To HDR or Not To HDR

[K-amps]

Yay to HDR... why not?

Its a tool like any other tool..., like a knife can be used to feed a family or do harm to someone... its just a tool. Don't hate the tool. 

You can hate some of the food prepared by some people, and thats ok.

Standard Camera scan capture +/- 6EV's while some interior Shots require +/-14-18EV's, so it has it's place, there's legit reasons to have it.

A few years ago, PS was thought of as "Cheating" by the Pros, now the ones that don't use it are a minority, now they say HDR is cheating... I think it is just a phase.

Like someone the other day was lecturing me on how each shot should be perfect without the need for HDR... kind of reminded me of my school teacher that would not let us use calculators...

People dislike things that they know less about and also things that take away a competancy they have. With HDR, hobbyists can sometimes take spectacular shots... stuff before only Pros could do.

The playing field "spread" is lessened by HDR I feel, but in no way am I saying that Hobbyists can shoot as well as pros.

I agree with the comment made above that some people overdo things sometimes, I think once it gets more mainstream and maturity sets in, everyone will grow and Photography as a whole will be richer.

[dr croubie]

I went with my gf to a few photo exhibitions on the weekend for the SALA Festival.

All she kept asking me was 'what's wrong with those photos? all the colours are weird.'
So I had to explain to her the whole 'idea' behind HDR, in capturing more range of light than the camera can handle in one shot.
Funnily enough, we went to the next exhibit, and she really liked the shots, mostly dark grey cloudy landscape scenes. i could tell that they were HDR too, but she had no idea, they just had that 'i like it' factor to the untrained eye. And isn't that what counts? If it makes the shot look good to the layman's eye, then use whatever tool you want to get the job done.

There just happens to be a lot of examples of 'bad' HDR around. but what i call 'bad HDR' (mainly with the fake-looking colours) someone else might really like. It's only a relatively recently-popular thing, give it a few years for people to calm down and figure out how to use it properly, then the proportion of 'good' HDR will increase.

K-amps is right, it's a tool. I'd reckon it more with an angle-grinder or a circular saw. You can build a house both with and without a circular saw. In the right hands, you can make a nice house. In the wrong hands, you're left with a useless pile of rubble where a house should be. There's nothing to stop you using whatever tools you come across, but they only make good work when they're used by the right hands...

[Edwin Herdman]

I love the HDR look, even the "painterly" HDR look that puts emphasis on colorfulness instead of absolute fidelity to a scene.  But it doesn't really fit my working style and that's OK.  I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos.

A lot of the time, like the cloud photos dr croubie mentions, or even just birds on branches - I often curse the inability of the camera and lens to capture all that detail in one exposure, but I've given up on bracketing with an eye to future HDR'ing.  Just peek the result and adjust if necessary.  Dynamic range is something I want more than anything else in the next generation of cameras (well, sensitivity could go up a bump too, but I actually am about where I need to be even at ISO 400 with f/2.8 and faster lenses).

[Sunnystate]

I love the HDR look, even the "painterly" HDR look that puts emphasis on colorfulness instead of absolute fidelity to a scene.  But it doesn't really fit my working style and that's OK.  I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos.

A lot of the time, like the cloud photos dr croubie mentions, or even just birds on branches - I often curse the inability of the camera and lens to capture all that detail in one exposure, but I've given up on bracketing with an eye to future HDR'ing.  Just peek the result and adjust if necessary.  Dynamic range is something I want more than anything else in the next generation of cameras (well, sensitivity could go up a bump too, but I actually am about where I need to be even at ISO 400 with f/2.8 and faster lenses).

This sounds really interesting to me:

"I have gotten used to working instead with deep black shadows that only suggest forms to shape the bright space left in the photos"

But makes me crave to see it!
I am new to this site, maybe everybody else knows your work, but it will be really logical in my mind if when a photographer describes their own work with words, would also post a small copyrighted sample of what they are talking about to, just to make things more understandable.
Thank you.

[red5]

I think HDR is fine for photogs to use/do.  I do believe it's more of an "artsy" type of creativeness.  Or, sometimes you might not be able to get the shot right, and want to process later for that look you are looking for.  Granted learning to proper expose a shot is important, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.  I think a lot of HDR has been looked at in a negative light because:
   
 -  Some people don't do it right (too much halo/glow around edges, etc) and may try to pass if off as an authentic photo (meaning taking with 1 shot)
 -  Some people are not opened to this type of photo.  Again more creative than authentic "one shot" photos.

I hope that makes sense.

I do a little HDR when I can, and I think it's fun art.  That's my take.

[alipaulphotography]

I usually expose for the highlights and then use an exposure brush on a RAW file to brush back detail in the shadows. That provides a much more natural 'true to the eye' look than any plug in can achieve.

I used this effect a lot in this series of photos where the sky would have otherwise been totally blown out:-

http://alipaul.com/misc/gower/

Would be great if dynamic range of full frame sensors would improve a bit sometime soon...

Otherwise I pretty much hate photomatix with a passion.

[TexPhoto]

HDR like anyhing else can be really overdone, or it can be really awsome.   I sell stock, and many of my images use HDR, but in a subtle way that does not stand out. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12047900@N06/3686579818/sizes/z/in/photostream/

[K-amps]

I usually expose for the highlights and then use an exposure brush on a RAW file to brush back detail in the shadows. That provides a much more natural 'true to the eye' look than any plug in can achieve.

I used this effect a lot in this series of photos where the sky would have otherwise been totally blown out:-

http://alipaul.com/misc/gower/

Would be great if dynamic range of full frame sensors would improve a bit sometime soon...

Otherwise I pretty much hate photomatix with a passion.

Very nice pics and a great idea, it has potential.

The only thing I would do is try and reduce the grain/ noise visible in the clouds, it's a bit distracting for me.

[pelebel]

Of the 500+ pictures I take per month, I go HDR for 1, sometimes 2 shots. It's a great technique, but it won't be enough for a lack of talent. The worst thing happening to HDR is mediocre pictures getting processed to impress the non-converted!

Here's my landscape/etc portfolio if you want to try and find the ONLY HDR picture that's hidden in it: http://www.pelebel.com/galleries/paysages/

[K-amps]

Of the 500+ pictures I take per month, I go HDR for 1, sometimes 2 shots. It's a great technique, but it won't be enough for a lack of talent. The worst thing happening to HDR is mediocre pictures getting processed to impress the non-converted!

Here's my landscape/etc portfolio if you want to try and find the ONLY HDR picture that's hidden in it: http://www.pelebel.com/galleries/paysages/

Picture of intersection with sun peering through the trees and a bus on a stop... :-)

[pelebel]

Yup!
+1

[GeorgeMaciver]

Good example there pelebel     That photo works with a little HDR. A few months ago I was toying with the idea of delving into ND filters and graduated filters, to try and get some decent contrast between dark landscape foreground and bright skies. Then I bought a G12 and found that with a tripod and sticking the thing in HDR mode, I could get properly exposed images. Not the arty HDRs, but properly exposed images. If using HDR techniques is cheating to properly expose photos, then logically, wouldn't using ND filters be cheating too? For me, personally, the biggest selling point of the 1DX is its multi exposure HDR capability.

[100]

For me, personally, the biggest selling point of the 1DX is its multi exposure HDR capability.

$6800 is a bit much if that's the feature you like most. You can get the same and more for al lot less on any DSLR for a couple of hundred with something like a Promote Control http://www.promotesystems.com/products/Promote-Control.html 

Or you can simply do it manually, that's what I do most of the time. Here an example (6 exposures 0.8 – 50 seconds)

[dr croubie]

Is it me, or is there an island and a fountain missing from the lake? (and aren't those towers finished yet?)
Love the shot though.

I've been messing with HDR lately, using Hugin on linux, and i'm coming up with a lot of good tips for myself. First one is that moving targets, waves on the beach, people walking past, wind blowing the trees, clouds moving position, etc, really mess up the shot. Just got myself an ND8 filter, i'll try some night-time long-exposures to minimise some of those problems when the weather gets better...

[AprilForever]

My HDR is a ND grad, the thing which screws on the front of a lens... Sadly, when I tried to check the local camera stores for them (Fort Lauderdale area), NONE of the attendants knew what they were...