Lior Patel
Active member
It comes out nice...sometimes...but i don't know if it's still photography or super manipulated photography.
--
Please visit : http://www.liorpt.com
--
Please visit : http://www.liorpt.com
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Not sure if HDR is a great thing or just crap...your thoughts ?
- Thread starter Lior Patel
- Start date
HDR is a great way of..., well, increase the dynamic range of your images. However, you have to learn to tame it down in order to maintain a realistic look. Some people do like the surreal look of images such as the one you posted, but as you said, that is not really a photograph. You are not conveying what your eye saw. The history of HDR goes way back to the film days. Today, many photographers, including many professionals, use it to create more compelling realistic photographs. See some of this guy's work for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benison
I use digiKam's exposure blending tool to achieve a higher dynamic range on some of my photos as well.
I guess it depends on what you like.
Before so-called 'hdr' pictures were possible, the world was already full of erroneous notions. Take for example the craze in certain circles for 'existing light photography'. I simply cannot fantom how lack of proper illumination can be made into a desirable value, which is in reality making a virtue out of necessity.
HDR is a godsend means of making every part of a visual scene appear as clear and aesthetically pleasing to the eyes as possible in a photograph.
Of course the results will be instantly repulsive to those with deeply ingrained notions and conditioned reactions.
HDR is a godsend means of making every part of a visual scene appear as clear and aesthetically pleasing to the eyes as possible in a photograph.
Of course the results will be instantly repulsive to those with deeply ingrained notions and conditioned reactions.
Jeff Rutsch
Leading Member
HDR photography seems like it should work sometimes, or at least be a fun unique style. But from looking at actual samples, it all looks terrible. I think it'is more of a hobby for people who enjoy using Photoshop than a quality photographic technique.
Cailean Gallimore
Veteran Member
Like everything else, it's how you use it. I like the goat image, but I wouldn't want to look through 50 others like it. I feel the same about IR. One image printed well, and beautifully framed, hanging alone on a wall can make a very powerful impression.
iMac therefore iAm
Veteran Member
Ah, gotta love blanket statements. I guarantee you've seen HDR that you did not know was HDR.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
I do, however, wish it were sharper, a lot sharper, especially the face of the goat in the foreground. Missed focus, perhaps? 'Cause it looks like the brown goat just to the left of the "main" goat in the center of the frame is sharp, and the rest fairly sharp due to the super deep DOF at 21mm f/9 on FF.
It comes out nice...sometimes...but i don't know if it's still photography or super manipulated photography.
--
Please visit : http://www.liorpt.com
LeRentier
Forum Pro
As soon as you can clearly tell there was an HDR treatment, it becomes a bad thing.
It's one of those techniques that can work small miracles but should remain invisible to all but the real experts.
That is my opinion and I share it with myself and my shadow.
It's one of those techniques that can work small miracles but should remain invisible to all but the real experts.
That is my opinion and I share it with myself and my shadow.
7DVancouverite
Leading Member
HDR or Not? Three pictures...you tell me...
I only post this as most who decry HDR as something to revile cannot tell whether or not an image which has been processed lightly is or isn't.
My taste is to just show some shadow detail that I know I saw but the sensor couldn't capture in a single exposure.
For me HDR should be EDR or (Eye Dynamic Range)
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
I only post this as most who decry HDR as something to revile cannot tell whether or not an image which has been processed lightly is or isn't.
My taste is to just show some shadow detail that I know I saw but the sensor couldn't capture in a single exposure.
For me HDR should be EDR or (Eye Dynamic Range)
--
Whatta Hobby this Photography stuff is! Expensive!
It is everything you mentioned - an enjoyable graphic hobby, a quality photographic technique, and more.
Though it is widely unappreciated now, as a technique and serious pursuit, I think it is the future of photography.
Then I seriously suggest you take up existing-light photography.
Cailean Gallimore
Veteran Member
Beautiful post!
It depends on the look you are going for. Sure if you are trying to create a nice contemporary shot HDR can ruin that.
But in the OP's example a picture of a goat with the HDR applied makes it much more dramatic than it otherwise would have been.
If you were going for overly dramatic then in this case its good even if you can tell its been "HDR'd"
I can never see why it can ever become a 'bad thing' when one knows a picture has undergone HDR treatment.
That is pure, unadulterated prejudice.
A couple gets married today and the photographer uses hdr on the wedding photos. Jump forward 20 years to their 20th anniversary. They pull out the wedding photos for a trip down memory lane. Instead of gazing into their wedding day, they are distracted and can't stop focusing on the hdr processing. Some adjective like "bad", "undesirable", or "unfortunate" would apply.
Now when you're processing a fun, artsy picture of a goat, why not use hdr? In my opinion, the processing is about 20% too strong for a goat picture, but goat hdr processing is highly subjective. Otherwise, I think it's a very good save of a photo that probably would have been discarded and a good argument in favor of hdr.
Appreciate the candor.
In my example, the hdr is assumed to have been done with a fairly heavy hand. It can certainly be done more subtly to good effect.
A couple gets married today and the photographer uses hdr on the wedding photos. Jump forward 20 years to their 20th anniversary. They pull out the wedding photos for a trip down memory lane. Instead of gazing into their wedding day, they are distracted and can't stop focusing on the hdr processing. Some adjective like "bad", "undesirable", or "unfortunate" would apply.
Now when you're processing a fun, artsy picture of a goat, why not use hdr? In my opinion, the processing is about 20% too strong for a goat picture, but goat hdr processing is highly subjective. Otherwise, I think it's a very good save of a photo that probably would have been discarded and a good argument in favor of hdr.
Appreciate the candor.
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
Overdone and silly. Like most HDR'ed photos. The technique has become trivialized through overuse.
Just because you CAN use a technique doesn't mean you SHOULD use a technique. I don't doubt it will win the "Goats and Gray Skies" challenge.
--
Don't feel too vindicated if I happen to agree with you today. Chances are we will disagree tomorrow. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Just because you CAN use a technique doesn't mean you SHOULD use a technique. I don't doubt it will win the "Goats and Gray Skies" challenge.
--
Don't feel too vindicated if I happen to agree with you today. Chances are we will disagree tomorrow. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
You are probably right if you say that. That oil colors can be used to produce a masterpiece by Picasso doesn't mean any teenager can also produce a good painting with his toy palette.
But a technology is a technology (not simply technique). It is a godsend to the world of photography.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum