Prove to me that HDR works

wxwax · January 27, 2007

From what I can see, High Dynamic Range (HRD) photo merging sucks.

Especially in landscapes, you can see obvious edges to the masks. They look awful and amateurish. Another problem is that the shots look flat. And lots of times, they look completely unnatural.

You may have already seen this gallery of HDR shots in flickr. Browse through it.

And prove to me that I'm wrong.:poke

System · January 27, 2007

to me, a lot of these can look like too much shadow/highlight-

here's a thread from butternutz with a couple of pics that I think look pretty good-

http://digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=52540

I've tried a couple but haven't been real excited by it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not worthwhile-

saurora · January 27, 2007

I have not been too impressed with 90 percent of what I have seen. I imagine choosing the appropriate image can make a huge difference as well as technique. In many I am unable to distinguish that any technique has been applied. Here is a thread for TomK. I think this is one of the more successful images I have viewed here on Dgrin.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51082

Richard · January 27, 2007

Well, 90% of everything is crap, and HDR is no exception. I liked something thebigsky posted some time ago, and there have been a few others I have liked as well. I have played with it some, enough to understand that it is not a magic bullet, but just another way to combine bracketed exposures. I can now get reasonably decent results with HDR, but I don't think they are clearly superior to what I get using the channel-based mask techniques in the latest Margulis book.

Andy · January 27, 2007

wxwax wrote:

From what I can see, High Dynamic Range (HRD) photo merging sucks.

Especially in landscapes, you can see obvious edges to the masks. They look awful and amateurish. Another problem is that the shots look flat. And lots of times, they look completely unnatural.

You may have already seen this gallery of HDR shots in flickr. Browse through it.

And prove to me that I'm wrong.:poke

I don't use it.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=471688#post471688

Swartzy · January 27, 2007

Everything in moderation
It takes care when post processing and understanding what you will get once done tone mapping, then understanding what you will or won't do in Photoshop. HDR can be a wonderful thing....just as one would use layers taking 2 images and combining them. Added depth with a greater dynamic range is the balance one should strive for. I've seen tons of bad examples but then again, I've heard tons of horrible music (if you want to call it that) but that doesn't mean music sucks....you just have to have the right artist performing. Here are 3 examples that I don't think suck but could never acheived without the help of HDR:

Now, granted this one would not be necessary for shadow/highlight as the shadows were only 2 stops from the highlights. Since I took several bracketed exposures anyway, I thought I'd put it together. The one shot metered correctly was nice but wanted something a bit more (this shot then is a matter of preferrence).

This next one would not have worked without -2, 0, +2 because the sun on the left was blowing out the steam (highlights). I love how this turned out but again kept in mind balance. Merged and tone mapped in Photomatix, enhanced in PS.
#2

This shot was very dark as shot in available light only. The lights in the middle were on but metering.....where? The windows were blown out with little detail, the shadows entirely too dark. HDR provided the results on an otherwise trashed shot.
#3

I have many more examples and agree that many landscapes are poorly done. HDR isn't for every image...far from it..but it can help and enhance without going over the top.

ziggy53 · January 28, 2007

Swartzy wrote:

It takes care when post processing and understanding what you will get once done tone mapping, then understanding what you will or won't do in Photoshop. HDR can be a wonderful thing....just as one would use layers taking 2 images and combining them. Added depth with a greater dynamic range is the balance one should strive for. I've seen tons of bad examples but then again, I've heard tons of horrible music (if you want to call it that) but that doesn't mean music sucks....you just have to have the right artist performing. Here are 3 examples that I don't think suck but could never acheived without the help of HDR:
...

I have many more examples and agree that many landscapes are poorly done. HDR isn't for every image...far from it..but it can help and enhance without going over the top.

Well those work for me!

thumb way up.

ziggy53

erich6 · January 28, 2007

I think it's easy to misuse and it's also hard to get right. Depends on what kind of effect you're going after. For some artistic rendering it can provide stunning results. I like some of gbatistini's work (see these examples) from Flickr.

Erich

Phyxius · January 28, 2007

I agree that the fake, over processed HDRs look......bad.

But, I can see how the idea and technique of HDR is useful in turning a poor picture into a better picture.

Example- I did this edit for a person on another forum, this is not my picture.

Well, taking this and then changing exposure for a few shots did NOT create a big enough difference for the HDR function is CS2, so I layered the shots and masked different areas in different layers, using principles of HDR to get this:

So, it may not be a TRUE HDR, but it follows the same principles. I think many of the images people post as HDRs aren't. They're more of a computer generated dream world, they don't even look like photographs. However, to each their own, right?

erich wrote:

I think it's easy to misuse and it's also hard to get right. Depends on what kind of effect you're going after. For some artistic rendering it can provide stunning results. I like some of gbatistini's work (see these examples) from Flickr.

I went to this link and I do like some of his images, especially the two you posted in another thread. However, I don't view them as "photographs". They look like AWESOME computer graphics, which is fine with me, but I can see how some purists wouldn't like them.

erich6 · January 29, 2007

Phyxius wrote:

I went to this link and I do like some of his images, especially the two you posted in another thread. However, I don't view them as "photographs". They look like AWESOME computer graphics, which is fine with me, but I can see how some purists wouldn't like them.

