OK slightly pejorative title, but I've recently been looking around at a few other forums, especially ones for people new or newish to photography (was going to name them but am chickening out). I have to say most of the HDR shots posted on this site, whilst not always my thing, are for the most part technically competent and at the more subtle end of the genre - but really there are some seriously ugly images being produced out there!

Photomatrix and the saturation slider are certainly a killer combination in the wrong hands!

Neil.

Not particularly... HDR is a buzz technique for the moment, and I'm sure there are many people who've dabbled in it at some point who are working with a digital workflow.

It's similar in my opinion, to other techniques of photography we've already become accustomed to. Not so much in final result, but more so in progression of style.

I am with you. HDR is a good way to improve some photos but people use to destroy them using this technique.
I prefer exposure blending in order to obtain more natural images.
If I use HDR then i put the hdr results in a layer and then apply a mask to it.

No, I don't hate HDR, quite the contrary.

Do not judge a technique by the worst examples, judge it by the best examples.

HDR? Is this some new hormone replacement therapy?

Rob C

Refers to 'high dynamic range'... The 'general' technique is to try and get as much information as possible in the image and equalise it... I don't know much about it myself, haven't really used it.

I believe it's good in cases where you have a dark scene, but a bright sky, and one will either be underexposed or the other will be overexposed. The two images are blended and equalised... Someone else can probably be more specific in what's involved. '

I don't hate HDR - I hate the overuse that so many people are insisting on, creating the current fad of cartoony, saturated, high edge contrast crap. Some people just don't take 'everything in moderation' to heart.

QUOTE(Rob C @ Nov 6 2007, 01:29 AM)
HDR? Is this some new hormone replacement therapy?

Rob C
*


I think Rob might have been having a little joke!

Julie

HDR is like any new technique such as Wee Planets, which seems to be 2007's photographic tic. As soon as someone invents/discovers a new style/technique, everyone online is asking what filter can I apply to copy thingamy's style and 10 mins later the style has been done to death and an interesting technique very, very quickly becomes boring and overused.

I realised too just after I'd posted it. ' Oh well.

Yeah, some of those HDR photos remind me of painters who use excessively bright paint or otherwise paint unrealistically -- oh, wait: That's Art!

I'm a firm believer in everything in moderation. (Especially moderation.)

Hehhh.

So having posted that, my purely personal opinion is that I hate HDR (and got more replies than bargined for), I thought I'd better go and make the effort to look for examples that seemed to utilise the potential without the downside. Could I recommend Outback Print and Outback Photo, for those who aren't aware of them. I'm not a fan of everything they do, but you've got to admire the technical ability and there are some excellent examples of how to use HDR and tonemapping to genuinely increase dynamic range of images which don't have to look HDR'd.

Perhaps my original question should have been 'do you hate HDR that tries to cram in more information than the output medium can ever hope to cope with?'

Neil,

Here's some HDR work I've been doing that simply could not have been achieved through single exposure photography. There is no doubt that it is useful in extreme situations like this.

The first of these images is a 6 exposure HDR blend spanning 10 stops with a max exposure of 30 secs! Yet the shadows are still pitch black.







Andy

Nice caves Andy, reminds me of where I grew up too.
Also they are a good example of what HDR was originally intended for.

Thanks, Julie, thought I´d lost it somewhere down the line!

That is very impressive stuff, particularly like number 3.

It's nice to see HDR being used to generate images that looks really really good, and you'd hardly "know" they were HDR without being told. That said, the 3rd image, which is a lovely image, does look just a touch bright in the foreground - or maybes I just like the really strong, nice contrast of the other two and in comparison it seems a tad bright. Overall though, superb images and thanks for sharing.

Graeme

Anyone tried this book on the subject?

The HDRI Handbook

I have the book on order and it should be delivered on the 13th.

I used to be quite anti-HDR, but this was mainly due to my own ignorance about the technique. I think everyone who knows the term "HDR" probably associates it to some degree to over-saturated, cartoonish images often riddled with halo-like blobs surrounding areas of contrast. Unfortunately, those images get all the attention because they stand out so much, and eventually a lot of people understandably come to think that just IS what HDR is about.

I started to get a better sense of what is possible using HDR after finding scattered examples here and there, mainly at flickr, of beautiful HDR images. After seeing enough of these, I decided to check it out for myself. I quickly discovered that in one of the HDR tools-of-choice, Photomatix, getting that 'overcooked' look is pretty easy. Some of the sliders (particularly "light smoothing") will instantly make blobby halos in any image. But if one is interested in something more realistic, it's usually quite possible to achieve with a light touch on the controls and some experimentation (at least at first).

