HDR Photograhpy Old Timers Opinions (Page 3): The question is what are you trying to do with photography. If all one wants to do is take a natural shot without any enhancements except...

Bill73

The question is what are you trying to do with photography. If all one wants to do is take a natural shot without any enhancements except what the camera does then do that. If one wants to be an artist and make an image that's a step beyond natural to express ones impression then a little HDR is often needed. All photography can be artistic when done by an accomplished photographer.

Bill73

The question is what are you trying to do with photography. If all one wants to do is take a natural shot without any enhancements except what the camera does then do that. If one wants to be an artist and make an image that's a step beyond natural to express ones impression then a little HDR is often needed. All photography can be artistic when done by an accomplished photographer.

Nikonos II

soba1 wrote:

Hi everyone, I would like to get the opinions of those that have been doing photography of lets say for the last 30 to 40 years on HDR photography.

In your opinion, does it take away from the integrity of photography? Or do you look at it as another welcome form of self expression?

Others feel free to chime in of course. But would love to hear from those that have been doing this for a long time and were a definite a part of the evolution.

Thanks in advance

Cub Scout box camera around 1960, various 35 mm's then Nikonos 1970, Nikon F 1974, enjoyed dark room work a lot. Now getting back last couple of years after family and career (happily) took all my energy, it is a different world. If a 2-D rendition of what you actually saw is what you want, I think the new technology including HDR makes it more possible. If you want to change the original in artistic ways, that is also more possible. If you go for bizarre or artificial, that is also more possible. It's up to you.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I have been shooting since 1973, when I bought my first "serious" camera, an SLR. I don't think HDR affects the "integrity" of photography in any way. I did my own black and white work back in the day and dodged and burned till my heart's content. I used red, green, orange, and yellow filters to affect the sky, foliage, buildings in my black and white photos. Digital techniques are no different from the film techniques I used in the past.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

soba1 wrote:

Hi everyone, I would like to get the opinions of t... (show quote)

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

soba1 wrote:

Hi everyone, I would like to get the opinions of those that have been doing photography of lets say for the last 30 to 40 years on HDR photography.

In your opinion, does it take away from the integrity of photography? Or do you look at it as another welcome form of self expression?

Others feel free to chime in of course. But would love to hear from those that have been doing this for a long time and were a definite a part of the evolution.

Thanks in advance

I consider HDR to be a legitimate process to "restore" a photo to more closely resemble what the eye saw. Camera sensors don't quite have the dynamic range that an eye has especially when there is a range of darks and lights.

llindstrand Loc: Seattle Metro

ejrmaine wrote:

Photography is an art form, you as the photographer have a right to express your feelings with an image. If you choose to use HDR and you like it 'garish' that's your choice, who cares what others think.
I happen to like HDR and also like HDR shots that are pushed to a limit. So what, if you don't like it move on.

I like your sentiments! I use HDR a lot but with minor enhancement in the final process. I find it brings out many nuances that are lost in single image photo editing. For instance it will bring out clouds that the eye can see but don't show on a single image. Also on some images for effect I over saturate the HDR: however, in my mind it becomes an art form rather than photography.
Swede

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

MW wrote:

If you look at a photo and the first thing you think is "HDR" it is probably too much since the technique is psychologically obscuring the content. This is true even when the technical skill is excellent and whether the intent is artistic or making a record.

I have seen examples of HDR that I would not have thought were such except that they were captioned as such. To me that is HDR technique at its best.

I'd agree with MW. The little HDR I've attempted pleased me most when the result looked more as I had seen it with the naked eye. I could see further into the shadows and the highlights weren't blocked up. In a sense it let me make a color image with more of the dynamic range of a good film BW print. All too often HDR images seem cartoonish, at least to my eyes. Of course if that is the photographer's intent....

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

As far as what I want to do with my photography. I know it's vague. Bit I want to push it to the limit. I was playing with HDR and the results I got were awesome....I was just interested in the feedback of those that have been at it for a while.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

I was just fartin around

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

HDR doesn't have to look garish or "other worldly". I've used it at times just to compress the dynamic range of a normal, daylight image so that both shadow details and highlight details would be present in the image... or to open up shadows much the way a fill flash would have done, had I been able to use one.

This is a three-image HDR, done for the above reasons...

There is also a time and place for some of the more extreme HDR processing. I don't object to it, any more than I would to a hundred other image processing tricks that can be used to change a photograph into something else. But it's like shooting with a fisheye lens. It can be quite interesting in small doses, used with appropriate subject matter, but gets old fast if used too much or in the wrong way. I don't have any examples of that type of HDR work at hand... I just haven't had much call to do it, though I might in the future.

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

duh. why knot?

ThomJ4 wrote:

HDR can easily be overdone. Strange colors and halos around objects just doesn't cut it. If HDR is done well, in a lot of cases, you won't be able to tell. I do a lot of black and white photography, quite often in very bad light. HDR has saved my bacon on many occasions. For me, HDR is just another tool in the box. It has its purpose, and when used correctly, it can be very good. However, it's not the right tool for every shot. Would you use a screwdriver to saw wood?

architect Loc: Chattanooga

If you can tell it is an HDR edit, it is overdone. HDR is a wonderful process if it is used to expand the dynamic range of an image in a realistic way, meaning no blown out highs in the clouds, for example, and no blocked areas in the shadows. Basically it means using all of the tonal range in the scene that cannot be captured in a single exposure. It also means that brights are bright up to the point of overexposure, not beyond, and shadows are quite dark but with still some detail.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

soba1 wrote:

Hi everyone, I would like to get the opinions of those that have been doing photography of lets say for the last 30 to 40 years on HDR photography.

In your opinion, does it take away from the integrity of photography? Or do you look at it as another welcome form of self expression?

Others feel free to chime in of course. But would love to hear from those that have been doing this for a long time and were a definite a part of the evolution.

Thanks in advance

Considering the time frame of 30-40 years, I don't believe it to be any different than push or pull development. HDR is intended to compensate for the range of light in much the same way. However, much like seasoning when cooking, it's best done without being overwhelming.
--Bob

pixbyjnjphotos Loc: Apache Junction,AZ

rmalarz wrote:

Considering the time frame of 30-40 years, I don't believe it to be any different than push or pull development. HDR is intended to compensate for the range of light in much the same way. However, much like seasoning when cooking, it's best done without being overwhelming.
--Bob

I agree with rmalarz. However, changes in technology are not acceptable to everyone. Some of us tend to get into a rut and stay there. I, for one, like HDR to a point. It makes it easier to get an acceptable photo. I am not lazy nor do I not strive to take the best photos I can. Sometimes conditions make it difficult to get a single good photo unless you have lots of super equipment. I like good photos. Sometimes I like a little overdone HDR, sometimes not. With today's computers and software you don't even have to use HDR to overcook a photo. I have been accused of overdoing the HDR and didn't even use HDR to post process the photo. Everyone has their own opinion about what a photo should look like. Therefore, everyone should process their photos to their own liking and call it good. If you are going to sell pictures you have to process them to the liking of your customer. If they want overcooked photos, then do it. If they want bland colors, then do it. For me, I like a little HDR. I strive for sharp pictures with good color and use whatever techniques and tools of the trade it takes to achieve my goals whether anyone else likes what I do or not.