Opinions on HDR

Messages
158
Name
Dale
Edit My Images
Yes
What do people think of HDR? I'm guessing it's a matter of opinion but I am curious to see what others think.

I've seen some waaay overprocessed HDR around, but I imagine I've seen some great HDR without realising it as well.

P4160249-HDR by Dale Clutterbuck, on Flickr
 
If used to increase the dynamic range of an image without being obvious then it's a useful tool. As an effect it has its place, just like posterisation or tobacco filters, but needs to be saved for the right image.
 
You either make it subtle so most won't hardly notice, or on occasion go in real heavy handed for a dramatic effect.
It can be used very effectively for interiors such as churches.
Sometimes portraits acquire a remarkably gritty look which makes an everyday photo very striking.
Can be combined with Orton and B+W to further infuriate those who dislike it :)
Bear in mind 'we' aren't always trying to portray reality. Some photos are much more like a work of art.

Like everything else if you like it do it, you don't have to take much notice of the biased opinions of others on a forum.
It is best regarded as another tool which is useful for some shots.
 
Last edited:
Like any other photographic technique it's the results that count.

Like any other photographic technique it can be used badly, used inappropriately and just plain old cocked up in the execution.

As a technique it's neither inherently "bad" or "good". Like any other technique.
 
You either make it subtle so most won't hardly notice, or on occasion go in real heavy handed for a dramatic effect.
It can be used very effectively for interiors such as churches.
Sometimes portraits acquire a remarkably gritty look which makes an everyday photo very striking.
Can be combined with Orton and B+W to further infuriate those who dislike it :)
Bear in mind 'we' aren't always trying to portray reality. Some photos are much more like a work of art.

Like everything else if you like it do it, you don't have to take much notice of the biased opinions of others on a forum.
It is best regarded as another tool which is useful for some shots.

You got any examples of the portraits? Would love to see what you mean.
 
HDR is an essential tool. A great deal of my photography is inside mediaeval churches which are small and dark with very bright windows. Without HDR, my task would be almost impossible. I like to think no one can tell I have used HDR.
 
It seems to be the fashion in my circles to over do in portraits = in my opinion mainly rubbish, but there are exceptions. It can be used to good effect on landscapes when not over done. I like your example :clap::clap::clap:(y)
 
If it makes the image look more like the eye would have perceived it at the time, then HDR is wonderful. Anything other than that just gets a bit weird for me.
 
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I've found myself avoiding it a bit, I think because I'd done a course with a photography instructor (who is excellent btw), but he was very against blending multiple exposures and HDR in particular.

Definitely going to experiment with it more.
 
Agreed, anything overcooked just looks comic book to me and not 'proper' photography, having said that I know some Togs love it and almost make overcooked HDR an art form, horses for courses I guess!
 
Define HDR,

Do you mean HDR capture and tone-mapping for display on a standard display or HDR capture and display on one of the new HDR displays without tone mapping?
 
Define HDR,

Do you mean HDR capture and tone-mapping for display on a standard display or HDR capture and display on one of the new HDR displays without tone mapping?
For me, it is for display on paper.
 
For me it is taking multiple exposures to capture the full dynamic range of a scene beyond the capabilities of the sensor, then blending them together to create an accurate representation of reality. For many others, substitute 'accurate' for 'inaccurate'.....
 
I occasionally use HDR to get a better dynamic range without pushing it too far. I agree with the posters above who suggest that it has it's place in photography.
 
Took this yesterday with my Canon G7X in low level in-camera HDR mode, which combines three exposures. The blue bits of sky came out a bit OTT so did some simple tweeks in shop. I'm well pleased with the cloud reflection, a straightforward single shot produce something entirely different with no reflections whatsoever.


Jg7vpbtOolPKLljyiw1fxewLBdCi74SqKwkWK2m0f3QTkPTqcZZAVET_dB-wBXuPdkbiAL-W0kMDLoCYwzOADzgzuKmzQlkvvgk8OmX8G0VW0WoW_xbb5GVpFLvAJ7wYPsxwah5Z4lj4FOXwVlB7mqzuP1yczBxZv0g3KwYOVpbwgCYqMXLf064rN0FhTbyuvSe6q7tciESaufF8DOpfRUYmqhhRKp8fbMrLpd5f9PcNuHJ7UPVfpoC8COlJBwSvtFHdqTs9mw2GFeggUOiENhW1pyaWpYMjYIdAkumYIFcnrAcC7ECSbNgBpHhCVx5tij4QDgKB_UvrRoZxFiXrHuTxP1WfAUvmqbCUiOcaJ1Q04exB-d1AET_zC5iqoCIJeMiSESiAlMXWVkcaRlNj6NHVvIM9dszM8RhncOIF9LTTyGViHKhFAHTq-LCSxwteTFp1MT9i5Ktnyrcyl-dGKTTBKY9AJ-mQFbzRhRcLnwg77EsHoHurN2sZ-QroHvhhj6yWO3v4vzkNPC05IsM95IDaBjpjTlKYTHyTwSoHjJPXnV93B_cZu_VAZfxmOaU78_pS1XQvGgeVhKaOeh6y-7zPfkgEZz8jdI_K1lLpPFz1TX8zsZyotqandIsd2_rKsCw6l9SSa7lFCQTp0YMzdJwYypwhzdb-hjE=w1725-h885-no
 
Like others i like HDR when don't subtlety and for a reason however i dislike overcooked HDR images and HDR images done for sake of the HDR grunge effect, but each to there own!
 
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I've found myself avoiding it a bit, I think because I'd done a course with a photography instructor (who is excellent btw), but he was very against blending multiple exposures and HDR in particular.