I am now a big proponent of the technique, and have spent the last year eagerly learning more about when to use HDR, how to shoot with it in mind, and how to process images. I still find that some shots just won't work no matter what I do in photomatix. I did try Photoshop's HDR function, but was not very happy with the results.

Here are a few of my favorite HDR images:

It just gives such a boring, low interest, low contrast look to me - almost a rendered quality. None of those look interesting to me, especially due to the boring composition.

Love the first one.

Setting aside the composition, I can attest that all of these images actually look more like they did in person than any of the individual exposures does. None of them look exactly like they did to the eye, but that's not possible with any photographic technique. All photos lose some part of the orignal scene that the eye saw, and a compromise is made. Traditionally, one compromise is to simply lose detail in shadows and highlights that were actually visible to the eye. But with HDR and tonemapping, that detail can be preserved (albeit in dynamically compressed form, which is the compromise of HDR).

But because all of us (unless we are very young) have grown up looking at the compromise of more traditional photography, when we see these details in HDRs they look 'fake' - but in fact they are no more fake than the loss of shadow or highlight detail, just different.

I don't doubt for a second that this is how the scene looked to the eye. My point is, it's also boring to my eye. To me, capturing a scene like that, necessitating HDR - doesn't make for a compelling image. Without contrast - drama - it's just a snapshot to me.

Not speaking to the most recently posted images ...

The "problem" with HDR is not HDR. The "problem" is in the post processing or tone mapping of the composite HDR image.

On the other hand, it is the tone mapping that can take advantage of the 32bit assembly to create those surreal "HDR" images.

Sometimes I really like the surreal HDR effect. Looking at the submitted images by rustyjaw, I like the 3rd one.

I shoot a lot of HDR, in moderation it looks realer than real, a good match for the memory pictures recorded in our grey matter. But tonal reversals, windows darker than interior walls, greyed out skies, and HALOS (aaaargh!!!) drive me nuts. Andy's stuff I like. great work. Is that an HDR Ghost standing on the rock?

OK, that's fine, I certainly don't expect everyone to dig these images. I was mainly responding to the suggesting that they look like 'renderings' which I took to mean fake.

I'm curious though about what you mean by low-contrast. With the exception of the last one, to my eye these all have a wide range of contrast. Some even have blowouts and pure blacks. So it makes me wonder what you mean by lack of contrast.

The part that really bugs me, and why they look rendered - is because that is NOT how the scene is perceived when you are actually there. Yes, each separate part of the scene may look like that. But that's not how our brain works. For example on the pier shot: When you are there, looking at the lights - you are not seeing the sky at anything but black. You are not seeing all the detail at your feet. You are not seeing the water as if it were afternoon.

Your iris have contracted so you can see the detail in the light area you are looking at, and that's what you get. Just the same if you were to stare at the ground, water or sky - and let your iris open up to see the detail. You aren't seeing the details around each light bulb, or on the brightly lit ground - it's washed out in your perifrial vision.

It's like looking at the difference between film, with motion blur and depth of field - and a video newscast, with no motion blur and infinite DOP. One looks real, the other doesn't. HDR never looks real to me, and never looks like a good photograph - it always looks manufactured in at least some way.

Our eyes have a wider f-stop range than our cameras, but we certainly can't see everything at once like HDR.

The overall scene may have a wide range of tones, but they aren't next to each other. No part of the image has a real hard line.

Yes, you have a point, but the point cuts both ways. When looking at a scene with your eyes, you actually can only see detail at the fovea, something like 5% of the visual field at the center, outside of that it's shocking how little can actually be perceived, color perception included (it falls of rapidly outside the fovea). Everything at that fovea is in focus, DOF is strictly a peripheral phenomenon.

So in every photo a compromise must be made about where to focus that will not match up with the experience of "being there" and DOF will be made explicit, no longer peripheral.

Unless the effect of only seeing detail at the fovea is pointed out, few people ever notice it because the visual system is not a camera, it constructs an impression of a given scene based on a succession of rapid (and unconscious) saccades. It's an automatic process that continuously scans the environment for salient details. The impression does not include portions without any detail (unless conditions are extreme, like looking toward a bright sun or at a bare lightbulb).

