(Why) do clients like high dr shots?

[Marsu42]

I just sold a couple of documentary shots, the client chose among a rather huge amount of my stock photos what the wild horsies I report on are up to round the year.

While tastes may vary and the client certainly didn't chose shots I like best (emotional content, uniqueness, whatever), I was surprised that nearly all choices were those of high-dr shots taken with Magic Lantern's dual iso, i.e. having 14+ stops of dynamic range.

Among the shots were these two below which were a pita to post-process, and I'm still not really happy. The scenes were noon and high dr, so I cannot really do anything about the "tonemapped" look, but it isn't - just plain Lightroom/ACR. It's only a choice how *how much* you raise shadows, not *if* ... sitting in indoors in winter it's hard to imagine summer can look that glaring and hard though.

Question:What's your experience - do clients like hdr-ish shots and why?

 

[gregorywood]

I'm often surprised by what people appreciate in a photo and what photos they like more than others. Rarely are they the same as what I like. I think part of it is that we "photographers" take our art seriously and see things in greater detail and from different perspectives. Like you, I'm not always impressed by HDR in general because I've seen so much of it (most of it overdone) that it is generally unappealing unless it's subtle and well done on an otherwise interesting image. I think most people are smitten by it because its so attention-grabbing, especially if they've not been exposed to the style previously.

Greg

 

[Marsu42]

Like you, I'm not always impressed by HDR in general because I've seen so much of it (most of it overdone) that it is generally unappealing unless it's subtle and well done on an otherwise interesting image.

Feel free to participate in my "post your worst hdr shots" thread ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23041.0

I think most people are smitten by it because its so attention-grabbing, especially if they've not been exposed to the style previously.

That's my guess, too. It's just that I'm currently getting into the professional "If the client's happy, I'm happy" spirit and away from the "Omg, if other people only see those shots, they have to think I'm a hdr freak". But of course that's why I put these into my stock in the first place, tastes vary, but a € is a €.

I hope some other photogs share their experiences with customers' tastes and if/when to go "Look at me". On the one hand, it's nice to build a subtle and charming style, but one the other hand, what's the use if nobody notices :-\

 

[Don Haines]

Is a photograph an accurate depiction of a scene, or is it art and to be manipulated to emphasize a feeling or a concept? Or is it both or is it neither?

 

[Marsu42]

Is a photograph an accurate depiction of a scene, or is it art and to be manipulated to emphasize a feeling or a concept? Or is it both or is it neither?

My current "problem" is that shots that accurately depict the scene happen to look manipulated w/o me really aiming for it ...

... but unless you're only shooting in controlled light or in the golden hours, you're bound to run into the hdr problem. It looks somewhat out of place on the screen even if I'm positive this is just the way it was and there's no outlandish tone-mapping involved (just fill flash). But the the thread title says, that's just me.

 

[Freddie]

Because they have to compress them to print them.

Perhaps they want to more easily transfer them to a smaller color space such as CMYK (or sRGB).
In such a case, the flatter the curve, the better. I worked in graphic arts for many years and I would always choose images to be offset printed with the most open shadows and moderate highlights. In the old days, I held all my B&W prints to as short a tone range as I could so the photoengravers couldn't block anything up unless they really tried.
If they are not going to offset print, I have a feeling they just liked the tones. It's sort of becoming a trend to use the extended DR look and they're just following it. The magazines love it and they're struggling to stay alive with as trendy a look as they can manage.

 

[AE1Pguy]

I don't understand it either, but it's definitely the case. I sell about ten large fine art landscape prints every year through a recurring art show. Every one I've sold for the last four years or so has been an HDR shot. A few of them were so subtle that even photographers wouldn't have known for sure, but others were pretty heavily tone mapped. And the more aggressive the tone mapping, the more people liked them. My own favorite shot among the last six shows got nary a positive comment. Go figure.

 

[Marsu42]

My own favorite shot among the last six shows got nary a positive comment. Go figure.

This makes it kind of difficult to choose what to publish and post-process, doesn't it? I've got tons of good shots lying around, but this outdoor wildlife stuff needs individual settings on each one, no can do copy/paste settings. If people with money like different things from what I like, maybe I should exchange my taste for a more mainstream one :-o ?

 

[c.d.embrey]

Your clients like what their customers like. Manipulated photos have an authentic look to the Instagram/Social Media folks. It make no difference if you are selling a product or seeking a donation, it isn't art, it's commerce.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

HDR can give an image that is different from what the human eye perceives. This can make the image novel and we are attracted to things that are novel. This is also one of the advantages of B/W photography -- it gives the viewer a view of the subject that is different (novel) from the usual way the subject is viewed.

