HDR - what's the go?

[OwenS]

So im interested in getting into HDR photography but their seems to be a bit of a stigma around it or some sort of subtle aversion to it. This is just a view from the outside looking in but whilst they are generally approved of as being "impressive" they dont seem to be looked upon in the same light as regular photos. Am i totally mistaken? Is it because it is a relatively new technology or does it take from the 'artistry' of photography?

Or am i rambling?.........

[Kym]

Its quite valid.
Some people over do it and that's the main objection.
It can be used for good effect.

Software?
http://wiki.panotools.org/HDR_Software_overview <lists a bunch include free ones
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-high-dynamic-range-hdr-software.htm

You can do it in Photoshop

[ricktas]

Agree with Kym. It is about how each person does it. Some can look stunning, but there is also a side-effect that people 'over-cook' them in processing, and they look plastic like. A good HDR (for me) is one that doesn't necessarily look like an HDR.

This is an HDR that I have done reasonably recently
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg175/snoopytas/Sandy-Bay-Sunrise-8148-HDR.jpg

[pgbphotographytas]

Like anything if "over done" and made to look fake then I am not a fan of them but if they are done in such a way that you can't tell they are HDR then they can and do work well in some cases like Ricks post above.

Paul

[TEITZY]

Yes many of purists detest it but these are the same folk that endeavour to do essentially the same thing as HDR using filters, polarizers etc. and dodging and burning in PP :D

Ironically, HDR's or blended images when done correctly usually provide a dynamic range and details that are closer to the what our eyes can see, which often can't be achieved with a single exposure.

Cheers
Leigh

[mal from cessnock]

Point me in the direction of a good tutorial on this please.

It stikes me as as a challenging technique - my spin on HDR is the dynamic range of our eyes is greater than our CCDs - what HDR is attempting to achieve is replicating our eyes - not overdoing it, but getting it right.

My tafe teacher says, err on the conservative - and I reckon he's nailed it. (btw I'm 55 but still have so much to learn) :cool:

A friend tells me - "I reckon cameras will soon be able to capture our full dynamic range". I wonder if he's right. "What a shame that will be for us photographers."

Lovely image, Ricki

[Analog6]

Our eyes can see a much wider range of tones than any camera film or sensor. The idea of HDR was to give a more 'eye realistic' look to shots with a wide range of contrasts, eg , a scene of the underside of a pier so the water is not blown out.

Have a look at the excellent HDR Labs (http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/index.html) site. I have the book and it is great, goes into using HDR with the major software including Photoshop.

A good HDR is one like Rick's that does not immediately scream HDR! at you, it looks real.

[ricktas]

Mal. www.hdrsoft.com have some good information on what HDR is, how it is achieved etc on their site. They are the producers of the wonderful HDR software: photomatix

[mudman]

I use HDR to improve image detail due to the lower resolution of the FZ28 lens. The advantage, if it can be called that, is that the FZ28 only allows up to + or - 1 stop when bracketing which reduces the maximum dynamic range to a more realistic limit. Plus I like the detail it can give to textured surfaces like tree bark and grass.