I think it is not a distortion to say that people actually "see" well exposed scenes, complete with detail at nearly every point, deep shadows and bright highlights. We certainly see more in a given scene than a single exposure can replicate.

If you prefer to isolate a single saccade, and compare it to a photograph then surely the photo and the saccade will be roughly similar, but no one actually sees this way. In fact it's extremely difficult to consciously override the automatic scanning system, and stare at only a single point (if you've ever taken a vision test you understand). And even in this case, because we only see detail at the very center, I think you'll agree that a photograph of the same scene looks quite different (in part because you can actually look directly at the bokeh).

So the compromise in HDR is simply different, not better, not worse than a single exposure, but different. It is to move toward duplicating the impression of "being there." Focusing on the result of the way the visual system compiles many separate, unconscious glances into a coherent, well-exposed whole. Certainly it departs from the experience by presenting it all at once (and also by compressing the dynamic range from many thousands of bits to just 8 if it's a jpeg), but I really don't think there's a solid argument that this is any deeper a compromise than the one a sinlge exposure makes. And I maintain that we are simply so used to looking at photos where the details that would be seen are not there due to the limitations of the medium, that a well-done HDR is interpreted as "fake" looking by comparison. This tendency has started to fade for me, although it's much easier with my own photos that with others.

All photos represent a compromise when compared to the scene as seen by the brain. in my mind it's just a matter of which sort of compromise you prefer to make.

EDIT: I want to add that I realize HDR isn't appropriate for every scene, even when the goal is to capture the most detail. Part of the learning process for me is finding when to use it and when it's superfluous. I do find that many artificially lit night scenes can be faithfully captured in HDR.

For me your third image makes a good case for (careful) use of HDR. I have been very skeptical until now.

rustyjaw,

I love your images, they are fantastic.

Bill, all is not as it seems.

The HDR ghost was cloned from a 100 year old cigarette card. The person is therefore long desceased is therefore a real photographic ghost.

You might like to read the full story at

http://www.andymcinroy.com/5port.htm

Andy

That's cool! Thanks for sharing that.



Thank you!

I still bracket fairily heavily. But I'm finding more and more (particularly with the new 14 bit Canons) that as long as I don't blow the highlights, that I'm able to dig an amazing amount of detail out of the shadows. At least as often as not, when I'm in the field and expect to need to bracket based on what I see from the (jpg based) histogram that when I get back to LR I can get a perfectably acceptable shot with some (admittedly aggressive) use of the recovery and fill light sliders.

If that doesn't give me the quality I want I use a mask (luminosity mask ctrl, alt ~ for the real fidley stuff). I just don't use the PS HDR method. Photomatix can look OK with a light touch, but not enough better or easier than masks to warrant paying for it.

For me there are lots of really interesting sunrise/sunset images that just can't fit within the confines of a 16 bit 'box'. I'm still stumbling my way through some basic HDR techniques, using masks or Photoshop's HDR function, and I'm just starting to try out Photomatix.

I find it a bit frustrating that I can't really visualize what's going to happen with the image as I work it, at least not like I can tell ahead of time how a 'standard' capture will turn out with a bit of massaging. A few complex stitched + HDR images have turned out beautifully, while others are just dead on arrival. Sort of feels like 20 years ago when I was first shooting K64, and every yellow box was full of surprises because I had no idea what the hell I was doing.

'Course, it's probably just me.

No, I don't think it's just you, I said something similar in my first post above. I think part of it is because Tonemapping is a fairly new process, the algorithms are new too, it's an immature technology. But, if you are just starting out, you will find that you'll be better able to judge how to shoot and get the result you want with some practice. But so far, despite a year's practice for me, I still find that some shots just don't work.

It's not just you -- and it's probably not just you and me. Sad to admit, but I've been trying to use Photomatix and HDR for over a year now (well, not every day!).

The main thing that I *think* I've learned is that if a good histogram can be obtained with a single exposure then an HDR variation does not work out for me.

I find using HDR can add a new perspective to a subject that's been shot to death.

Hello,

Don't know if you've come across this, but in my search for info on HDR I came across this artical where the photographer compared PS HDR(CS2), I know it's been improved in 3, and Photomantix. In addition to the comparison, he also shows how he also utilized, along with the HDR tone mapping additional PS layers and masks to get the effects that he wanted. I very good step by step comparison. Just thought I'd pass it along.
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm

Thanks for the link. Looks like it will be a good read. I've been interested in experimenting a little with HDR.

Yes, I've seen that tutorial before.
I understand the basic principles well enough. My problem is that I'm not consistently able to "pre-visualize" what I'm going to get from a particular image before launching into the HDR process, like I can with "standard" exposures.
This is not a trivial problem; I'm using a Canon Eos-1Ds mk II, often taking multiple frames to stitch into panoramic images, and in challenging light this can mean taking three or more exposures of each frame to catch extremes of highlight and shadow. Even with a reasonably fast computer with 4 gig RAM, the processing times can get pretty tedious. And nothing is more frustrating than spending serious time on an image only to recognize at the very end it just won't work.

Geoff, you can put together a prototype relatively quickly if you knock the raw's back to smaller res jpgs - that should give you a sense of potential without investing 45 minutes of cpu time.

Nice pics, BTW.

This thread has been an interesting read. I have been thinking of learning how to do some HDR. I also enjoyed the images posted by folks of their own work, both as good photographs, and as restrained use examples of HDR.

I think it can be very interesting, if the technique does not dominate the image. That may have its place too, but not for me. I see alot of HDR that results in very artificial images. The most irritating ones to me are the ones that remind me of those Thomas Kinkcade style paintings. If I had a limb caught in a trap with only one of his style paintings to look at, I would consider gnawing it off.

Anyway,

I have always thought that no photograph ever looks "real", at least totally realistic in comparison to the view to the eyes. As has been pointed out above, our constantly flicker-scanning eye's view is constantly being stitched into "whole" images by the brain. The image we remember depends also, on what we remember it in relation to (which itself changes through time, and can change the memory itself), and what we are remembering the image for.

I think pre HDR images have made us so used to less DR and the deep shadows etc. that that is defined as "real", when actually, neither are.

Both can be enjoyed. At least by me, as long as it does not look like a Kinkcade

Some of the threads about HDR vs non-HDR remind me of the film-is-dead vs fim-is-better arguments one experiences in forums less mature than this one. I hope to learn how to do it. I will not always use it. But when I do, I hope I can as well as the posters in this thread.

Hi everybody
I am going to stick in my two pennies worth.
As a photographic dealer for over twenty five years now turned full time landscape photographer for the Austrian tourist board, I would say I have met just about every type of photographer and camera buff out there. (maybe not you personally so don´t take this the wrong way)
But, Everything from the " I hate everything Digital because it´s not real photography" to the " I know everything about cameras and what fits on what, and who made it" To the "I don´t have a clue about all the technology but just want to take photographs" to the "I do know about the technology and just want to take photographs" and so on....
What so many photographers fail to realize is that the camera is only a tool, a means to an end if you like. Along with the mortgage worth of bits you stick on it.
There are really next to no cameras that are not any good on the market these days.
Some are better than others, and some are better at certain jobs than others.
But 95% of a good shot is the photographer him/herself.
With that in mind, "HDR" is another tool in the bag, if you know how to use it, and know how to apply it, it can produce the most wonderful work that would otherwise not be possible. It is not for everything, and I except it is a fashion at the moment. Much of the work out there is over enthusiastic amateurs trying there hand at something new.
And why not? we where all there once!
As for the technique itself? Well I can only speak as a frustrated artist, that could never paint or draw. So when I discovered photography, I was able to put all of those pictures that I had in my head down on paper. But one of the down sides of Photography was always that it was a compromise. Between light and shadow.
A painter can look at a scene and say " My eye sees the shadowed areas perfectly, so that is how I will paint them" the same applies to the highlights. This is not only because the human eye has a massive dynamic range, but also we also have only about a 6-7° point of focus. This means we have to scan a scene with our eyes to take in the full picture and tonal range. In doing this we create something akin to a "HDR" photograph, Hence, so many people say they look like paintings.
To say "I hate HDR" is like saying " I hate music played on a piano" What you really mean is not that you hate music, and not that you hate the piano. just the combination of the both played by that musician.
I have enclosed an HDR to demonstrate my case, This shot would not have the depth on a normal single exposure.

Thanks for reading.
Andy Innes

That shot looks unnatural and processed to me. You can't even see that scene with the naked eye.

Nope, still hate HDR.

It *does* look processed and not natural -- I like it. Nice shot, good work.

Yup -- works for me too. Very nice shot.

I can think of all kinds of wonderful images that bear little resemblance to reality.. I don't really understand the fetish some folks have for photos that must adhere to the bounds of perfect 'normalcy', to be honest.

"Normal" photos are fine, of course, but to me, if an image works, it works.