My kind of HDR

[mycanonphotos]

I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

 

[blaydese]

I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

Very Nice !! ;D


Peace! 8)

 

[Click]

I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

I really like this one. Well done Jason.

 

[JumboShrimp]

The car interior ... to each his own, but it screams too much HDR that I can't really appreciate the subject. Perhaps in most cases, less is better. I have been guilty of this in the past, too, but now a more subtle approach fits my eye.

 

[infared]

I HDR most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".

 

[jrista]

I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly

Very nice. I like the effect in the water on this.

 

[TexPhoto]

Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..

Love it.
Here is one I shot on the weekend. Stolen burned out Toyota Yaris I found in the woods.
REX50132 2_3 2_4 2h by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

 

[JimKarczewski]

It's all about the software. Some programs tend to allow the user to bake the image to a crisp showing absolutely no resemblance to what the scene would really look like.

Others can't handle movement very well (subject, clouds, water)

So there is a fine balance trying to get the best image possible without making it look fake or over baked. That's why I own 4 different HDR Programs. Never have used the built in Canon option with any luck, nor have I tried Photoshops.

 

[JumboShrimp]

Image below of autumn color in the Smokies (from 2011), is what I would consider a decent use of HDR, used to bring out the subtleties of both strong highlights and deep shadows. Of course, the original image had mostly midtones which were unaffected by the HDR program.

 

[jhanken]

I HRD most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".

I enjoyed these. Subtle but clear examples of the occasional benefit of HDR processing.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

(Not) My kind of HDR

I like your compositions, your subjects and your enthusiasm. They are good shots. But the "HDR" treatment (like so very many shots these days) doesn't appeal to me whatsoever. They feel like they are glowing neon. I particularly can't stand overcooked HDR skies that look like bad black velvet paintings as has been noted. Yours are better than many but it still doesn't float my boat.

I actually think a lot of this isn't simply much a matter one's taste, but the fact that HDR modes are in such rampant overuse that it just screams "I clicked a button and used a certain filter or feature" and hoozah, here it is. No question, it's a fad. But I'm even seeing its overuse in journalism including mags like National Geographic. And I cringe. I hope we all don't get used to it as being acceptable particularly in such contexts.

I feel free to rant here because you've got good initial photos, and I can also compliment you on them whilst hating on the HDR technology.

I think if you looked at ways to still do punchy or even playful colour treatments and contrast, along with some careful dodging to get the brightness out of shadows, they could really be interesting and appealing. Seems all the info is there in the file and the essence is there in your exposure and composition and subjects.

 

[infared]

I HDR most of my images, but I use the tech to bring out the visual beauty in the scenes not turn it into a bad velvet painting :.....but it has already been said "to each their own".

I enjoyed these. Subtle but clear examples of the occasional benefit of HDR processing.

Thanks J

 

[Akrobatiks]

I think a few of the pics in here look to processed. I see halos in a few of them and they need some more contrast. A lot of people forget that you need contrast to maintain that pop and prevent it from looking to flat. I prefer to go for a more natural look with my HDR photos... Here's a few example for you guys... All of these are multiple exposure blends which were done manually in Photoshop without the use of HDR software.

Hope you enjoy!!

www.jamielinkphotography.com

 

[Click]

Very nice HDR Akrobatiks

Welcome to CR

 

[Arthur_Nunes]

I like to make HDR halfway between natural and surreal


Hand Held Canon 6D + 24-105L @ISO 1000

 

[jwilbern]

I like to have a couple of the original exposures visible in the corner of the screen while doing HDR work. It helps me to keep it "real enough."

 

[Marsu42]

First off: I'm guilty of producing these legacy "one click" hdr shots, too - and if I look at them now my eyes hurt. That's why I always keep the source files around in case my taste changes once again in the future.

I like to make HDR halfway between natural and surreal

In my recent hdr experience, often you don't have a choice: At least my eye *knows* that you cannot see the sun and deep shadows all in one scene at the same time, so it always looks somewhat artificial. You surely can avoid oversaturated colors though.

Imho most scenes would look better w/o real hdr toning at all, but with simple exposure fusion (i.e. replacing a whole bright window content with a darker exposure) because it prevents you running into these horrible histogram inversions seen above. This is no option with hdr gradients, in these cases I'd vote for KISS w/o too many local corrections, but non-linear curve pulling extreme shadows and highlights into the middle but little else.

 

[mackguyver]

I think HDR is a personal thing (either you like it or you don't), and this applies to how little or how much HDR processing you use, i.e. realistic or totally artistic. In the end, though, it's a bit like like putting fancy sauce on a steak - if the meat is good, it can add or change the flavor, but if the meat sucks, it still sucks.

I'm not a big fan of the over the top HDR look, but as Scott Kelby will tell you:

"While many of these photographers don’t like HDR images at all…non-photographers absolutely love them!"

One of the people that seems to get the overcooked HDR right is RC Concepcion. I don't like all of his stuff, but he's a good photographer underneath it all and seems to use HDR to enhance his work.

 

[Besisika]

Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..

Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

Eeha! Is that actually the English of this planet? Most probably true, but what does it mean? It reminds me the guy in the film "battleship" who said "who talks like that?"
Indeed, some photographers are technicalists and some artists - no offense intended, forgive me if I had.
I am not into HDR or whatever it is called, but it is nice from time to time to live in someone else's world even for a moment. Relaxing me doing so.
Please post some more for me to watch when tired, who knows maybe I will try someday, good to know how you achieved it.

 

[mackguyver]

I had to do it - looks like there is no definition of HDR so all of you are right and all of you are wrong: