Haters of HDR, shed some light

Lunaticsamurai

Lunaticsamurai

Messages
1,228
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I have been a member of this board for a while and i frequent quite a lot of critique's about various pictures as i find most photography interesting no matter what it is. I can see behind the eyes of the Tog and get an impression of what they are trying to create, sometimes i even try and create it myself.

I suppose coming from an artistic background i may see more than others which could be the reason for this but who knows.

I'm not a pro tog, would like to be but i am not pushing it as its not a career path for me, its just a really enjoyable hobby.

One of the aspects i do like is HDR.

Now they are two types of HDR, 1, is pushed to the limit and give off a very artsy look, a painterly texture with beautiful colors and detail. 2, the so-called "proper way" is almost undetectable to the viewer, but the image jumps out of the screen and leaves you feeling like you had just visited.

Now i understand the entire aspect of HDR, it was something i learned whilst doing a BA in CG art and Animation, so HDR got covered.

Whilst i understand the process i also like it, both variations of it.

What i don't understand is why people hate it so much? but not only do they hate, also feel the need to comment on peoples images telling everyone that they hate it.

If i do not like an image that someone has posted, most of the time i dont post, if its a critique that i feel i can add some input on then i post, what i wont do is waste the togs tiime by telling him that i hate it and i have 10 reasons why i hate it, its not constructive, it provides no help and is pointless.

Please discuss. :)
 
Negative crit is very worthwhile.

Even saying you don't like something can be of use providing it's constructive and you elaborate on why.

HDR is just one of those areas that divides opinion but in most cases 'opinion' is all it is. As you say some like it to be undetectable and appear as nothing more than a perfectly exposed shot whilst others like the stereotype HDR 'look'.

Whilst there's plenty of great images created through HDR - there's no doubt it's responsible for more than it's fair share of shocking images and I suspect it's these that rile the purists.
 
dinners said:
Negative crit is very worthwhile.

Even saying you don't like something can be of use providing it's constructive and you elaborate on why.

HDR is just one of those areas that divides opinion but in most cases 'opinion' is all it is. As you say some like it to be undetectable and appear as nothing more than a perfectly exposed shot whilst others like the stereotype HDR 'look'.

Whilst there's plenty of great images created through HDR - there's no doubt it's responsible for more than it's fair share of shocking images and I suspect it's these that rile the purists.
Click to expand...

Completely understand what you are saying, but the negative crit i am on about is more on the lines of.. "i don't like HDR i never have done, the colors look all wrong and its gastly to my eyes"

Its this sort of thing that i don't understand.
 
I guess that's more of a general issue regarding how much thought and effort people are prepared to put into their comments when offering critique rather than a specific HDR issue but you're correct in that it does generate a fair few blunt comments.
 
Last edited:
Most of us get into landscape and cityscape photography because we see pretty scenes and want to capture them. Then...once we start we feel compelled to improve on Mother Nature. Pretty soon, we've gone off the deep end. HDR can be that "deep end."

Personally, I like a lot of HDR shots, both subtle ones and highly processed ones, but that depends so much on the subject, the presentation, and the photographer's artistic intent (at least as I perceive it.) I have never specifically disliked a shot simply because HDR was employed. I feel that people who really hate HDR are uncomfortable with "unrealistic" colors and light. That's fine...each to their own.

I find that B&W photos can elicit the same sort of negative response from certain photographers.

Thank goodness this is a very broad hobby, with room for all sorts.
 
For me personally, not being a very expirenced photographer, but loving the art of it, I am totally blown away by HDR and would love to get into it properely and learn the art of it.
 
It would depend if the person asked for critique or whether I liked the image or not.

I personally like SOME HDR. I don't like halo's and I don't like the look of the subject being embossed. There can be so many variants of the HDR effect it is hard to speak of so broadly.
 
It's all subjective, and I don't like the overly saturated images with too much shadow detail. In my opinion, the OTT treatment adds nothing to an image and is often applied because it can be, rather than because an image needs it, and is an easy way of getting a 'creative' look to an image. But hey, they're your images, so do as you please and if it floats your boat and you like it, good for you!

I spent nearly a year persevering with photomatix and struggled to get realistic images, without having to revert to Photoshop afterwards. I now just use multiple layers in Photoshop where I have more control.
 
As said it seems there can be two outcomes from HDR, one is the R for reality and the other the H for Hyper. Nothing wrong intrinsically in either technique, but if it is going to be "artistic" then it needs to be that, else if "realistic" then it should almost be undetectable that it is HDR and not look unrealistic.
 
I think most of the bad HDR images were bad pictures to start off with and then the person thought "Hey, I know what to do, lets try a HDR!!" - argh !

I think it certainly has its place, but I'd rather not be able to tell its HDR, or at least it should be subtle.
 
Keith I am one of those who is not a fan of HDR - I would hope if I offer a critique on an image it is of use to the photographer. Since I'm often offering an opinion, I feel it is important that my position is declared as the submitter may wish to ignore me due to this.

As has been mentioned above, I feel the technique is used to try to recover a poor image (I also suspect this is done with some b&w submissions).

Hope that makes sense as I see Newsnight is on so it must be late ;)
 
Only thing that bugs me about HDR is that for some people it is a substitute for creativity. The "Look at my HDR" stuff.

It's like the starting point was I'm going to make 'a HDR', not, 'I'm going to take a good photograph'.
 
Can we explore this at a deeper level? And maybe find different types of examples, the good, the bad and the super-effective, of HDR photos to illustrate our points? :)

What HDR pictures have you seen and loved (and why?!)

What HDR pictures have you seen, and think are pointless or actually harmful to the photo!

What HDR pictures have you seen simply intended to "save a bad photo."

Then we can discuss them, and really think about it, critically...as critical photographers ;)
 
Last edited:
It got slaughtered by blind flickr users who were apparently closing their eyes, and putting all the sliders in photomatix to either the max or the minimum. Ugh.

Done well, HDR is fine...no different to pulling film to get more contrast...
 
itsdavedotnet said:
It got slaughtered by blind flickr users who were apparently closing their eyes, and putting all the sliders in photomatix to either the max or the minimum. Ugh.

Done well, HDR is fine...no different to pulling film to get more contrast...
Click to expand...

Well put :)
 
A few people have said HDR is often used to save a bad image. HDR images however are made from at least 3 different exposures so must of been the intent in the first place?
 
I'm not one to stop others doing it, but I too don't like "hdr". I like a photo to have contrast, real global contrast. It's doesn't matter if some bits of the image fall out of the dynamic range to me. "Hdr" images just squash too much in there and the result seems to be a grey soup of an image, where clouds and tarmac have the same tone. From there the photographer seems only left with the saturation to play around with in the hope of giving some colour contrast, but results seem limited to me.
 
Last edited:
Sean, you can process the same raw file at different exposure values to create a hdr image. It isn't ideal for a large dynamic range but will remove ghosting
 
I was a HDR hater.

Then I saw the light :D so to speak.

Now some I like, some I dislike and some I can't even see the difference.

But I now have an open mind.

D in W
 
I personally love looking at HDR images but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do it properly. I have tried and tried and I have followed tutorials on YouTube and such. And I still manage to get it wrong. So another reason I admire them is because I cannot do them myself. Can anyone point me to a good tutorial that explains it in moron terms lol

Sent from my iPhone 4 using TP Forums
 
I'm +1 for the subtle camp. The chocolate-box lid 'all to the max settings' sort makes my head ache and my eyes bleed. Oh look, I bought a plug-in and it has an 'auto' button, those crap shots will now look sooo much better now people are distracted by the lsd inspired colours.
I'm equally as sure some won't like images I do, afterall, it's totally subjective.
Apart from this thread, where we've been specifically asked why, I simply never comment on HDR for the sake of it pics.
 
I agree with quite a few of you but something i want to touch on which a few have mentioned and one has pointed out is this; HDR is a minimum of three shots, exposed -/+ eahc way. This is obviously done on purpose, to say that a shot has been given the HDR treatment to recover a bad image is wrong, if intended to create HDR then it can't be a bad image in the first place.

What i do see alot of is the single image HDR, an image that has been tone-mapped and labelled HDR, this is of course not. So in this case maybe a bad image has been tone-mapped to try and recover it, but again this is not a HDR.

First we need to understand what HDR is before we can comment on wether its bad or good. I fear that these single images have ruined what some people spend thier life doing.
 
To my mind HDR is a way of bringing out some detail in areas that the dynamic range of a standard DSLR shot can't manage. Church Interiors for example where the light levels range from the brightness of the stained glass windows to the gloom seen up in the cavernous roof and elsewhere about the building.
 
I don't like overly processed images wither they are HDR or not. the method of processing is irrelevant.
 
Top Cat said:
HDR is not art? HDR is OK if done well..? Can it be overdone? Why is that a bad thing?

Can we back it up with examples? I too want to shed light on this. Currently, I'm ambivalent. But if people with strong views want to argue their case, it needs to be more than just opinion.
Click to expand...

If you want examples of what I perceive as bad HDR, go to Flickr and type 'HDR' in the search box.
:D;):p

Seriously though, it's not good form to single out specific examples of peoples photos without their permission.
 
Again it is all about opinions.
There has been a few references to bad hdr on flickr, which taken in the proper context is true. With thousands of uploads per minute to flickr, it is safe to say there are thousands of crap non hdr images posted to flickr and anywhere else for that matter.
I think you will find there are many people that use hdr and tone mapping without disclosing it.
I would always rather view a good hdr, B&W, or any other process, than a poor picture of the ‘normal ‘ variety.
 
I don't mind HDR, as long as it is HDR, 3 jpegs from the same rawfile putthrough Photomatix does not ever look good to me. InfactI'm disliking photomatix more and more, as it seems hell bent on muddyingotherwose natural loking images, or cranking up shadows so much they go green from noise.

Here's my favourite example:

7 shot HDR:



Single shot on Film (From the same tripod setup)

 
Personally, HDR because detrimental when it exceeds what was actually seen at the place and time of the photograph. Sure there is artistic license, and indeed the eye (or should I say the brain) has more effective dynamic range than a camera does, but as soon as halos start appearing, luminescent colours start showing and micro contrast is boosted beyond belief, the shot is ruined.

I like photos to look natural and within the realms of realistic. What I especially dislike, is when HDR is used to add something to an image that is otherwise a poor composition. If the composition is poor, learn how to improve that first, not how to be a slider jockey, as it were.

I have quite a few shots fav'd on flickr that are HDR. They tend to be subtle, and act to correct for the cameras shortcomings.
 
Woodsy said:
What I especially dislike, is when HDR is used to add something to an image that is otherwise a poor composition. If the composition is poor, learn how to improve that first, not how to be a slider jockey, as it were.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I agree - but then that advice could be applied to anything. I don't think HDR hides bad composition, not any more than black and white does! Not to a critical eye, anyway.

But the key area of concern does seem to revolve around realism. I've started noticing those halo's as well. Now I'm on a mission to find HDR 'uglies' as it were. Hopefully, such a study will reveal when in fact it's a good idea to use HDR, and when it's just best left alone. ^ ^
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top