Reading mode: Light Dark

High dynamic range is hurting my eyes

Go to last post
smokeyjoe

smokeyjoe

Leading Member
Messages
674
Reaction score
12
Location
Toronto, CA
We seem to be going through an HDR fad of late.

HDR works occasionally as an effect, but for the most part it's rather hard on the eyes.

I recall a few years ago when sharpening became popular. Everyone wanted to process their images to be as absolutely sharp as possible.

Hard to look at.

It was the old 'look what I can do' thing.
It was a fad.
Thankfully we seem to have progressed beyond uber sharpness.
Hopefully this HDR thing will fall by the wayside soon.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/-smokeyjoe/
 
I made that comment in another forum and someone attacked me. LOL! I mean his images are what made me finally comment on the HORRIBLE hdr fad. Most people don't even do it well. They just get rid of the depths in an image completely by the time they're done with it.

Most of the time you can see their photoshop brushstrokes. A nice HDR is cool when you realize that a great dynamic range may have detail in the darks but they are still dark. Not that you wipe out the fact that it's a shadowy area completely.

Regardless of good or bad I will be glad when it cools off and everyone isn't thinking that creating an HDR image makes the image good. It usually doesn't. The great hdr images start off as great photos.

Sergio
--
My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies..
 
LOL ...

I tend to agree, and I laugh a bit at the fad because it seems that in so much of my work I am shortening the dynamic range to show the important points of a photograph, not trying to expand it to show everything whether important or not.

HDR processing is new and tricky to do in a way that is pleasing. I'm sure it will come... ;-)

Godfrey
 
. . . people use it to eliminate shadows.

HDR is actually supposed to extend tones. You leave the shadow zones but they print with nicer detail and you get richer fuller color gradients through every zone.

What you are talking about is hack photoshoping not real HDR.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)
 
I agree with you.

HDR is trully valuable in some applications, like surveilance. I'm a Product Manager for Security Industry and know how important to have a camera that can have a good picture inside the room and also out of the window at the same time. Some chip mnf already achieved good results.

But to me, photography is different from CCTV. Its important so see everything in shadows if you have a perimiter to protect, but i don't wanna see whats in shadow when i'm taking picture of my nicely lit object.

--
Snap away :)
 
sergiod said:
I made that comment in another forum and someone attacked me. LOL! I
mean his images are what made me finally comment on the HORRIBLE hdr
fad. Most people don't even do it well. They just get rid of the
depths in an image completely by the time they're done with it.
Click to expand...
Well, I am certain that you have never had to photograph the interior of buildings and houses where the inside light has to balance the outside light. Flash was not an option.

I am also certain that you have never photographed an outdoor scene, where to get the foreground detail properly exposed, you need to blow the sky.

I am also reasonably certain that you have never used the dodge and burn tool to enhance areas of a photograph.

I am also quite certain that you have not used some of the tools beyond Photoshop layers and manual erasing to explore the possibilities.

Your eyes do not see true to life light and dark areas and in fact adjust themselves to the lighting requirements. The goal is to make the images appear on paper as they do when viewed by the eyes. Your eyes do not see the deep shadows with no detail. Your eyes do not see the blown out sky. HDR attempts to resolve these issues.

As a telling point most HDR images that I have done people are most impressed. Much more so than the native image out of the camera.

I find very little excitement for bizzare images that are overexposed, high key, or whatever you want to call them. But others like them and that is their artistic right.

Don't knock a prcessing option that you do not fully understand and of which you have not had any success.

--
RayT
 
Heh- heh.......
I knew I'd be opening up a can o' worms here, but I stand by my initial post.

HDR, while fun to do is really just an overdone fad. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

Me? I'm guilty of over-saturating images sometimes, but I try to keep it to the point where it doesn't suck the eyes out of your head.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/-smokeyjoe/
 
...as a technique. Skillfully managed, it can be an asset to any photographer. It does have a very limited range of usefulness IMO and can be overdone as you suggest.

The same criticism can be made of fisheye images. They have their place, but are difficult to produce and the effect can wear on the eye.

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

'It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see...' -- Henry David Thoreau
 
I have seen HDR done well. And that's the problem- everyone wants to bring the clouds + main subject + ground into main focus by showing all its shapes and what nots, and the composition becomes a full on mess with no meaning except "look ma! I got those clouds in" kinda techie gadget playing.

I wouldn't say it's the HDR per se but the lack of focus on art when using it.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
I mostly agree.

As art, its very Kitsch. As a tool squeeze out a decent representative photo, it works well.

