What's so bad about HDR?

[Jay Khaos]

I don't get why HDR is laughed at like it's an Instagram filter... I mean, I guess a "purist" would say its like driving automatic in a sports car—or at least that's the same vibe I pick up when I see photographers discuss it—though it really doesn't seem like there is any good reason to scoff at it. Personally, I'm not a fan of the photos that are blown out or as I like to call it, "Lisa Frankensteined," where it looks like the photographer went full retard with the effect sliders... but I think in general, and when used tastefully (like anything really), it's pretty useful.

Anyone who thinks HDR is ridiculous, I'd like to hear why..

PS - Or is it like I'm suspecting: The people complaining are the same people who bitch about less experienced photographers using expensive pro gear, manual-only snobs, and "its not the gear, its the photographer" preachers.

 

[Jay Khaos]

PSS - Does anyone have examples of photos using HDR that break the lisa frank HDR stereotype?

 

[jdramirez]

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.

 

[Grumbaki]

Some people are tired of razor thin DoF look. Some including me are tired of over sharp over saturated HDR. No problems will well done, subtle HDR.

Just personnal tastes.

 

[jdramirez]

I'm uploading a crap ton of stuff right now... so I'll have to find some of my more tasteful HDR images tomorrow...

 

[RLPhoto]

Nothing is wrong with HDR. Infact a user here named @!ex has some fine HDRs that I quite like. It that some users crank it up to compensate for bad composition by making the light look more interesting.

 

[fugu82]

I do a lot of HDR, but a little bit of "grunge" goes a very long, tiresome way. I've seen HDR portraits that looked like stills from a B Zombie flick.

 

[infared]

I love using HDR...but beauty is in the eye of the beholder....always.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5526/9350600136_97749e8089_o.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/9358583225_e6b58dab64_o.jpg

 

[fugu82]

Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.

 

[Zv]

I use it if and when required like very high contrast scenes or when there is a lot of detail that could benefit from the technique. I try and aim for photorealistic. I also think some HDR can look good in B&W. nowadays with improved camera, lenses and software you can get by without it. The graduated filter tool solves 90% of my issues!

I think I've only done about 5 HDR shots in my life, so maybe it's not for me. But I wouldn't knock it if done properly and in a subtle way.

 

[Marsu42]

I love using HDR...but beauty is in the eye of the beholder....always.

The real question/issue is: What is HDR?

The Wikipedia definition that hdr is when you've maxed out your digital imaging's dr for one shot is moronic for image evaluation purposes because in this case the same shot can be hdr or not!

For me, hdr is when your mind tells you (subjectively) that this whole scene is something you'd never be able to see with your own bare eyes. but you'd have to look at specific parts and let your eyes/mind adjust. You can get this effect from merging shots and tonemapping, or from a single shot by too much pp, esp. raising the shadows too much. If this results in a plastic/artificial/cgi look I'm not a big fan anymore, and the links above look like software rendered images, nice shots though.

I personally like hdr a lot for night scenes and for gently getting around blown highlights though (windows to the outside, the sun). And I know people who didn't do as much hdr as I did go "wow!" looking at an old school hdr shot when I go "Harrrrggnnnn"

 

[gecko]

Anyone who thinks HDR is ridiculous, I'd like to hear why..

It's just another technique, whic can be done well or OTT.

My rule of thumb; if I look at an image and my first reaction is 'oh, HDR', then it's more likely to be OTT than done well.

 

[LewisShermer]

It's a question of taste and refinement, as with anything, some folk just don't know when to stop. It's also a matter of style. some HDR is done amazingly with regards to exposure and composition, some is really bad. some shallow DoF is done amazingly, some is realllllly bad (I'm quite an offender of the DoF thing combined with a little cross processing...). BUT... you wouldn't tell Van Gogh to stop painting with those daft lines and do a realistic painting like Michelangelo, nor would you say to Picasso to stop it with the ridiculous shapes and colours.

If an artist can do what they do well, then kudos to them.

There are some god awful HDR's out there. You just have to look at the ad's that are used on these forums. If beginners see them and think "that must be good, it's advertised on a photography forum" then we can't blame them. Same with those ads that advertise the model retouching software...

 

[verysimplejason]

I like natural-looking HDR. I don't want comic/artificial-looking HDR. Sometimes I want a picture that's the almost the same with what my eye can see. It's my personal preference though.

 

[gferdinandsen]

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.

 

[Cannon Man]

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.

 

[infared]

Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.

Thanks, fugu!

 

[LewisShermer]

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

 

[jdramirez]

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.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.

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

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.