It is important to differentiate between novel and good. The two terms do not necessarily go together.

So the client may, initially, be attracted to the HDR image, but that novelty may wear off once the client sees the image for a longer period of time.

The key is to make an image that not only initially attracts the client's attention, but can also continue to attract the client's attention after the novelty wears off.

 

[Tinky]

I always consider the point of HDR is to make the image look MORE natural, more like the human eye would perceive it. Not to make it obviously distinct or processed.

I'm not a fan of HDR.

Let me rephrase that. I'm not a fan of where I can see HDR.

Usually poorly applied photomatix. Turned up all the way.

Being from a video background my instinct is to get it as right in the camera, this means polarisers and grads are permanent features of the kit. You might use a large french flag, or multiple smaller flags to bat away contrast reducing flare spots Now this isn't HDR, this is controlling the light so that all areas are within the cameras native DR, not magically expanding DR. With a conventional 8-bit camcorder you would be expecting about 10 stops, maybe 11 with a good 10-bit system.

By taking this amount of control, particularly over sky burn-out, over refelections, your shots will be visually richer, by just applying hdr, any abberations are still there.

for that reason a lot of good hdr passes me by, if other glitches are fixed then it won't occur to me that there is ALSO hdr at work.

Step 1 is always controlling the existing light as far as you can, step 2 is painting with light as far as you are able.

This crunches highlights, lifts shadows, and to me, is more desirable than an hdr mode. I annoy producers every working day by setting up lighting for interviews, a reflector here, sone scrim there. But they and the cluents love the results.

I think tat once you start thinking about the scene rather than the camera you are taking more care in any case, and the shot will be markedly improved for that reason.

Personally I'm finding a softer look is de-rigeur just now, the dxo film-look or vsco look. Slightly desaturated, slightly grainy. Slightly warm. Not quite lomo.

But the mantra would always be, get it right going into the camera. Apply the effects later.

Clients won't always know why something is better (and I'm usually wary of producers or clients who have picked up a technical phrase and over-use it) but they will generally know it is better. so tats what I work towards. HDR can be put in later on, but its very hard to take out if its in your source material.

 

[RobertG.]

Hi, in my limited experience scenes with a high dynamic range are chosen more often than rather flat ones. High contrasts as well as clear basic colors like blue, green, red & yellow grab faster and more easily the attention of the viewer. Well done HDR shots can not easily be reproduced by an amateur, so the appreciation of the technical quality might play a role too.

This year my most successful client pictures were these two:

These are not tone mapped HDR but they show a pretty high dynamic range nontheless. For the first one just a single frame was shot, for the 2nd one two shots blended together (the mountain range in the background was blended in because of too much lens flare in the original scene). Both were shot with grad ND filters and required a lot of post processing, including heavy use of digital grad ND filters.

Best regards, Robert

 

[Tinky]

This was the last HDR image I took, 2 exposures, tone-mapped, I was shooting straight into the sun so all the standing stones were rendered in silhouette, quite pleased with how it worked out. It would not have been possible with a conventional shot, but I don't think looks all that objectionable, it is like the scene as I recall it, which is usually my intention.

Was taken on a work trip to the Isle of Lewis, this is the largest group of standing stones at Calanais.

Taken with an EOS M and 22mm EF-m lens @ f8.

 

[candc]

Well i don't like overdone hdr either but I can understand why your client picked those 2 shots, they are great images with a lot of impact.

p.s. I put ml on my 6d and I am trying to figure out the best way to use dual iso. For conditions like this do you want to use say "100 800" or "800 100"? Then if its mostly a dark scene with some bright spots do you do the opposite?

 

[RLPhoto]

I've been doing more real estate lately and they've always chosen the photos with the widest DR for their key shots. Being able to see out the window and inside the home is either an HDR job or requires flash, both of which require extra work to look good.

In the end, clients just like good work and they inadvertently choose the better photos.

 

[Marsu42]

Let's not confuse "scene dr" and "post-processing compression & contrast" here:

Hi, in my limited experience scenes with a high dynamic range are chosen more often than rather flat ones.

Nice shots, esp. since you managed not to make them look flat, and imho that's what good hdr post-processing is about and what makes it so difficult - it still looks natural, somehow...

