Reading mode: Light Dark

Professional photographers and the use of HDR

Go to last post
S

sirhawkeye64

Veteran Member
Messages
18,797
Solutions
17
Reaction score
6,634
Location
US
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
 
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?

I would say that most images we view today, in the way we view them, likely have less dynamic range than the original scene. We likely don't notice because our eyes constantly adjust to the combination of the specific local area and our entire field of view; but the fact is that there is a big difference between the brightest and darkest parts of the scenes most of us experience throughout our lives.

So one could argue that pretty much any image is an HDR image, since the scene's DR is compressed to fit within the medium we view on (be it print or monitors).

This becomes much more apparent if you ever view a linearly rendered raw file, btw.
 
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem with the term "HDR" is when people hear it, they often times have a misconception of what it really is, versus what they think it is: over saturated gritty photos with a lot of detail, and they can be if that's the vision of the photographer, but then again, they don't have to be. Personally, my definition of HDR is merely blending bracketing shots to expand dynamic range (into a single image after merging).

I did acknowledge the saturation part in his comment, but that you then usually go back and reduce the saturation to match the original saturation of the scene (unless you want the over saturated look, and some people do). At least that's my process if I'm not going for the over saturated gritty look. I try to tame the saturation to a normal realistic level.
beatboxa said:
I would say that most images we view today, in the way we view them, likely have less dynamic range than the original scene. We likely don't notice because our eyes constantly adjust to the combination of the specific local area and our entire field of view; but the fact is that there is a big difference between the brightest and darkest parts of the scenes most of us experience throughout our lives.

So one could argue that pretty much any image is an HDR image, since the scene's DR is compressed to fit within the medium we view on (be it print or monitors).

This becomes much more apparent if you ever view a linearly rendered raw file, btw.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem with the term "HDR" is when people hear it, they often times have a misconception of what it really is, versus what they think it is: over saturated gritty photos with a lot of detail, and they can be if that's the vision of the photographer, but then again, they don't have to be. Personally, my definition of HDR is merely blending bracketing shots to expand dynamic range (into a single image after merging).

I did acknowledge the saturation part in his comment, but that you then usually go back and reduce the saturation to match the original saturation of the scene (unless you want the over saturated look, and some people do). At least that's my process if I'm not going for the over saturated gritty look. I try to tame the saturation to a normal realistic level.
Click to expand...
I think that's reasonable: 'a subjective quality of using unnatural levels of saturation and tone compression.'

And I'd say that's part of photography and up to the photographer. If he wants to get super technical about how photographers don't use HDR, show him a linear raw render and blow his mind about how DR is a spectrum and even when he thinks he isn't using HDR, he actually is in most non-linear raw renders, including OOC JPEGs.
 
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem with the term "HDR" is when people hear it, they often times have a misconception of what it really is, versus what they think it is: over saturated gritty photos with a lot of detail, and they can be if that's the vision of the photographer, but then again, they don't have to be. Personally, my definition of HDR is merely blending bracketing shots to expand dynamic range (into a single image after merging).

I did acknowledge the saturation part in his comment, but that you then usually go back and reduce the saturation to match the original saturation of the scene (unless you want the over saturated look, and some people do). At least that's my process if I'm not going for the over saturated gritty look. I try to tame the saturation to a normal realistic level.
Click to expand...
I think that's reasonable: 'a subjective quality of using unnatural levels of saturation and tone compression.'

And I'd say that's part of photography and up to the photographer. If he wants to get super technical about how photographers don't use HDR, show him a linear raw render and blow his mind about how DR is a spectrum and even when he thinks he isn't using HDR, he actually is in most non-linear raw renders, including OOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...
Actually the funy thing is I just posted an HDR sample for him, and he's like "OK, where's the HDR version?" I told him "You're looking at it..." I told him my goal for the image (which was the inside of a cathedral on a sunny day) that I wanted to maintain the overall look (color) but I wanted to balance the highlights (from the sun coming through the stained glass windows) with the interior of the church, and yet still maintain good detail in the church, which I felt HDR was the way to go because the DR was too much for a single image. But when I merged them, I made careful to make the color (saturation and vibrance) was tamed and natural as well.
 
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem with the term "HDR" is when people hear it, they often times have a misconception of what it really is, versus what they think it is: over saturated gritty photos with a lot of detail, and they can be if that's the vision of the photographer, but then again, they don't have to be. Personally, my definition of HDR is merely blending bracketing shots to expand dynamic range (into a single image after merging).

I did acknowledge the saturation part in his comment, but that you then usually go back and reduce the saturation to match the original saturation of the scene (unless you want the over saturated look, and some people do). At least that's my process if I'm not going for the over saturated gritty look. I try to tame the saturation to a normal realistic level.
Click to expand...
I think that's reasonable: 'a subjective quality of using unnatural levels of saturation and tone compression.'

