HDR - What do you think?

[Roosta]

High Dymanic Range,

What does it all mean?

Does it take away from the "Perfectly exposed image"?

What do people think in general of HDR images?

I'm just wondering as to a general feel, I know some are dead against it,

But, does it have a serious place in photography?

If you think yes, why is that?

Personally,I like the style, given the right circamstance.

Have you given the old Bracketing a go before?

If so, did you like the results you achieved?

Is there a place for a dedicated HDR Forum???

[ricktas]

First off we will NOT be getting a HDR forum. The site is setup in Member Photo forums based on Genre (people, places etc), not on processing technique and therefore it will not happen!

HDR done well, I like, in fact I really like it. But this is only when it takes a moment to even realise you are looking at an HDR. Anything over-cooked, saturated, that lacks shadows, will not get a good critique from me. So I haven't voted cause there is not an option to cover the variety of results we see from HDR.

Do I process in HDR, yes, sometimes. But when I have, I have not had a single member mention it being an HDR, which means I succeeded.

[Roosta]

First off we will NOT be getting a HDR forum. The site is setup in Member Photo forums based on Genre (people, places etc), not on processing technique and therefore it will not happen!

HDR done well, I like, in fact I really like it. But this is only when it takes a moment to even realise you are looking at an HDR. Anything over-cooked, saturated, that lacks shadows, will not get a good critique from me. So I haven't voted cause there is not an option to cover the variety of results we see from HDR.

Do I process in HDR, yes, sometimes. But when I have, I have not had a single member mention it being an HDR, which means I succeeded.

Dame good point Rick,

Should have had something to cover your point.

Thanks for you for your feedback, as always.

But I will take a (Yes to HDR processing)

[Ms Monny]

I don't do HDR mainly because I don't know how to BUT that being said, I like HDR when done correctly. I don't mind it being OTT if it suits the image and the story it is portraying.

[bgolds99]

I agree with Ms Monny. If that type of expression is what the artist is trying to achieve, then yes, it can work well when it suits the image. I don't believe all HDRs have to look "natural", but i don't think they should all look artificial either. It's important that the processing benefits the image. By this i mean that the photographer should be trying to show something in particular that is not shown in a single exposure.

I think alot of people find it very easy to overcook a HDR image.... mainly due to the software used and the fact that the process itself leads to the oversaturation of colours.

Cheers

[reflect]

As always, personal choice, if it appeals to you great, I tend to have a bit of a play when there is nothing else happening, but I love portraiture and therefore HDR doesn't hold my interest. Each to their own, remember photography is an art form and it is supposed to be fun.

[fess67]

I agree with reflect totally. Each to their own and HDR fits in there somewhere.

I like to play with it. :)

[Xenedis]

I definitely apply HDR processing to many of my images.

I've only been working with HDR imaging since January, so I'm relatively new at it. I mostly shoot with HDR processing in mind, as it gives me more options.

As for my thoughts on HDR imaging, rather than repeating myself here, the following URL covers my thoughts on HDR and approach to it:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?84848-Some-Thoughts-on-HDR-Imaging

[Kerry]

I'm for any processing technique that enhances an image...and when applied correctly, I've seen many and HDR image that I've thought was great..

[Dylan & Marianne]

If HDR processing achieves the endpoint of actually achieving a higher dynamic range in an image where a single image cannot, than it works fine for me.
If HDR processing achieves the endpoint of giving signature results of the program from which it was done, then I think you're not really focusing on the original point of bracketing exposures. eg. Alot of people shoot bracketed images to get the 'photmatix' look (which to me is not very appealing) and in the meantime, forget that composition for framing, depth of field, desired shutter speed etc are all more important (in my opinion)

[jim]

Shouldn't the poll allow you to select two out of the four options?

[Geoff79]

I used to play around with HDR a lot more before I joined this forum than I do now. I have had mixed results with it - a lot of shots where I can't overly tell it's a HDR image - which are, far and away, the ones I like most. But then, I also have taken an abundance of shots that are really obviously HDR too. Which sometimes I don't mind, other times I really dislike. The problem is, I can't seem to figure out what it is I did with the ones I do like, compared to the ones I don't like. I follow a pretty standard method, using familiar settings each time... but I consistently get different results.

If I could truly master it, so that every time I presented a HDR image it looked 'real enough' to be a single image, I'd be happy. But at the moment I'm trying really hard to steer away from it. My one concern is being somewhere for what may be the only time I'm there and missing out on what could be a super shot. So I often find myself taking a photo with the settings I like, and then taking the same photo in 3 bracketted shots... just in case. It can mean a lot of time wasted in post processing, but that's just where I'm at at the moment. I certainly don't do it all the time, but just in those moments where I know the lighting is hard to handle and I don't want to miss out.