Was taken on a work trip to the Isle of Lewis, this is the largest group of standing stones at Calanais.

... and so does this, because I can just imagine with the sun so low that I could just (barely) see the texture on the stones...

Being able to see out the window and inside the home is either an HDR job or requires flash, both of which require extra work to look good.

... however, very high compression of a high dr scene inadvertently looks artificial to *me*. Good thing: with indoors scenes, it doesn't really matter. And obviously I'm very prone to stumble upon this, I even don't really like my own shots even though clients like them :-o.

In this indoors example, my first thought is that it's a set on a sound stage and the outdoors scene is just a painting set behind the window like a bluescreen effect. But again, that's just me, and I do it just the same way.

 

[RLPhoto]

Let's not confuse "scene dr" and "post-processing compression & contrast" here:

Hi, in my limited experience scenes with a high dynamic range are chosen more often than rather flat ones.

Nice shots, esp. since you managed not to make them look flat, and imho that's what good hdr post-processing is about and what makes it so difficult - it still looks natural, somehow...

Was taken on a work trip to the Isle of Lewis, this is the largest group of standing stones at Calanais.

... and so does this, because I can just imagine with the sun so low that I could just (barely) see the texture on the stones...

Being able to see out the window and inside the home is either an HDR job or requires flash, both of which require extra work to look good.

... however, very high compression of a high dr scene inadvertently looks artificial to *me*. Good thing: with indoors scenes, it doesn't really matter. And obviously I'm very prone to stumble upon this, I even don't really like my own shots even though clients like them :-o.

In this indoors example, my first thought is that it's a set on a sound stage and the outdoors scene is just a painting set behind the window like a bluescreen effect. But again, that's just me, and I do it just the same way.

It doesn't change the fact that even if that scenes DR was made possible by blue screen or by painting, the actors and scene are still lit. I find that clients love lit scenes even though the majority of them don't know why it looks good.

 

[privatebydesign]

It doesn't change the fact that even if that scenes DR was made possible by blue screen or by painting, the actors and scene are still lit. I find that clients love lit scenes even though the majority of them don't know why it looks good.

Don't get defensive, I think you are missing Marsu's point, he is photographing a wide dynamic range scene and maintaining dynamic range in the image, he has blacks and dark shadows and blown whites, he is using the output mediums DR capabilities and his point is that customers seem to be drawn to that. You are not using the output mediums DR capabilities, you might have photographed a scene with more outright DR than his, but your reproduction has no real blacks or shadows and no whites apart from a suspiciously looking close to blown door, whereas the scene suggests it should have shadows and bright highlights. The end result is a comical caricature which, though unrelated to this thread, is exacerbated by the extreme perspective corrections, or that it has a sloped ceiling which you have failed to accurately portray, thereby making the angle of the molding look like it is from a set on an Alice in Wonderland movie.

Of course you might get paid for it, and your clients might be too image illiterate to understand how bad it is, however, your image is not an example of what Marsu was talking about, not close.

 

[Omni Images]

Maybe why Jason Lanier is so popular http://www.jasonlanier.com/
I do admire his shots ... some of them.
Not his landscapes.

 

[Marsu42]

You are not using the output mediums DR capabilities, you might have photographed a scene with more outright DR than his, but your reproduction has no real blacks or shadows and no whites apart from a suspiciously looking close to blown door, whereas the scene suggests it should have shadows and bright highlights.

Interesting analysis, the "odd angle" white door and a bit dimmer outside right next to it is just the tonemapping inversion that makes my mind suspicious of a scene and results in that "hdr" look. But I often find it hard to pinpoint the exact cause esp. with my own shots.

I can imagine RL's shot might be just fine with clients - I'd certainly buy it for my hotel brochure. But in this case, it isn't hard to see why - it looks "professional" with the golden tones, mapped lighting and the linear, perspective-corrected ceiling which always seems "pro" as it's the opposite from "took this with my wide-angle iphone".

Btw I sometimes try "single shot hdr" on my high-dr wildlife scenes. Here are two exmples, one straight out of Lightroom above, one with "single shot hdr" below.

You probably have to switch them in a picture viewer to see the difference but the tonemapped one has the darker trees in front of the more impressive sky (always a clear indication for hdr) and flattened shadows on the ground. To me, the "snappier" tonemapped version looked artificial, it *is* a scene with fog after all, so I dumped it.

Morale of the story: You cannot change a scene's lighting in post. Btw don't look at the corner sharpness, it's only taken with the old 17-40L :->