And I'd say that's part of photography and up to the photographer. If he wants to get super technical about how photographers don't use HDR, show him a linear raw render and blow his mind about how DR is a spectrum and even when he thinks he isn't using HDR, he actually is in most non-linear raw renders, including OOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...
Actually the funy thing is I just posted an HDR sample for him, and he's like "OK, where's the HDR version?" I told him "You're looking at it..."
Click to expand...
lol, yup. Today's sensors are capable of capturing huge amounts of dynamic range that sometime preclude the need for stacking.

Seriously, show the linear raw render as well as the "non-HDR." Use RawDigger. You can use some of my past posts if you want:
 
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem with the term "HDR" is when people hear it, they often times have a misconception of what it really is, versus what they think it is: over saturated gritty photos with a lot of detail, and they can be if that's the vision of the photographer, but then again, they don't have to be. Personally, my definition of HDR is merely blending bracketing shots to expand dynamic range (into a single image after merging).

I did acknowledge the saturation part in his comment, but that you then usually go back and reduce the saturation to match the original saturation of the scene (unless you want the over saturated look, and some people do). At least that's my process if I'm not going for the over saturated gritty look. I try to tame the saturation to a normal realistic level.
Click to expand...
I think that's reasonable: 'a subjective quality of using unnatural levels of saturation and tone compression.'

And I'd say that's part of photography and up to the photographer. If he wants to get super technical about how photographers don't use HDR, show him a linear raw render and blow his mind about how DR is a spectrum and even when he thinks he isn't using HDR, he actually is in most non-linear raw renders, including OOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...
Actually the funy thing is I just posted an HDR sample for him, and he's like "OK, where's the HDR version?" I told him "You're looking at it..."
Click to expand...
lol, yup. Today's sensors are capable of capturing huge amounts of dynamic range that sometime preclude the need for stacking.

Seriously, show the linear raw render as well as the "non-HDR." Use RawDigger. You can use some of my past posts if you want:
Click to expand...
Yeah I'll look into it. I'm actually done talking with this person and the image I posted pretty much shut him up I guess because I just proved to him that you can do an HDR without the typical "HDR look" that everyone is familiar with. This person is very opinionated about various things... like how OEM glass is the only glass people should buy and that third party lenses are junk... nope, not all of them. Some are, some aren't.

And see I think that's the key to HDR too.... make it so it doesn't look like an HDR.... (or at least, what everyone thinks an HDR looks like, you get the idea).
 
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
beatboxa said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I suppose my first thought is: how are you defining HDR?
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem with the term "HDR" is when people hear it, they often times have a misconception of what it really is, versus what they think it is: over saturated gritty photos with a lot of detail, and they can be if that's the vision of the photographer, but then again, they don't have to be. Personally, my definition of HDR is merely blending bracketing shots to expand dynamic range (into a single image after merging).

I did acknowledge the saturation part in his comment, but that you then usually go back and reduce the saturation to match the original saturation of the scene (unless you want the over saturated look, and some people do). At least that's my process if I'm not going for the over saturated gritty look. I try to tame the saturation to a normal realistic level.
Click to expand...
I think that's reasonable: 'a subjective quality of using unnatural levels of saturation and tone compression.'

And I'd say that's part of photography and up to the photographer. If he wants to get super technical about how photographers don't use HDR, show him a linear raw render and blow his mind about how DR is a spectrum and even when he thinks he isn't using HDR, he actually is in most non-linear raw renders, including OOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...
Actually the funy thing is I just posted an HDR sample for him, and he's like "OK, where's the HDR version?" I told him "You're looking at it..."
Click to expand...
lol, yup. Today's sensors are capable of capturing huge amounts of dynamic range that sometime preclude the need for stacking.

Seriously, show the linear raw render as well as the "non-HDR." Use RawDigger. You can use some of my past posts if you want:
Click to expand...
Yeah will do.

And see I think that's the key to HDR too.... make it so it doesn't look like an HDR.... (or at least, what everyone thinks an HDR looks like, you get the idea).
Click to expand...
Exactly. Or, a though experiment: take a picture with the sun and some shadows in it, and explain that you'd need a monitor as bright as the sun for it not to be an HDR.
 
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.

Then we got on the discussion of why he claims they don't (haloing, over saturation, over sharpening, etc), which to me is not specific to HDR and you can easily cause those things without HDR. I clarifed to the OP that HDR is really just expanding the dynamic range of the camera by taking bracketed shots and that the over saturation and halos are a result of over processing, not HDR itself).

I personally use it when it's needed, such as high contrast situations, particularly in landscapes and architecture, but I'm also very careful with ensuring halos are non existant or at least not visible at 100% viewing, and that I don't over saturate things.

