April 21, 2014, 06:45:04 AM

Author Topic: What's so bad about HDR?  (Read 8050 times)

Cannon Man

  • Guest
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2013, 05:53:03 AM »
I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural. I don't like it AT ALL.

Isn't the idea to expand the dynamic range but i don't think HDR does that well.
If you combine 3 pictures with different exposures the blacks will have detail and whites are not blown out but what happens to the parts that were already exposed well and now there's two unnecessary layers what looked good already.
The end result is not pleasing. It seems everyone overdoes it too?? or the whole process just ruins the photo no matter what you do.

I don't know everything about it and because i hate the look it gives i have never tried it.

And i doubt i will ever try. I'll just stick with good looking exposures and other more normal looking enhancements.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2013, 05:53:03 AM »

infared

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2013, 06:16:09 AM »
Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.

Thanks, fugu!
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

LewisShermer

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • point shoot hope
    • View Profile
    • Business!
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2013, 06:38:35 AM »
Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.

Thanks, fugu!

In agreement. there's a reason for what you've done and it's executed well with regards to composition and exposure & you've not made it just look ridiculous. It's tasteful and a pleasure to look at :)
5Diii, 60D, 500D, EX580, loads of crappy flash guns... 28mm 1.8, Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, 50mm 1.4, 100mm macro 2.8, 24-105mm 4L, 70-200mm 2.8L, lensbaby composer...

www.lewismaxwell.co.uk

jdramirez

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1844
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2013, 07:05:48 AM »
As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

Hesbehindyou

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2013, 07:12:55 AM »
I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.

Really? You probably just haven't noticed them then.

Quote
And i doubt i will ever try. I'll just stick with good looking exposures and other more normal looking enhancements.

A (not overdone) HDR is the most natural looking enhancement you can make to a photo as it merely overcomes the limitations of the camera and produces a result that more closely resembles what the eye can see e.g. detail in the subject as well as the sky.

Tell me, does jdramirez's photograph taken in Colonial Williamsberg look near natural? I can tell you that the non-HDR version would look much less natural.

I think you're just reacting against HDR that's been taken to the extreme and somehow oblivious that it can also be subtle.

CTJohn

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2013, 07:20:57 AM »
Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print.  You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights.  It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.
Agree.  I use HDR quite often to expand dynamic range, but am sure to make it subtle.  My complaint about HDR is the overuse of the sliders, resulting in a comic book look.  It's the same problem I have with over-saturation, and over-sharpening that seems the norm too often.
EOS 6D * EOS 7D * Powershot S110 * EF 24/105 f/4L * EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L * EF 100 f/2.8L Macro

Marsu42

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4092
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2013, 07:22:42 AM »
As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.

Imho that's a nice one and is how I'd expect good hdr to be, it impvoves the mood w/o too much tonal range compression - though the postcard colors doesn't really improve the "natural" feel, ymmv of course :-p

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2013, 07:22:42 AM »

bvukich

  • Spam Assassin
  • Administrator
  • 5D Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My (sparse) ZenFolio Site
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2013, 07:40:35 AM »
My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots.  Looks natural to me.  Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.

Marsu42

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4092
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2013, 07:53:02 AM »
My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots.  Looks natural to me.  Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.

Though I'm doing these shots not with "real" hdr (i.e. merging every pixel & tonemapping) but exposure fusion (1px input = 1px output) which looks more natural to me out of the box, but doesn't work on every picture.

pdirestajr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 695
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2013, 09:01:55 AM »
HDR gets a bad reputation because anyone with a camera and a computer can attempt it and post their "work" to the World Wide Web. Post processing is a completely different skill set from photography and takes work and time to master. Automated HDR programs / filters in the wrong hands will just produce junk. On the other hand, in the right hands, it's just another tool for an artist to express his/her vision.
7D | 5DII | EOS-3 | Nikon F3 | Mamiya 645 Pro-TL

Jay Khaos

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2013, 09:37:16 AM »
As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.

Yeah this one is cool.  Makes me think the application would work well for B&W for a photo like this too...

My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots.  Looks natural to me.  Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.

I like this one.  I plan on messing around with shots like this indoors....

Thanks for the input everyone.  I'm in agreement with most all of the comments except Cannon MAn lol (no offense).  But really, that just proves everything is subjective...
5DIII | 85mm f1.2L • 70-200mm f2.8L IS II • 50mm f1.8 II

Ellen Schmidtee

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 441
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2013, 09:53:11 AM »
I can answer that.  It is because people take it too far.  Using HDR in difficult lighting situations is perfectly acceptable.  But to make it feel like you are tripping on acid... it isn't nearly as cool of an image as you want it to be.

+1

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1036
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2013, 09:57:59 AM »
I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/6852135367/#in/set-72157628661905185
5D II | 7D | EOS M + 22 f2 | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2013, 09:57:59 AM »

danjwark

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2013, 10:15:00 AM »
I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.

infared

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2013, 10:23:08 AM »
I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.

Well said!
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2013, 10:23:08 AM »