HDR PHOTOS: Maybe I'm old fashioned, or unsophisticated or whatever... but I find most HDR pics to be overdone and a turn-off. I understand wanting some of the better aspects of...

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

Maybe I'm old fashioned, or unsophisticated or whatever... but I find most HDR pics to be overdone and a turn-off. I understand wanting some of the better aspects of various exposures of the same scene, but too often judgement seems to err towards overprocessing. I can appreciate fine tuning or enhancing a pic. Seems to me it should be something of a more subtle approach. Any agreement out there?

huggins7

I must agree and disagree. I use HDR a lot. Some images I make are on the edge because it fits a style or subject type. On the other hand I use it to enhance and bring out detail to the max. Some say "it looks HDR" meaning most of the time "gee I wish my images looked like that but I don't know how and I refuse to admit it" So we most always go back to the film argument - film is better. Let me say that when color film came out many despised it, when Fuji velvia came out many poohooed at it, etc. If a mfg had come out with a film that could capture the whole tonal range of the human eye and never blow out high lights or lose shadow detail, I am guessing that every photographer on the planet would have jumped on it NOW. So now we have come close to that capability and some how to many it's wrong. I will display a couple of my HDR shots just for fun.

HDR Spokane Washington

Glacier National Park HDR

Old Chevy HDR

jkaye65 Loc: Chico, CA

I agree that some HDR are over processed. Sometimes it works......sometimes it doesn't.

Personally I think HDR is wonderful. It would have been tough to capture my shot here in one frame. It is 3 shots combined with one overexposed to lighten the shadows and one exposed to tone down the highlights. Yet I don't think it is over processed.

Bidwell Creek flows through the "lava" canyon, Bidwell Park, Chico CA

This one is "over processed", but I was going for the artsy look.

dhemmelg

I really like your Spokane example. Nice work!

dhemmelg

Huggins7, I really like your Spokane example. Nice work!

huggins7

Nice work.

georgeedwards Loc: Essex, Md.

I have been trying to minimize the over processed look although I like it, I want to master the 'normal' look too. What HDR software did you use to get the Bidwell Creek photo?

georgeedwards Loc: Essex, Md.

I have been trying to minimize the over processed look although I like it, I want to master the 'normal' look too. What HDR software did you use to get the Glacier Park photo?

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

huggins7 wrote:

I must agree and disagree. I use HDR a lot. Some i... (show quote)

Well, I can't (lack of exper) use the film arg, but neither can I accept "...wish my pics looked like that" arg either. I feel your own photos support what I contend: 1 and 3 don't "work" for me; yet you show restraint with the mirrored lake shot, which enhances the image. I would almost compare HDR to perspective. Much of it doesn't draw the eye as much as it does SMACK the eye, and with no purpose-- it's just there. That's what happens when I look at your 1st pic; the 3rd is close to being "artsy", yet doesn't quick rock for me. Please, tho, this is not a criticism of your work; but rather an explanation of my perceptions.

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

Now, jkaye65... ROCKING! Your water pic is much enhanced by your efforts. Subtle touches that bring out the quality of what your eye saw, allowing us to experience what you did when you saw it. Yet your second shot also conveys a dramatic sense of your vision. But it is focused, it draws the eye to the CAR, nothing else. Everything else in the shot is used merely as "setup" for the car. Nothing distracts the eye, nothing pulls it away. Like I said, it's like perspective: HDR can be flat, confusing you about what you should be looking at. Or, it can enhance and draw attention to a specific feature. My arg is too often HDR is just over the top, lacking refinement-- to MY decidedly unsophisticated eye.

raghavnk

I agree with beacher. The basic aim of HDR processing is to make the picture look like what the eye sees. Beyond it, one can always use it to get whatever special effects one wants, like any other photo editing tool.

arphot Loc: Massachusetts

georgeedwards wrote:

I have been trying to minimize the over processed look although I like it, I want to master the 'normal' look too.

I, too have been trying to tone down my HDR. Some I still like, but nature deserves the more 'natural' treatment sometimes. Other subjects such as architecture and industrial cry out for the envelope to be pushed (IMO).

However, this is one of my posts that I have to admit, the HDR is very subtle and I like it:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=18013&t=2073

dirty dave

Ok I just did a hdr picture this I named waking up at the beach at sunrise after a all nighter ( boy I have to stop drinking) what do you think of the picture not the drinking. You could be right it does look over done. But they do sell.

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

dirty dave wrote:

Ok I just did a hdr picture this I named waking up at the beach at sunrise after a all nighter ( boy I have to stop drinking) what do you think of the picture not the drinking. You could be right it does look over done. But they do sell.

Well, guess ya don't need my feedback, ya gave yer own! But the horizon is dead giveaway no. 1: ruler straight thin line... Again,tho, it's not a criticism, just my perception of the image. The main customer to satisfy is yourself. If you're happy with the shot(s) then it is for you to convince others, or not. (in the car biz they say there's a butt for every seat. Same diff with pics...:wink:)

arphot Loc: Massachusetts

dirty dave wrote:

Ok I just did a hdr picture this I named waking up at the beach at sunrise after a all nighter ( boy I have to stop drinking) what do you think of the picture not the drinking. You could be right it does look over done. But they do sell.

Although, I do think that you processed this well (of course this is my opinion), the subject has more photographic qualities than that of which something that would benefit from tonemapping.