What's so bad about HDR?

[CTJohn]

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.

 

[Marsu42]

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

 

[bvukich]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jay Khaos]

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...

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

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]

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

 

[danjwark]

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]

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!

 

[Jay Khaos]

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.

This is basically the explanation I was assuming without having read anything else explaining it like this until now... But I was starting to second guess my interpretation after hearing so many generally negative comments regarding HDR.

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

Love that photo..

 

[infared]

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

Very nice balance!

 

[Zv]

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

Very nice balance!

Thanks Jay and Infared I appreciate the comments.

 

[Vern]

I guess I think about it on three levels: 1) what is the artist's intention; 2) did they achieve their intent and is it technically sound; 3) do I enjoy the resulting art?

I love HDR and sometimes I want it to look fairly realistic - similar to what I would experience in the moment but I need HDR b/c of the dynamic range. Sometimes I want the photo to look like a painting or somewhat 'magical'. Here are two examples that fit these extremes (more or less). The snow scene had a large dynamic range and I am happy with the technical result - you can see the grain of the snow in the highlights and the detail in the shadows. I'm not 100% happy w the composition, but the HDR added to the shot. The midsummer's day in Sweden is intentionally painterly - I wanted to invoke the timelessness of the ritual and did not want it to look 'natural'. I like it, but no one else has to - i.e. - #3.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When HDR is used to allow a wider DR, it can look very natural. Often, its over done and looks unrealistic. In the end, its a matter of personal preferences, we don't all like the same things.

 

[Joellll]

Without HDR, I wouldn't have been able to make this shot. Most of the time, a visible light source is already strong enough to blow out highlights, but with HDR, I have much more wiggle room, especially in dimly lit situations where the sky is dark, and I don't want the lighting to have a strong spotlight effect, simply because the lack of dynamic range from the camera.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=304136873054213&set=pb.277925329008701.-2207520000.1375287483.&type=3&theater

 

[LewisShermer]

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

Very nice balance!

Yeah, everything looks natural on that. I wouldn't have even guessed it was HDR, just a real nicely exposed night scene

 

[AcutancePhotography]

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

Perhaps it is because a good HDR shot does not look like an "HDR shot" but looks more natural, like what you would actually see with your eye.

A bad HDR shot looks like HDR.

So unless the image was identified as being HDR, you may have looked at natural looking shots and not known they were HDR.

But if you look at bad HDR shots, you know you are looking at HDR.

That is one of the reasons I like Exposure Stacking as opposed to actual HDR.

 

[RGF]

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.

+1000. Natural looking is great. Grunge is can be really nice or over done. More often than not, it is over done.

 

[anthonyd]

As so many others said before me HDR (tonemapping) is just a technique. You can use it to keep more DR in your final, realistic result, you can use it to create a cartoonish/painting/ridiculous result, or you can flirt with the gray area in between.
Here is an example of the latter: