. I don't understand people who are not open to this type of PP when done properly.If they were around 100 years ago they would have been against cameras?
The OP has'nt done it properly as they are very much overdone but I would suggest playing around with the settings. You should process the one image with many different settings to get slightly different results. This would allow you to see which looked best.

magicbastarder

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As I see it HDR is useful in some cases to show different extremes of an image in the one shot that would'nt be otherwise possible. I don't understand people who are not open to this type of PP when done properly.If they were around 100 years ago they would have been against cameras?

photographers down the years were not at all immune to a bit of dodging & burning to draw out shadows or pull back highlights, but the phrase HDR has - for good or bad - become associated with awfully overcooked shots which look highly unrealistic.

the thing is, a well-done HDR should not be easily recognisable as such, and many people seeing such a shot would not think it was a HDR.

kelly1

Exposure fusion/blending seems to be the way to go, not that I've used it much!

dirtyghettokid

kelly1 wrote: »

Exposure fusion/blending seems to be the way to go, not that I've used it much!

i've done a bit of that recently. you can get some good results! and you don't get any weird effects that shouldn't be there!

i also agree with what magicbastarder said "the thing is, a well-done HDR should not be easily recognisable as such, and many people seeing such a shot would not think it was a HDR."

very true. i find it works well with some landscape shots, but not much else.

LeoB

Vulcan57 fair play for posting your pics for a start.

Its all a matter of opinion if you ask me. A lot of people dont like H.D.R but I think if done correctly its ok and I find some quite nice. Some good examples have been posted up here over the last year and there are some superb examples on flickr.

I done exactly what you did when I started tricking around with with H.D.R. but you learn as you go. I laugh looking back at some of my early attempts but I also laugh when I hear people saying they spent an hour in photoshop trying to get the look they want in an image.

However if you like the images thats more important.

FoxT

Hi Vulcan57,

I like the composition of your photos, and they are all interesting - but unfortunately the HDR treatment really takes away a lot of the visual appeal. The colours are quite unnatural - with some shades heavily oversaturated (like the blues in pic #4) - unfortunately the HDR on these takes away a lot of the appealing qualities of what appear to have been an attractive set of photos to begin with.

I have tried a bit of HDR myself & wasn't happy with the results. These days if I have to deal with a high-contrast subject I will shoot in RAW, & then use RAW Therapee to process them. Doing it this way does not give the dynamic range that HDR is capable of, but it does help, and I find gives more natural-looking results.


It is worth experimenting though, thanks for sharing,

-FoxT

vulcan57

Again, thanks a million for the replies and they are very much appreciated. I am taking on board a lot of what is being said here and taking a serious look at the the advice that is being given. @ magicbastarder, most of these were taken in Cornwall apart from one taken at Brandon Quay in Co. Kerry and one in Galway.

melekalikimaka

great shots, processing, could be worked on imo, zero time for hdr

Eirebear

For me the true test of an image is when you print it, and i'll bet my last penny that these shots don't look good on paper. The vibrant colour you see on screen from these images, relies on the fact that your monitor is backlit which makes it easier to read the subtle changes in tone, a print relies on reflection to give it tonal quality so all you'd be left with is a flat looking, birghtly coloured image which is confusing to the eye.

Dont get me wrong, it's all about taste - and it seems that tonemapped stuff like this is all part of the learning curve - but it seems to me that they are a result of the fact that people look at their images on a computer screen, very rrely printing them anymore.

Every You Photography

Hi,

To be honest, I am not a big fan of HDR pictures. It is something we all did once, we enjoyed it, and we moved away since.

Just to give you a feedback on your pictures, some of them are a bit grey-ish (an overall layer of grey on the picture, not only in the sky).

That would be a way to improve them for me, try to get rid of that grey layer when you can.