Most shots that look great in HDR, look just as good in a properly exposed image. I lump HDR into the same category as applied photoshop effects. no one is really going to believe that by applying the photoshop "sketch" function, it really makes a picture look like a sketch. Same with most HDR photos, they dont look very real.

HDR will help save some shots that would otherwise be totally unviewable, but it does not add any emotion or artistic impression.

In other words, I like looking at HDR pictures, but I am not going to put one on my wall.

just my opinion

Rob
 
form your reply it seems you are talking about DR rich images that have a lot of tonal range and keep highlights from burning etc. Kind of what Fuji does with the SR sensor- I could be wrong.

When I wrote what I wrote I was thinking about patently unreal stuff that looks just as if someone shot for the clouds, then for that bridge, then for the ground, trying to make each individual photo, the subject stand out, then merge the three of them.

A complete compositional mess :-)

I could again, be wrong in how I read your opinion, and I would say I think we agree pretty much.

Someone at work sent me a link of "top 10 HDR shots" of some year or website .. one of the shots was brilliant, and like 80% of them fell in the compo-mess category... I'll see if I can find it.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
those are not what I am referring to, and I would even say I think you are in the right direction in your use of HDR (composition/subject/etc another matter but the HDR where you are using it seems fine with me).

let me dig what I saw and you tell me what you think. I think it's horrible (what I saw).

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Here's what I call good (actually excellent in this case), interesting use of HDR (yours is in that direction, though not this style or extreme but I find it good):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitridepaepe/1885164835/

And to me this is what I call horrible/overdone "typical" use of HDR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9147703@N03/2176897085/

The clouds and the bridge by themselves are fine. They may even look great. But the mix of them fights between them and the photo becomes a mess. It's like the entire shot wants my attention everywhere.

Again, good HDR:

http://flickr.com/photos/atrium09/455448365/

Bad HDR:

http://flickr.com/photos/elementalpaul/2261257446/in/pool-hdr

Good HDR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/niklens/155636436/

My opinion, of course.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Raist3d said:
Here's what I call good (actually excellent in this case),
interesting use of HDR (yours is in that direction, though not this
style or extreme but I find it good):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitridepaepe/1885164835/

And to me this is what I call horrible/overdone "typical" use of HDR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9147703@N03/2176897085/

The clouds and the bridge by themselves are fine. They may even look
great. But the mix of them fights between them and the photo becomes
a mess. It's like the entire shot wants my attention everywhere.

Again, good HDR:

http://flickr.com/photos/atrium09/455448365/

Bad HDR:

http://flickr.com/photos/elementalpaul/2261257446/in/pool-hdr

Good HDR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/niklens/155636436/

My opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I don't like that last one, it's to much of a contrast.

I generaly think one can do some HDR work to pull back highlights, but when they get to the point where there is a "halo" aof light/shadow around object, then you're going too far!

My taste:

Good HDR:
http://flickr.com/photos/25178156@N03/2651559293/in/pool-98936892@N00

Bad HDR (haloing):
http://flickr.com/photos/14448041@N04/2627838889/in/pool-98936892@N00

Very bad HDR (way overdone):
http://flickr.com/photos/craig-sinclair/2654657008/in/pool-98936892@N00

--



http://flickr.com/photos/gatchell/
Michael Gatchell
 
Smokeyjoe-- what have you been smoking-- your source please?;> )

The healthy human eye can see-- what is it?-- 20-21 f-stops, EVs, etc. That's where the whole concept for EVs came from-- human vision capability. Do you really want to limit cameras (and photos) to 7-9 f-stops? If so why is that? It would be like taking all the very dark AND very light colors away from a painter (artist). You'd be lucky to escape w/ just a proper tar and feathering;> )

Those examples Raistd pointed out, IMO, are not so much about HDR as they are "photo art"-- or another way of putting it, 'computer manipulation". I enjoy doing it sometimes myself and have a good friend who is an 'upfront photo artist'. He makes no pretense that it's not photo art-- and he's sold a lot.

To me, HDR is just an attempt to show what the human eye actually sees at a scene. What's wrong with that? Ever shoot into the sun(setting) and everything in the fore and mid turn black or very dark-- but the eye saw what was there-- no? Don't you understand how limiting cameras actually are?-- film was even somewhat worse than the best digital-- that' out of camera not after either darkroom or computer manipulation.

(EDIT): I fully understand that likes and dislikes are very personal.

Rant over! and Cheers anyway-- but don't take my paints away!

Craig
--
'Shoot freely and edit ruthlessly' me, November 2002-- after purchase of E-1.
Equipment in profile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top