[geoffsta]

Personally, as most have said, a HDR image that is done well shouldn't need it's own forum.
An over-cooked HDR should go into photo manipulation. Because that is what you are trying to acheive.
I think that even "star trails" (many images stacked) should also go into photo manipulation.
Personally if a new forum was to be created, I think one for "Time Lapse" photography. I don't think we see much of that on here. And I think if there was, more members would have a go at it.

Geoff.

[AdamR]

I personally do not use it. One I like the aim of trying to expose correctly, which I understand isnt always possible. When I want an image I plan to shoot it when it will be within suitable dynamic range. I do this because in my vision of an ideal shot I have captured it in a somewhat natural setting. And its showing a natural moment that I want to do. In saying that my natural moment is often influenced by ND filters etc. But thats just the way I see it.
My brother on the other hand will shoot what is required to create his image. If that means blending for range he will do that, if that means blending two moments to create one he will also do that. Horses for courses.

[Roosta]

Thanks all for your comments, I'm sorry for not getting on sooner, my work machine is IT blocked, look but can't touch, so to speak.

Valid point re voting, I thought it possible.

Good to see a varied view on a topic that always seems to divide the AP regs.

Rick, If you read this post, have we ever had a HDR POTW??

If not, could that be a possibility, would surely bring out the good and different-some time over cooked HDR images to the fray ???

Food for thought.

[Ezookiel]

I'm way too new to the whole thing to really comment, but my first introduction to HDR was in some landscape photos a friend took that had several types of lighting in the same shot - a shady river area, and an open field, and she used HDR to combine the photos that were taken so that you could see just as clearly what was in the shaded part as you could the areas in the full light. Since the eye changes it's aperture etc as you look around the scene, a well done HDR should allow a final image to show what you would have seen if you'd been there looking around.

Lack of software to do HDR has limited my ability to get involved in it, with one exception, my iPhone 4.0 has a HDR setting on the inbuilt camera. I've used it several times on 4wd trips when it's been the only camera I've had with me so that the sky doesn't end up white while trying to get a pic while in a nice shady area near a river or the like. I'm inclined to agree with ricktas - if people can't tell, then it's probably done well.

[Xenedis]

I'm inclined to agree with ricktas - if people can't tell, then it's probably done well.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't quite get that, and they attack their images with the Over-Processsing Stick.

My own approach to HDR images is to replicate what the human eye sees rather than produce something resembling an illustration.

On numerous occasions, I've had people comment on my images along the lines that they wouldn't have known they were HDR images had I not mentioned it, and even recently on AP, someone thought an image I posted was a single-exposure.

Such feedback is a sure sign that I've been doing it right. When I started with HDR, I was keen to ensure I wouldn't fall into the traps that have caught so many who've gone before me.

[in2fx]

I have done a few HDR images when I have really wanted to get a bit more of the range that I could see but was unable to get the camera to capture it.

I normally do not like HDR that is over cooked and prefer realism, but do quite like it in some situations, like in old buildings or workshops and used on old machinery and vehicles

[exwintech]

With HDR the margin between "improving" on a good image, and "too-much", is quite narrow... That is - the difference between improving the dynamic range with light-touch HDR, and creating an "artwork" that looks good, but isn't exactly a "photograph", either, is very little. Then - just a small nudge of a slider can tip the "artwork" into peculiar cartoon-effects.

I've been playing around with Linux Qtpfsgui - new name "Luminance" - on-and-off for a couple of years, mostly without great results - or results that I like, anyway. However, the more skilled folk do get some very nice results with the program.

It's free, OpenSource, and there's now a stable version for Windows, 32 and 64 bit, also Mac, under the "Luminance" name. Those interested might have a look at the site - click "Screenshots" on the top bar to see the processing functions:

Ref: - http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/

Regards, Dave.

[fabian628]

dont do hdr anymore becuase I lost the program for it. Most of the results from HDR end up looking flat, although I have got a few pictures I like. Now if I want a little more dynamic range, in light room use fill light and recovery to get a bit more detail in shadow and highlights without having to put the image through a specific HDR program.

[Tommo224]

I'm on the fence with HDR..

A lot of examples I see look WAY over done for me, they lack a certain level of depth and the colouration looks weird.

But some I've seen look fantastic, because the original composition matches with the style of the photograph. I'll see if I can find the example I'm thinking of.

Some HDR processing to an extent I see as okay!

I haven't dabbled in it yet, or intentionally done it. I say that though, but one person mentioned about one of my photographs "nice HDR".