I also made a comment that over saturation and post processing (ie. how saturated or gritty an image may be) has more to do with the photographer and their vision for the image (or their style),

Obviously this went over this person's head (whom I had the debate with) and he maintained his original argument that pros don't use HDR. In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general, and that you can get halos and over saturation and crunchiness by over sharpening and saturating a single frame, and that if done correctly, HDR can allow a photographer to create some amazing photos that would be harder if not impossible to capture with a single frame. I also added that some photographers (such as beginners) may feel the need to over saturate their photos as they may think that's what HDR is and that's how you're supposed to do it.

(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)

OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
I’m using HDR sometimes mainly for internal architectural photography but it is done in a modest way to enhance but not to take over.

The problem with many shooters,, is that HDR a and other visual attributes such as bokeh etc, can do wonders to enhance a photo. But ones they become an obsession, and people confuse between the subject and the visual properties of an image, It starts to become destructive, and we have plenty of examples here in the forums.
 
A knowledgeable, and well rounded pro should be able to do whatever the client requires. HDR, high key, B&W, etc., just as a master carpenter makes tables and cabinets as well as chairs.

Whether he prefers it or not, is practically moot, at least that's my opinion. Get the client what they want.

However, if one reaches a level where people are paying for your style, then obviously, that's what your selling.
 
They might want to consider that a professional created HDR. It was originally an innovative Photoshop technique. Then the early software created rather unique HDR images that became so overdone that they are considered a cliche. Finally, people backed off HDR to create a more natural result - one where HDR is used but the effect is subtle.

Pros definitely use HDR, but it is typically for the right reasons. There are situations - such as architectural interiors - where HDR is nearly required. In a well crafted image, you probably can't tell they used HDR - or at least the effect is subtle.

The thing is - if you shoot at base ISO and correctly expose your image, you normally have a great dynamic range and don't need to use HDR. I see a number of amateur photographers and a few professionals that routinely use HDR even when it's unnecessary. It's as though once you learn a new trick, every shot uses that trick.

I do think the typical professional does not need HDR very often, but it's an important tool and good to have available for the situations that require it. Pros should know how to quickly bracket an image when there is challenging lighting.

--
Eric Bowles
BowlesImages.com
 
Last edited:
Btw, I believe HDR images are frequently used for computer generated images, such that they create more realistic reflections with image rendering that makes use of HDR lighting for more accurate shadows and highlights, and also can be used to cast light onto a 3D model or 3D scene (when made smaller and blurred to avoid noise).

Controlling/processing the darkness and highlights is called 'tone mapping', where overly bright and overly dark areas in a photo, is eventually rendered to suit the typical range of 8 big rgb images on a typical computer screen, or you would just see blown highlights.

--
Gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0427517165
 
Last edited:
ericbowles said:
They might want to consider that a professional created HDR. It was originally an innovative Photoshop technique. Then the early software created rather unique HDR images that became so overdone that they are considered a cliche. Finally, people backed off HDR to create a more natural result - one where HDR is used but the effect is subtle.

Pros definitely use HDR, but it is typically for the right reasons. There are situations - such as architectural interiors - where HDR is nearly required. In a well crafted image, you probably can't tell they used HDR - or at least the effect is subtle.

The thing is - if you shoot at base ISO and correctly expose your image, you normally have a great dynamic range and don't need to use HDR. I see a number of amateur photographers and a few professionals that routinely use HDR even when it's unnecessary. It's as though once you learn a new trick, every shot uses that trick.

I do think the typical professional does not need HDR very often, but it's an important tool and good to have available for the situations that require it. Pros should know how to quickly bracket an image when there is challenging lighting.
Click to expand...
I agree and these are kind of the points I made in my argument (which he never came to fully understand apparently).

For my shots, when I feel there is too much DR I will spot meter the brightest and darkest areas to get an idea of what method to use. Sometimes if it's say a 3 or 4 stop difference, I can probably pull it off in a single shot at base ISO. But for me, if it's more than about 4-stops I will bracket and merge in post just to be safe. I always still retain the "properly exposed" image and will usually check that first before moving to the merging stage, but at least I have both options available in post. And since most of the time when I do bracketed shots, I'm on a tripod, it doesn't hurt (memory is also relatively cheap these days so it's not like in film days or when a 64GB card might have cost $300+).

The only downside I can see from bracketing is time consumption (which isn't all that much IMO) and more images to go through when you get home (which is also time consuming, but acts as an insurance plan IMO just in case). I also will usually shoot duplicate sets of bracketed images to be safe (so I have a "backup" on the card).
 
