instead of 'HDR warning!', why not just not overprocess them? HDR can look good...

itsdavedotnet

itsdavedotnet

Messages
5,864
Edit My Images
No
genuinely not aimed at anyone or any thread in particular (though there's plenty of horrendous examples on flickr)... there are plenty of examples of perfectly nice HDR out there, seem to remember the luminous landscapes dude having some cool ones, and a fair amount of stuckincustoms' stuff is pretty awesome...and this is because they're good photographers and good photos FIRST, and they then tastefully use the tools available to improve them.

HDR is merely a way of tricking your way around the technological limitations imposed by digital sensors, not an excuse to make photos look horrendous because it means that you can spend more time at the computer.

if you feel the need to put 'HDR warning!', maybe contemplate if you -really- like your finished image - yes you've just spent ages in photomatix or whatever tweaking every slider under the sun, but you are evidently sufficiently unsure about your image that you feel the need to warn people before they view it, for fear of being criticised...and yet you obviously already know what that criticism will be.

it's just a technique... and one that can't be used to suddenly make a boring photo amazing, or one that magically makes everything better. Get it right in camera, and then use HDR tricks if the camera can't keep up with what you're asking of it :) And to quote Adams, 'the print is the prize' - who cares about how you got there, what strange processing you used, it's the finished image that counts.

half a question, half a discussion opener...discuss... ;)
 
Last edited:
I think if people like what they've done, and they put it up for public consumption, they need to be aware that not everyone's taste will match their own. If they can't handle the criticism that comes back to them, then perhaps they should start out with more limited viewings.
Putting "HDR Warning" seems to me to say "I know this is overdone, but I thought it looked cool", which puts the person in the "I like this myself" camp, but with an attempt to dissuade negative commentary.

"Give me your opinions so long as I like them" :)
 
photography like art is completely subjective.
the main parts of technical ability are a given, but wether someone likes an image or not is completely subjective.
some love hdr, some hate it.

im in both camps :D
done right it looks fantastic.

It has its place, the same as b/w and colour.
some colour images dont work, but in b/w they do... and visa versa.
 
I was thinking about this the other day and i reckon it won't be long before you can actually shoot in a HDR mode... on an SLR or in HD video....it's a natural progression baring in mind it's popularity and the fact that at it's core it's attempting to capture the image as the human see's it.... we don't just have our eyes on one exposure setting... we adapt as we look around a scene, that's basically what HDR is trying to do it's just that the technique can be pushed and pulled to extremes and so it gets played with. I wonder when an SLR will be released with full "HDR" mode!!!!
 
I suppose the HDR warning is to stop all those people who hate it popping in and say "it's ****" and leaving. Similar to selective colouring.

As for HDR, I've never tried it but seen some amazing OTT HDR's. Even if its over the top it can look good if the processing is right, it seems to the the ones in the middle that look odd :)
 
The same "warning" message can also be applied to B&W images. I've had a few comments in the past along the lines of "I don't like B&W" and that's it !!

Why bother posting that and really who gives a $h1tt

There have been some really good hdr shots i.e Mark Jayne's aircraft shots. Fantastic without being over the top and there have been some horrors:D

Personally I think HDR has it's place in photography if carried out subtlety. I think the secret is not to make it look like a hdr !
 
There is a difference between producing HDR image's from 5 or 7 exposures and the effects of Tone Mapping a single image.

Have a look at some of the work by Dave Hill who produces images that you will more than likely say are OTT HDR but they are not HDR at any point and are achieved by tone mapping.

Is it that people do not understand the difference between the two?
 
Some good comments here. We should not have to practically apologise for using any technique. I think HDR is a great tool to overcome sensor limitations, but I'll agree it is very easy to over do it, as it is with any other editing/enhancing tool. Though even OTT HDR photos have their place.

I'd say just post without mentioning HDR. Hardly anyone posts an image and says, "Here is a photo where I have enhanced the contrast", so why mention HDR. Should a photo be considered less good if HDR has been used?

I recall many years ago there was a lot of adverse comment when the first SLR's with aperture and shutter priority first appeared.

Dave
 
As has already been said, do the job in camera first and judge an image on its own merit. If it's ****, frying it with HDR aint gonna help it. It seems to be a distinct group of people killing images with it, the ones who pop up occassionally asking what HDR is and how you do it.
It's a process technique thats been used for years, software just made it easy.

anniephoto said:
i reckon it won't be long before you can actually shoot in a HDR mode... on an SLR or in HD video....
Click to expand...

HDR HD video is already here, in a fashion:
http://www.hdrtimelapse.com/
 
I'm sure I read that one of the new crop of DSLRs just announced has an in-camera HDR option
 
mid_gen said:
Why mention HDR at all? Why not just present your image on it's own merit?
Click to expand...
We could go into all kinds of discussion as to whether HDR is photography or is it a computer generated image for all intents and purposes. We'd be here all day probably :D

Personally I'm here to learn techniques of taking photos, not digital art, so I'm not a big fan of HDR. HDR has its place, but it's way overdone generally. Stunning images they can be but what's really left of the original photo(s) when everything is tweaked to the max? They often look to me like something a graphic artist could do without even touching a camera. Just too artificial.

But that's my personal preference. I'm not going to say "ban HDR", but I have to admit to looking into a thread and just thinking "oh, not another HDR!", especially if I'm looking for good examples of technique I can learn off.
 
I'm not going to say "ban HDR"
Click to expand...

thank god for that!

I like HDR. I think it has its place as a particular style and it suits darker more gothic/eerie scenes rather than the HDR anything to the max mentality that loads of people seem to use it for. I personally have grown out of it a bit but it got me into photography and it's part of the digital era so it's here to stay. I used to like Stuckincustoms stuff but now i think its horrible, and i think the guy is a one-trick pony. Let it live, i say and if people don't like it they don't like it.
 
I use HDR a lot. I don't have any ND-grads yet, and sometimes I find it essential to get a scene correctly exposed. I don't really know how to do it another way (happy to be enlightened. I'm new to the photography game. :D ). But that doesn't really really relate to the OP. It's just covers the topic of HDR, and whether it should or shouldn't be used.
 
Oh, and to add I suppose sometimes I come across a photo which isn't OTT and is very nice and I'd like to know how it was shot so I could try to achieve something similar, but then it turns out it was an HDR. That's okay, but I don't really want to be messing about on a computer so I walk away thinking I can't achieve that shot. I just want to get the shot in camera really with minimal post-process. It's hassle enough processing single shots let alone doing multi-exposure HDR! :D
 
These kind of discussions were all the rage a couple of years ago, when everyone and their dog announcing that HDR was the 'next big thing' and everyone would be using it.

But like most fads, it's almost died a death, and gone to the graveyard with other failures like kaleidescope filters, 3D cameras, 'glamour glow' plug-ins etc

So I agree with the OP, I don't think there is any need to mention 'HDR warning' in any post, you rarely see HDR images posted nowadays, that it's hardly necessary.
 
Agree with Dave - purely subjective. And, like art, if I like it I like it. If some people say it's overcooked, fair enough!

I regularly overprocess - but it's just to p*** off my colleagues.......:naughty:
 
But like most fads, it's almost died a death,
Click to expand...

i wouldn't go that far. you just have to look at the hundreds of thousands of HDR photos being posted to flickr every day, not to mention the thousands of conversations all over the web arguing whether you can make a HDR out of a single shot (which you can). I think for every person that gives it up there is another who discovers it. It definitely has its place in spooky architectural and urbex decay and the like, and for those who dont want to play with filters. and there are those like Trey Ratcliff of stuckincustoms fame who practically make a second income out of it. It's all art in my opinion and most likely here to stay as a weapon in the digital PP arsenal.
 
I think it is pretty trendy on most forums to say "I hate most HDR but like it if it is done subtly". That line bores me. I dont care if you do like HDR, you dont need to defend yourself! No one is rating you as a person on whether or not you like HDR! Come on out of the HDR closet! ;)

I think there is a bit of a knack to getting HDR to look good. I have never been able to get satisfactory results myself but I can imagine why folk do post HDR shots for critique:

After looking at a HDR image for a long period of time (and as there are so many settings to tweak) you can start to lose track of whether the changes you have made do in fact look any better than before you started.

I guess that is why folk are posting: to get second opinions.
 
It's not died a death, it's probably just fallen out of fashion with the people who are more susceptible to following the latest ads. They're probably now all making HD movies with their 5Ds.....

What the OP is saying kind of echoes my sentiments about general photo sharing. If you have to make excuses for your work then you're obviously not 100% proud of it. Putting 'HDR warning...' is one of two things; it's a disclaimer against critique and it's something to draw attention to your post.

I
 
Wow, this might not have been aimed at anyone, but it appeared spookily close to a post I put in the landscape section with those very words in the title. I had no idea it would be so controversial!

I didn't post it to draw attention or to dodge critique, it was simply because there are a significant number of people on this forum who regularly say they hate HDR. All I was doing was trying to prevent those folk from wasting 30 seconds of their time looking at something in which they can see no merit from the off, so pretty much what Harevy_nikon said. Based on the feedback I have a bit of work to do in order to produce a decent HDR image anyway, so once I've been back and tried again I'll be sure to post it without the warning - so long as the HDR haters promise not to give me any crap for it... :)
 
mid_gen said:
I'm sure I read that one of the new crop of DSLRs just announced has an in-camera HDR option
Click to expand...

Yep, my Sony A450 has it, as do the 500/550 IIRC.

The camera takes 2 exposures and "merges" them into 1 jpeg. Even works surprisingly well handheld thanks to SSS.

If I can dig out some examples later I might post some up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top