What's your toughts on hdr processed photos ?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dash Bodington on January 28, 2010 at 7:41pm

I don't think HDR is "cheating' as some people say. That said, I do think that some HDR can be very ugly. I like a bit from time to time, but can't stand too much of it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SimriCosun on January 28, 2010 at 8:44pm

i like using the HDR but i find that it does not work well with every photo...only certain ones like landscapes and water scenes. On some pics its just over done...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg maklae on January 29, 2010 at 4:31am

Because the eye has a greater range than the detector of the camera, used correctly, it is a very powerful tool to accurately display a scene. I use it for landscape images, where there are sharp contrasts between the light and dark areas, ie, where the shadow details would be lost if the sky was properly exposed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on January 29, 2010 at 1:08pm

When I saw my first HDR photograph I was "blown away' by it and by the range of tones produced. Used correctly it is an invaluable tool, but most aren't using it correctly so it just becomes another "gimmick". I've see some very poorly done HDR's here as well as other places. I think the old rule of retouching and of darkroom manipulation applies very well. If you can see that it was done, then it hasn't been done well. If the manipulation is obvious then it isn't a good job.
Same applies to split neutral density filters and numerous other tools that are poorly used, or used so much they become cliche.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hiler on January 29, 2010 at 7:43pm

I totally agree. HDR can be an invaluable tool but (IMHO) too many people are ruining good shot by over doing the processing.

Mike :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Osborne on January 29, 2010 at 3:24pm

What I think has escaped the minds of many a photographer is HDR is a tool to achieve a good photograph rather than a photographic objective. By that I mean many people are making "HDR photographs" rather than presenting a vision that is best achieved through the use of HDR technique. As such I see some good photos using HDR and bad photos using HDR.

HDR methodology cannot replace the basic tenets of what constitutes a good photograph like proper exposure, composition, etc.

For me, it has to add to my vision of what I want to accomplish with a photo. I don't see the world in the oversaturated, hevaily toned manner. I do use HDR technique for some of my photos when it provides the right clean, hyper real look I may be trying to achieve in a photo.

If the HDR processing lends itself to the story of the photo then I'm all for it. But HDR for the sake of HDR, at this point, is boring.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Tubbs, Jr. on January 29, 2010 at 4:41pm

I believe that HDR photography is another tool to create a way to capture all of the information in an image. While I rarely use it, I found a free download called Picturenaut from Germany that does an adaquate job. I'm glad I did not spend a lot of money on other software. I would rather save it for another lens for my camera. Over saturated HDR is interesting, but I do not believe it can replace a well composed and properly exposed photograph. But then, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, so everyone should follow their own path.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah Elizabeth Photography on February 3, 2010 at 4:29am

I think that HDR looks great.... if it is done well, but more often then not people seem to use this as a way of making their photos look 'better' and end up making them look worse and badly photoshopped.
I suppose its like anything... there can be too much of a good thing. I think a little touch of HDR and the image can be really jump out at you and look wonderful. Too much HDR and it just looks crap!
Personally I believe the best HDR images are the ones that give more dynamic to the image and enhance the original image, without making it look as if its never seen a photograph :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on February 4, 2010 at 4:38pm

Photographers have always been dealing with the problem that the gear/process/materials don't have enough dynamic range, or at least anything close to the human eye and mind. HDR software is just another technique among many others for controlling dynamic range. One that will soon be built into the cameras, and like the technique/technology debates of the past, the HDR debate will eventually be replaced by something new.

Back when photographers only had orthochromatic film it was commonplace to combine multiple exposures as orthochromatic film was extra blue sensitive which makes blue skies overexpose. Eventually they came up with panchromatic film, and soon everyone forgot there had ever been anything else. It seems obvious to me that with the ability to divide up pixels like we do with red, green, and blue that a next step could be to divide them up into underexposure, normal exposure, and overexposure to deal with the limitations of the dynamic range.

If you really want to discuss this I think it's important to understand the difference between HDR and local contrast manipulation. I've found that most of the time people think they are talking about "the look of HDR" they are actually talking about extreme contrast manipulation such as tone mapping. They are not the same thing nor does one always go with the other.

• ▶ Reply