Post your Realistic 'HDR'

[petemc]

I'll be honest I rarely say that any of my shots have had HDR treatment or been tone mapped unless I'm asked directly. This is because I find the response it so much different when I do.. or did should I say. I'd rather people like or loath my shots because they appeal or not to their eye, not the process used to create it. And I admit when I first saw HDR and tone mapping I wasn't a fan myself. It was only after seeing some of Pete's that I changed my mind. I can't help but think I passed so many good shots over myself when I was hdr phobic ... does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense. I never like to say because its not the processing thats important. I started a thread about why you shouldn't put "HDR" in the thread title so that people don't enter with silly preconceived ideas, or skip the thread because it says "HDR" and they hate it. It would be nice to change some preconceptions

 

[Jo]

It would, I completely agree

 

[Yv]

OK, some tone mapped images currently residing in my gallery here. I tend towards, I think, a look that is obviously not 'off camera' but not too extreme generally.....

One of my current favs, tower bridge

Haywards gallery

The Thames

the less glamourous side of restaurant boats

Say what you think guys, 'HDR', 'tone mapping', its all subjective, Pete does it very well, but so do others round here, Jonnyreb springs to mind immediately as exponenents of the art that I seriously admire. Horses for courses, of course

 

[Dark Star]

Three of my favs for the hell of it, the first is the more extreme of the 3 but not sure how 'HDR' these look...

 

[basegreen]

I think there is an element of snobbery about the whole tone mapping/HDR thing. I guess, if you're a talented photographer, who has spent many years learning about exposure, does lots of metering, looking carefully at how to avoid blown highlights etc... you might be a bit miffed if people with less talent (in some cases) can come along, shove a RAW into a tool, and get rather dramatic results.

I guess people who painstakingly develop their own films must feel the same about Photoshop!

Yes, some images look overcooked -- but to my mind, that's no different to seeing someone over expose a portrait, or other basic error.

 

[Les McLean]

I think there is an element of snobbery about the whole tone mapping/HDR thing. I guess, if you're a talented photographer, who has spent many years learning about exposure, does lots of metering, looking carefully at how to avoid blown highlights etc... you might be a bit miffed if people with less talent (in some cases) can come along, shove a RAW into a tool, and get rather dramatic results.

I must admit, I see it differently, I don't think there is any snobbery about it, HDR as it stands just doesn't work- period, and the majority of images presented in this thread prove it.

I do think that it will develop into a useful tool, one of many available to the photographer to enhance an image.
And I applaud togs like Pete for pushing the boundaries.

Another concern, is that there is a dangerous trend on some forums, for folk to focus comment (on a HDR image) on how well the tog has processed the HDR image rather than the merits of the image. Being able to process a HDR image doesn't make you a good photographer, it makes you a good manipulator of pixels which is a world apart.
And it does the tog no favours.

Also, to be a reasonable photographer, you need too understand basics, light, shade, exposure, DOF etc etc, so if you go along with the attitude, it doesn't matter about balancing the exposure (say in a landscape shot), I'll just HDR it, then you are missing an important part of the learning curve to becoming a good photographer.

Also, I think HDR processing is quite forum specific, on forums like this, it is become voguish, partly because of good togs like Pete promoting the techniques, someone like Duder on POTN has had a similar impact over there.

Other forums, they avoid it like the plague, and others accept it for what it is, i.e. work in process that is still in the development phase.


I think all this fuss will die down sometime, and HDR (or tone mapping) will be accepted as another tool in the processing armoury, unfortunately at the moment quite often it's seen as the only tool.

 

[paulpierce]

Other forums, they avoid it like the plague, and others accept it for what it is, i.e. work in process that is still in the development phase.

Its an interesting way to look at it; I bet the intension of the people writing the HDR software, is to balance several exposures to give a natural result. It could be the that the overcooked look that we are seeing now is a mistake that they are trying to fix.

If you look at the hdr's that look overcooked; they appear to be lit in an unrealistic way, have lower than expected contrast, unrealistic colouring and problems like haloing. I know these factors can be controlled to a certain extent, but it would be interesting to know if they are mistakes that are going to be ironed out.

 

[Ashers]

im gonna ask a silly question now but wats HDR?

 

[petemc]

I have to say that Darkstar's and Lady Len's don't fit the bill. They're very clearly tone mapped if you compare them to KenCo's.

I must admit, I see it differently, I don't think there is any snobbery about it, HDR as it stands just doesn't work- period, and the majority of images presented in this thread prove it.

On IRC last night everyone was telling me these images are obviously HDR. Maybe its me but I didn't think they were. Maybe its because I've spent nearly 2 years doing it and I can't tell the difference. I'd be interested to know what the tell tale signs are, or why they don't work. I thought some did

I do think that it will develop into a useful tool, one of many available to the photographer to enhance an image.
And I applaud togs like Pete for pushing the boundaries.

Totally. Its been around since the 80's and in recent years has exploded due to tone mapping programs and the internet popularity. Of course just like photoshops filters you'll get people producing rubbish because they think it looks good.

Another concern, is that there is a dangerous trend on some forums, for folk to focus comment (on a HDR image) on how well the tog has processed the HDR image rather than the merits of the image. Being able to process a HDR image doesn't make you a good photographer, it makes you a good manipulator of pixels which is a world apart.
And it does the tog no favours.

Also, to be a reasonable photographer, you need too understand basics, light, shade, exposure, DOF etc etc, so if you go along with the attitude, it doesn't matter about balancing the exposure (say in a landscape shot), I'll just HDR it, then you are missing an important part of the learning curve to becoming a good photographer.

Yup there's that. I never like to say that I've posted a set of HDR images because I don't want people to comment on that side of things. Lots of people ask me how I get such good HDR images and I say I got good light. Gotta start with a good photo. But then I'd also argue that the same can be said for Photoshop. A bit dark, fix it. Composition off, fix it. Person in the way that you might have spent 2 minutes waiting for him to leave, fix it.

Also, I think HDR processing is quite forum specific, on forums like this, it is become voguish, partly because of good togs like Pete promoting the techniques, someone like Duder on POTN has had a similar impact over there.

Other forums, they avoid it like the plague, and others accept it for what it is, i.e. work in process that is still in the development phase.

I don't want to offend anyone here but I'd guess that might be because theres a certain amount of people new to photography who see great HDR images and want to "process" their photos to look that good. Where as I'm guessing on the other forum you mention its got a lot of photographers who are confident with their skill set. Just a wild guess, I maybe wrong. But I've definitely had a lot of emails asking how I make my pictures look as they do, and its not exactly a complex method so people do try and unfortunately do produce some rather bad looking photos. (Not saying thats people here, as I've had plenty on Flickr)

I think all this fuss will die down sometime, and HDR (or tone mapping) will be accepted as another tool in the processing armoury, unfortunately at the moment quite often it's seen as the only tool.

Eventually, maybe I've been doing it for 2 years so far and the HDR format has been around for 20. Theres always someone else getting a new camera and finding HDR to keep the cliches alive

 

[petemc]

im gonna ask a silly question now but wats HDR?

www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide

 

[russbates]

I must admit, I see it differently, I don't think there is any snobbery about it, HDR as it stands just doesn't work- period, and the majority of images presented in this thread prove it.

I do think that it will develop into a useful tool, one of many available to the photographer to enhance an image.
And I applaud togs like Pete for pushing the boundaries.

Another concern, is that there is a dangerous trend on some forums, for folk to focus comment (on a HDR image) on how well the tog has processed the HDR image rather than the merits of the image. Being able to process a HDR image doesn't make you a good photographer, it makes you a good manipulator of pixels which is a world apart.
And it does the tog no favours.

Also, to be a reasonable photographer, you need too understand basics, light, shade, exposure, DOF etc etc, so if you go along with the attitude, it doesn't matter about balancing the exposure (say in a landscape shot), I'll just HDR it, then you are missing an important part of the learning curve to becoming a good photographer.

Also, I think HDR processing is quite forum specific, on forums like this, it is become voguish, partly because of good togs like Pete promoting the techniques, someone like Duder on POTN has had a similar impact over there.

Other forums, they avoid it like the plague, and others accept it for what it is, i.e. work in process that is still in the development phase.


I think all this fuss will die down sometime, and HDR (or tone mapping) will be accepted as another tool in the processing armoury, unfortunately at the moment quite often it's seen as the only tool.

I really don't think people see it as the only tool! For me and i'm guessing (hoping!) for most people who use HDR, its just another interesting post processing technique. And yes it is a work in progress but it can produce some striking images.

When you stated that some people focus too much on the HDR processesing when considering, rather than the image itself i really don't see whats wrong with that? You can make any image striking using HDR so surely cristisim should come in the form of how well you process the image rather than the image itself.

It could be me but i always catagorise my HDR images and 'standard' shots as two different things even if they are of the same subject, and would expect people to critique them with that in mind.

 

[simmo]

When you stated that some people focus too much on the HDR processesing when considering, rather than the image itself i really don't see whats wrong with that? You can make any image striking using HDR so surely cristisim should come in the form of how well you process the image rather than the image itself.

This was one of the first photo's I ever put through the process, I quiet like it....

 

[Liberalis]

Too much ?

 

[WeddingHack]

On IRC last night everyone was telling me these images are obviously HDR. Maybe its me but I didn't think they were. Maybe its because I've spent nearly 2 years doing it and I can't tell the difference. I'd be interested to know what the tell tale signs are, or why they don't work. I thought some did

I just caught this thread and my initial thoughts on seeing your shots Pete were 'they're obviously HDR' - but that doesn't mean they don't work, they're all great images.

For me though once you take an HDR shot beyond what the naked eye could see (i.e 'natures' HDR) it becomes extreme dynamic range, EDR maybe. All of your shots contain more dynamic range, contrast and saturation than can be seen with the eye, hence they stand out as obviously processed. But that's your signature style, and I wouldn't go changing it because you do it so well.

Kenco's shots are more subtle in their execution, and again show a consistent, more restful style

Duncan

 

[oldfart]

I must admit, I see it differently, I don't think there is any snobbery about it, HDR as it stands just doesn't work- period, and the majority of images presented in this thread prove it.

as someone new to photography i see it opposite way, theres a lot of snobbery from pro photographers, experienced photographers not much on this forum but they process thier images in photoshop or lightroom using a skills that has taken few years to develop to enhance thier own photos, the only difference is photomatrix etc is nearly a one click effect.

how does this really compare with using expensive lenses, camera, polorisers, nd grads to enhance an image capture something thats not really thier but looks good. Tecniques have also been used from film days usually a processing stage. HDR is just another tecnique love it or lothe it.

Maybe we should all put images up unprocessed lol

 

[Eric Mc]

I must admit, I see it differently, I don't think there is any snobbery about it, HDR as it stands just doesn't work- period, and the majority of images presented in this thread prove it.

I suppose that would depend on your view point on what makes a good photograph. If you are of the opinion that a good photograph is a faithful representation of a scene then HDR probably dosn't work for you. If on the other hand a good photograph is seen as a piece of art then HDR works just fine!

I for one would be more than happy to have any number of Pete's images hanging on my wall

 

[arepeejee]

I first used HDR to retain certain elements of a shot that normally I couldn't get. I wanted a black and white photo of the inside of the church in Ashbourne (Derbyshire), but either got blown out windows, or underexposed choir pews. So, I used a 5 exposure HDR to get both;

Personally, that's how my eyes saw it on the day, and without HDR it wouldn't have been what I'd seen.

 

[petemc]

...

Too much ?

Yeah I'd say so. The sky is grey in the first and theres signs in the second that give it away.

I just caught this thread and my initial thoughts on seeing your shots Pete were 'they're obviously HDR' - but that doesn't mean they don't work, they're all great images.

Thanks. But no-one has yet said why they are obviously "HDR".

For me though once you take an HDR shot beyond what the naked eye could see (i.e 'natures' HDR) it becomes extreme dynamic range, EDR maybe. All of your shots contain more dynamic range, contrast and saturation than can be seen with the eye, hence they stand out as obviously processed. But that's your signature style, and I wouldn't go changing it because you do it so well.

Ok, now you're just making stuff up EDR? Nature's dynamic range is far greater than what we can see. A sunny day has a contrast ratio of about 100,000:1 and we see 10,000:1. HDR is 32bit because it's contrast ratio is stupidly high, like 107,000,000,000:1. This begs the question, what about exposure blending or contrast masking? Why isn't anyone having a go about the evils of them? Is it because no-one is producing OTT images with them, or because its not as popular? People have been blending exposures since film to increase the tonal range of their end result.

 

[russbates]

Personally, that's how my eyes saw it on the day, and without HDR it wouldn't have been what I'd seen.

Fully agree with this, even the best digital SLR's are a long way from capturing the dynamic range of what the eyes can see or what HDR images can produce.

 

[joxby]

Hdr and tonemapping are just processing tools, they dont deserve the bad press they get, and over done hdr is just the same as an over contrasted non-hdr image, you cant judge an image on its thread title just because it contains the letters hdr.
The problem IMO lies with reality, cameras record reality, well their reality, (and theres plenty of scope for individual choice in that) over done hdr manufactures a scene that we are asked to believe is reality simply because the image is posted as a "photograph", if it were a painting or web art no body would care because its not claiming to be a copy of reality.
I dont care what processes are used or what they are called, no one but the processor will know how much of a departure from the original scene he/she has shifted, IMO if it looks real it is real, only when an image is obviously an alien landscape does it lose credibilty as a "photograph".
Why cant they be defined as digital artworks, its a perfectly valid form in its own right ?
Because peeps want to be know as photographers 1st and are reluctant to be seen as photo manipulators even though there is very little photo left in the image ?

Overdone HDR/tonemapping doesn't work because they do not look like scenes that do/could exist, nice images yes but they lose photographic credibility.

It doesn't take long when spending time in forums full of overdone hdr images, to become conditioned to viewing them as "normal" photos.
My girl cant leave the house without make-up either:|

 

[petemc]

Is this HDR too much? I'm kinda feeling like I just don't know anymore so...

 

[Snake Man]

I personally quite like HDR but I think too many people (including myself) use it on images that would otherwise just be plain dull. When used on an already good photograph the results can be stunning.

The same thing could be said about some mono conversions. When used on a good shot it looks great but too often people use b&w to cover up a poor execution in the original.

 

[Steep]

I don't dislike HDR, I dislike overdone HDR, or HDR used to try to 'spark up' an otherwise poor image that ends up looking like a poor image HDR'd.

 

[WeddingHack]

Ok, now you're just making stuff up EDR? Nature's dynamic range is far greater than what we can see.

And what we can see is far greater than a camera can capture - hence the HDR process. But that process also allows use to put more information in a processed image than the eye would be able to see looking at the same scene - to me that's obvious use of HDR

A sunny day has a contrast ratio of about 100,000:1 and we see 10,000:1. HDR is 32bit because it's contrast ratio is stupidly high, like 107,000,000,000:1. This begs the question, what about exposure blending or contrast masking? Why isn't anyone having a go about the evils of them? Is it because no-one is producing OTT images with them, or because its not as popular? People have been blending exposures since film to increase the tonal range of their end result.

I don't think HDR is evil at all, or the other methods you've mentioned. However I think it is a tricky tool to master and do well. I think the majority of HDR work I've seen is rubbish, and this has given the technique a poor name in general.

Duncan

 

[mindcrime]

Is this HDR too much? I'm kinda feeling like I just don't know anymore so...

Pete, that is so, like, totally HDR. And not a very good one

You must definitely be bored now, winding people up with an image like that.

 

[paulpierce]

Is this HDR too much? I'm kinda feeling like I just don't know anymore so...

I quite like this one

I wouldn't say its not over done, I think that the extra punch you the clouds have got makes them look 3d, the only small issue is that the processing of them has made them a bit grainier than the rest of the image so they stand out a bit.

 

[WeddingHack]

Is this HDR too much? I'm kinda feeling like I just don't know anymore so...

Too much for me, hugely contrasty clouds, yet lots of detail in the shadow behind the ruined wall - it just aint how the eye would see it.

 

[joxby]

thats a funny split, the right hand side looks like a painting, brush strokes and everything, but the left is fairly straight.

 

[petemc]

And what we can see is far greater than a camera can capture - hence the HDR process. But that process also allows use to put more information in a processed image than the eye would be able to see looking at the same scene - to me that's obvious use of HDR

Its a higher dynamic range, but its not "high dynamic range". It may seem like semantics but there is a difference. 8bit and 16bit images can't store enough detail from a sunny day, so they're always LDR. When you compress a HDR to LDR it will look like its got a "high dynamic range" but then so will a well done print in a darkroom with dodging and burning, or exposure blending or contrast masking. Its still all technically LDR.

 

[wildtracks]

I really don't get the debate about what is right and wrong and if HDR has a place.

Of course it does. It is just a tool. Just like a DSLR is a tool and some chunks of glass arranged in groups called a lens - the're just tools.

When I mow the lawn, I use a petrol mower, because I know it well and it helps me do a good job. I could use a sythe or shears. You can overdo it with any of them (arguably its easier to overdo it with a machine?). It does not make the petrol mower the demon (although arguably it might be for burning fossil fuels). They are just tools.

Some of us like really punchy contrasty images, some like subtle milky greys, some like highly saturated colour and some like to preserve subtle skin tones.

We used to choose our film types to do this ie Provia, Astia (for skin tones) or Velia (vivid colours) so these tools have always been deployed in photography.

Where's the debate? Someone help me see.

 

[dod]

Thanks. But no-one has yet said why they are obviously "HDR".

Personally I think it's when the scene begins to lose it's depth and no longer looks "natural".

You know I'm not a huge fan of HDR, or more accurately overdone HDR, but there are times when it works well. Here's my take on the images you posted originally.

#1 – pretty normal, not obviously HDR’d

#2 – for me that’s overprocessed. There are no shadows, it looks more like a sketch than a photograph

#3 – works for me, got good tone and contrast

#4 – like #2 I think you’ve brought out far too much shadow detail, it really doesn’t look natural

#5 – not as processed as 4 and it works better for me.

#6 – again overprocessed for me, almost like a drawing again.

#7 – works for me, you can see it’s had something done to it but it still retains a natural feel.

#8 – doesn’t look like it’s had much more done than saturation and contrast boosted, looks fine.

#9 – obviously over the top but with the subject it works.

But, these are just my opinions. Photography is subjective, some of those I like, some I don't. It doesn't make them bad shots, it just means that they are presented in a way that doesn't appeal to me. The important thing is that they appeal to you and are consistent with what you think you are as a photographer.

 

[petemc]

Pete, that is so, like, totally HDR. And not a very good one

Its that obviously been Photomatix'd?

Too much for me, hugely contrasty clouds, yet lots of detail in the shadow behind the ruined wall - it just aint how the eye would see it.

Interesting. I always find that last bit funny because no-one ever says that about Infrared or B&W images So is it a "HDR" problem, because this is the original.

Originally shot as an Infrared image with a colour image layered on top. I took it over 3 years ago. I'm sorry for tricking you guys this way but I wanted to try and make a point. How can a non-hdr image look overly hdr'd? Unless of course HDR is fine and its the end user making a mess of things. I'm wondering if people would say some of the images in this thread were overly HDR'd if they didn't know. As some people have said here, its just a tool for a job. A very good tool but in the wrong hands a very bad one. Sorry again, just found it interesting that people did think it was an ott hdr without questioning it.

Personally I think it's when the scene begins to lose it's depth and no longer looks "natural".

You know I'm not a huge fan of HDR, or more accurately overdone HDR, but there are times when it works well. Here's my take on the images you posted originally.

#1 – pretty normal, not obviously HDR’d

#2 – for me that’s overprocessed. There are no shadows, it looks more like a sketch than a photograph

#3 – works for me, got good tone and contrast

#4 – like #2 I think you’ve brought out far too much shadow detail, it really doesn’t look natural

#5 – not as processed as 4 and it works better for me.

#6 – again overprocessed for me, almost like a drawing again.

#7 – works for me, you can see it’s had something done to it but it still retains a natural feel.

#8 – doesn’t look like it’s had much more done than saturation and contrast boosted, looks fine.

#9 – obviously over the top but with the subject it works.

But, these are just my opinions. Photography is subjective, some of those I like, some I don't. It doesn't make them bad shots, it just means that they are presented in a way that doesn't appeal to me. The important thing is that they appeal to you and are consistent with what you think you are as a photographer.

Thank you. Its interesting because I see #4 as looking quite natural. I'll see if I can find the originals.

 

[blinkerz]

HDR has its place in photography just as any other process, yes HDR can be done for sake of it, but then so can any other process such as B&W to give the picture some artistic credit.

 

[petemc]

I'd say the last 2 are very obviously HDR blinkerz.

I've decided to post some originals to compare with. These are straight from camera raw files.

 

[basegreen]

Ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste. Overcooked HDR/Tone Mapped images can sometimes look like paintings. A lot of them are pretty garish and odd, unreal if you like.

But....................... a lot of images that you can produce with clever use of DoF, a lot of portraiture with heavy post-processing, artificial lighting etc can also look very fake and tasteless. Are they somehow ok because you've used a special lens, or top of the range lighting rig or flash?

I just think it's easy to get miffed by a newcomer creating a spectacular image by running it through a plug-in.

 

[WeddingHack]

Wasn't the point of this thread to show that HDR images can look normal - not whether the process of HDR / tonemapping / IR / whatever is good or bad ?

Most of Pete's images don't look 'normal', they look like 'Pete' images, which is why I like them. Kenco's images have a totally different look and I like them for different reasons. Not knocking any other photos on this thread but theirs stood out.

The 'crap in, crap out' rule applies to the Photomatix or any other post processing technique. Except through sheer luck, no-one is going to produce a spectacular result by using a plug in, it requires the skills from start to finish - pre-visualisation, camera control and processing knowledge.

As basegreen said, it's all a matter of personal taste, as is almost everything in photography.

 

[petemc]

Wasn't the point of this thread to show that HDR images can look normal - not whether the process of HDR / tonemapping / IR / whatever is good or bad ?

It was, hence the post above yours

 

[Kanikula]

 

[WeddingHack]

Of those two shots, the church one is 'normal' - as much as it can be with a camera - the eye would compensate the differing white balances between the tungsten lighting and outside light better, so the windows wouldn't be so blue to the naked eye.

The second river scene to my eyes does not look 'normal', it looks processed - however, it looks better than the reality presented in the first shot, lets call it reality+

 

[petemc]

Of those two shots, the church one is 'normal' - as much as it can be with a camera - the eye would compensate the differing white balances between the tungsten lighting and outside light better, so the windows wouldn't be so blue to the naked eye.

The second river scene to my eyes does not look 'normal', it looks processed - however, it looks better than the reality presented in the first shot, lets call it reality+

I think somethings definitely gone missing here. At no point did I say post unprocessed HDR images. Of course its fine to post processed ones. As long as they look realistic. Not the normal OTT types you see. The second shot could have been done with a ND grad or a gradient layer in PS. So in that respect I wouldn't say theres any issue with HDR.