Last edited:
So a bit of an update, and this made me chuckle a bit. We were at a shoot together this past weekend and was having a round table discussion with a few photographers, (more experienced as him and I) and the guy I had the disagreement with (Person A) basically goes out and says I didn't know anything about HDR and he preceeded to tell the others what I said and what he thought is HDR, and this guy (we'll call Person B) was like: "Um... No. Yes extra saturation IS a common side effect BUT you can decrease it after the HDR merge if you want to get truer color (if that's what you want). The other guy is pretty much right and you perhaps need to go read up on HDR and saturation..."

They furthered the conversation on by saying "But he used NIk HDR" The other guy, Person B, is like: "So? That doesn't matter that much. The only difference is that NIk has some special presets and adjustments to further adjust the HDR but the basic concept is the same which you don't seem to understand. In the end it's about the photographer's vision. Whether that's crunchy and saturated, or true to life color."

OK so Person B was a bit harsh I will agree but this guy (A) has a tendency to have a "it's my way or the highway" attitude. Of course after this, he sent me a message on FB saying "Thanks for making me look like an idiot." I simply replied with, "You chose to bring it up and point out that I was wrong and you were right..." We did touch on bracketing, which is probably what bought up the conversation, but the original question was "how would you shoot this scene?" from a random person in the group. We were also talking about other stuff like lenses.

Basically, and I don't like to toot my own horn here, but he was getting a lesson on HDR from someone else, more experienced than both of us.... And I learned a bit from this guy (Person B) as well, not just on HDR but other things. And he's very open minded about things like brands, as he has a similar view as me "Each brand has it's unique features, the key is to find the brand and system that works for you and has what you want/need, and go with it. It's the resulting image that really counts."
 
Last edited:
You only need to direct your friend to look at property photography (interior shots) to show that you are right.
 
You might want to mention to him how much bracketing (HDR) is used in real estate work.

David
 
I'm a pro of 12+ years. I use it often for real estate work.
 
Flowchart said:
You only need to direct your friend to look at property photography (interior shots) to show that you are right.
Click to expand...
At this point, I think he gets the point that I was right and he was not so right. And it took someone else to tell him that.

Yeah I pointed out those examples. He's a very narrow minded individual and very opinionated... For example, he has the belief that anything but Canon is garbage. Yet I've done more paid shoots (not even being a pro photographer--just an enthusiast) with my "garbage" Godox and Nikon systems than he has with his all-Pro canon gear. In fact I think one or two were people he shot with first, and then came to me....

And I'm not a professional, and he claims to be... but whatever.
 
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Yes I Know the term "professional photographer" can be subjective...)

The conversation started out by someone asking who does and doesn't use HDR. And this person jumps in and says professionals don't, which I disagree.
Click to expand...
You'd be correct. One widely accepted definition of professional, is a person who engages in a specific activity as a means of earning their primary income. There are people whose primary income is generated from photography, including through the sale or licensing of their HDR photos.

Trey Ratcliff is an obvious example of a professional photographer who sells and licenses HDR photos. He also conducts workshops teaching HDR techniques and has built a huge following on social media through his promotion of HDR photography and related techniques. Ratcliff's photography is award-winning and has been featured in two exhibits at the Smithsonian. He also collaborated with Skylum to develop Aurora HDR image processing software.
sirhawkeye64 said:
In the end, I closed my argument saying that the problems he mentioned relating to HDR aren't really specific to HDR alone, but rather apply to post procesisng in general...
Click to expand...
That he engaged in a discussion of various HDR techniques, is a defacto acknowledgement that HDR photography exists as an established genre. That he engaged in a discussion of what constitutes poor or ineffective use of those techniques, is an acknowledgement that there are good, creative and effective ways to apply those same techniques, applications that produce quality, salable work. One cannot fully identify work as having been done, poorly, without being able to identify examples of the same style of work done, well.
sirhawkeye64 said:
(Now obviously I know darn well that there are "pros" out there that use HDR, and they do it well. The leave no trace in terms of bad edits or side effects. He of course came back with additional arguments, like increase your ISO so you only need to take one frame, which decreases DR from what I know, which is why I choose to do HDR myself so I can shoot at the lowest ISO possible when HDR is needed or desired rather than trying to fit it all into a single image.)
Click to expand...
Again, the fact he engaged in the discussion by arguing it's possible to achieve the same pleasing, artistic or inspiring appearance without using HDR techniques is, itself, acknowledgement that HDR techniques can be used to produce photos having a pleasing, artistic or inspiring quality.
sirhawkeye64 said:
OK so this was more of a rant I guess ,but what are people's thoughts and opinions on this?
Click to expand...
Fact: HDR has been around since at least the 1850s. Fact: HDR photography enjoyed a Renaissance with the emergence of quality, affordable digital SLRs in the mid-2000s. Trey Ratcliffe is arguably the most visible leader of that movement. Fact: there are professional photographers who earn income using HDR techniques and doing HDR photography.
 
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