Definitely going to experiment with it more.
There are some scenes that really require exposure blending to get the best results. It is just another tool available to us and I would not discount using it.
 
I think when most people say they don't like HDR, they mean they don't like the use of HDR tools to produce garish effects. These can mostly be done just as easily without HDR - just open up the Shadows in Lightroom, pull down the Highlights, crank up the Clarity and Bob's your uncle!

Actual HDR, as others have observed, is using multiple exposures to go beyond the dynamic range of your camera. This is device-specific, and being against it is absurd. With my old K-10D it was practically compulsory. With my Fuji X-T10 I seldom need it (and when I do, I prefer to blend exposures using luminosity masks or by hand). If I had a D800, I imagine I'd use it even less.

For people who do interior photography and don't want blown highlights in the windows, I would imagine it's a great boon. In other circumstances, YMMV.
 
I use it a lot, I'm firmly in the "if it's not obvious it's fine" camp. The people who really hate HDR tend to have seen some of the... lets be nice and say over-cooked versions, many of those are really dire IMHO.
 
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I've found myself avoiding it a bit, I think because I'd done a course with a photography instructor (who is excellent btw), but he was very against blending multiple exposures and HDR in particular.

Definitely going to experiment with it more.

Your tutor has a blinkered attitude, and is almost certainly being hypocritical. If you use a graduated filter, or fill-in flash, or darken the sky or increase contrast or use the shadows lift in post processing etc etc, then you're manipulating dynamic range unnaturally. We all do it, and always have done, in one way or another. Blending multiple exposures is just a different technique, and if it works better, then it's hard to argue against.

In fact, you don't even need multiple exposures these days, if you're lucky enough to have one of the latest 'ISO-invariant' sensors with very wide dynamic range (eg Sony, Nikon) meaning you can do some extraordinary things from just one shot. That opens up HDR techniques to moving subjects.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I've found myself avoiding it a bit, I think because I'd done a course with a photography instructor (who is excellent btw), but he was very against blending multiple exposures and HDR in particular.

Definitely going to experiment with it more.

Your tutor is an idiot - or at best a blinkered idiot - re HoppyUK's comment - to which I have nothing more to add :)

Except - he's an idiot (not HoppyUK :D )

Dave
 
It is just another editing technique and as such is neither good or bad. How it is used can be the problem and I'm in the less is more camp. IMO it is good that HDR no longer gets the condemnation that was heard a lot a few years ago. Though this is common with many new or more widely available techniques and devices. I remember when Olympus brought out an aperture priority SLR in the 1970s - many appeared to think it was the beginning of the end of the photography.

Dave
 
I do like some HDR,but when some go over the top,it just looks silly.:)
 
HRD is essentially a modern electronic version of very VERY old fashioned multiple exposure printing.
In the pioneering era of photography, photo emulsions were often very very slow, as is single digit ISO values, whilst the 'dynamc' range' of what they could render shadeds of gray, rather than absolute black or whites,wasn't all that great.
It was a very common practice, then, to make multiple exposures, for high-lights, shaddow and mid-tones, and then blend them in printing to take 'detail' from each negative and put it on the priting paper,probably with a fair bit of local exposure control, called 'dodging and burning'.
As such, HDR is basically a re-invention of a very very old technique, in a more automated form, and if you poo-poo it (as your tutor reportedly does) then by association you are essentially denying the merit or validity of a whole raft of particularly 'early' photographs where it was used to compensate for the rudimentary chemistry of the era, in exactly the same way t's been re-invented as HDR in the electronic era to compensate for the low sensitivity of rudimentary electronic photo-sensors!

Where the contention starts to seep in is in the over use and over cooking of HDR, and a skew exposure stacking technique known as 'bass relief'... this is the practice of 'exposure stacking' both a positive image transparency, and a negative image transparency, that would effectively cancel each other out and result in a homogeneous mid-grey print, if given equal exposure, but, given slightly different exposures, in printing, can create some very very accurate localized exposure control and tonal subtlety, or reduce the image to a very fine almost pure 'line art' lithographic' image, exposing only 'edges' on the print, or in between creating some quite surreal part positive, part negative images, for 'effect' in print.

HDR, with the ability to manipulate the response curve of the base exposures being exposure merged, then offers opportunity for some very very subtle exposure merges or some incredibly bizarre ones, depending on what you do or don't do with it.. and n the digital domain, its an awful lot easier, to do on a computer, where you can see instantly the effect of any manipulation and a 'back' button to undo them f they don't work, than trying to do it in chemicals and paper, where it was a lot harder, more expensive, took a lot more time and effort, and you ddn't se the final effect until it was all done, and if you didn't like it, try, try again!

HERE, the ease and cheapness of the digi-domain has encouraged far more who would never have even tried, let alone succeeded to have a go... and so many of them, encouraged more by notions of 'artistic merit', the more surreal effects, has resulted in a lot of very poorly conceived 'and even even more badly executed examples being ever more widely publicized, popularizing HDR to the point its now an 'inbuilt filter' (eh!> Do they know what a REAL filter even is?!?!?) on some cameras offers it as a 'feature', to be used with even more abandon and less know-how, probably eve more badly than usual..... which probably explains a lot of people's condemnation of the practice, at any level, for any intent,

B-U-T does not detract from the fact that it remains, merely a modern automated means of very very ancient photographic practices, from the pioneering era, and what matters is not the means but the ends, ad whether those means are justified by the ends... unfortunately having suffered so many examples painful to my retina, they so often aren't.... but that does't mean that the technique has no place or legitimacy... merely that far too many people employing, badly, it probably don't!
 
Back
Top