Yes...I agree. That's why I emphasized "artistic". They certainly don't look like conventional photographs. It's just a different rendering. I think they are pretty....

Here's an HDR image I created using 7 different exposures. I think it turned out OK.

Erich

ian408 · January 29, 2007

I think one of the problems with HDR is it's use to eliminate shadow.
Very often, when I'm looking at an HDR image, it's obviously lacking shadow
and while it looks cool, I can never really get my head around it since I
think the eye wants to see shadows where they belong.

wxwax · January 29, 2007

saurora wrote:

I have not been too impressed with 90 percent of what I have seen. I imagine choosing the appropriate image can make a huge difference as well as technique. In many I am unable to distinguish that any technique has been applied. Here is a thread for TomK. I think this is one of the more successful images I have viewed here on Dgrin.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51082

Agree, that's a memorable image.

wxwax · January 29, 2007

ian408 wrote:

I think one of the problems with HDR is it's use to eliminate shadow.
Very often, when I'm looking at an HDR image, it's obviously lacking shadow
and while it looks cool, I can never really get my head around it since I
think the eye wants to see shadows where they belong.

I would tend to agree, Ian.

rdlugosz · January 29, 2007

My take...
IMHO, HDR is just another tecnique that can be used or misused in order to create a work of art - semantically no different than many other photographic effect/techniques. It can certainly look vastly different than a traditional photograph, but that isn't necessarily a good or bad thing unless what you want is a traditional photograph!

In my view, if what I'm going for is a more... "surreal" look, then I may be quite happy if that's what I get at the end of the day! Take this image for example:

Is that exactly what the original scene looked like? No: this is a tad more dramatic!
Does this look like a traditional photograph? No: It certainly does not! Is that somehow wrong? Maybe, if you purport it to be editorial.
Does it look pretty cool when printed on A3+ Matte paper and hung on my wall? You bet it does!
Did pretty much everyone who walked by while I was prepping this image say "wow, that's a really cool picture!"? I'll humbly add that they most certainly did!

Sure, it isn't an editorially accurate depiction of the real world, but as far as being consistent with what I was going for goes, it succeeds. Isn't that what matters? I have plenty of editorially accurate shots that I'll be just as happy with in my processing queue; this is just a different take on a scene that's been photographed dozens of times.

Now, browsing the HDR pool on Flickr certainly confirms that "90% of everything is crap" rule! Most of the images out there are terrible either because the HDR is done poorly, with bright halos circling all of the detail, or it's "HDR for the sake of HDR" as opposed to being "HDR because that was the best tool to achieve the look I was going for". In some of those cases, the results would be better if the creator learned a bit more technique and in the rest of the cases maybe the creator needs to consider why they are using a certain technique to begin with.

To answer the original poster's request, "prove to me that HDR works", I can certainly do that: there are functions in several pieces of software that will combine multiple lower-order images into a 48-bit file that is only displayable on theoretical devices. That same software can then compress that 48-bit range into a file with the highlights and shadows compromized so that they can be displayed simultaneously.

I cannot, however, prove to the OP that HDR works for his taste in images - that is something only he can determine for himself!

Serrator · February 1, 2007

Swartzy...beautiful photos! Your care and usage of HDR to me is superb!!

The comment that "HDR sucks" to me is not valid...or reasonable. Each person may or may not like particular photos but to condemn the whole lot is outrageous.

I have seen bad b&w pics, would I throw them all out? Perhaps you have seen bad color photos as well, do you discredit all of color photography? No, of course not. HDR is no different to me, it is a tool to achieve a result...some may like the result and others will not. Some results reach into the surreal while others bring in drama without crossing what we may consider reality.

...and just as the previous poster correctly pointed out that no one can prove to you what you like or dislike... except you. But to state that all HDR works "suck" is rather arrogant.

wxwax · February 1, 2007

Serrator wrote:

But to state that all HDR works "suck" is rather arrogant.

Or deliberately provocative.

Not trying to be a jerk, Serrator, just trying to stimulate a discussion about a technique that new software is helping make popular.

It's been a good thread, so far.

Serrator · February 1, 2007

No problem mate! It's all good...lively discussions!!

I have read other comments from folks (on Flickr) that were not so much interested in bringing up good discussions but just bashing others and their efforts...I find it nonsensical. Now to discuss the viability, pro and con of HDR is perhaps something of value and I would enjoy that.

Now on with the discussion.

You mentioned "new software" has helped spur this HDR mania, I assume you are talking about Photomatix or some other similar program. While I agree these programs have greatly expanded it's use... there has always been the technique of exposure blending to increase the dynamic range of photo's since digital photo editing beginnings. Basically, for those who may not know, it consists of taking two or more photos with different exposures and manually masking/erasing out areas of blown highlights or shaded areas to "blend" in the appropriate or greater dynamic range of the photo. Sometimes using this technique can avoid other pitfalls that the "automated" HDR software can create.

Of course graduated ND filters were and are in use before digital to achieve the greater range as well. Although I have no direct info I would also believe that darkroom techniques can do things with film to garner HDR results too.

My point...hopefully I have one, is that this really is not a new thing but an ongoing progression with different media's and the ability of the average person to work with it now. Before the digital age not too many folks had a complete darkroom to "edit" their photo's, but now almost anyone can for better or worse.

wxwax · February 1, 2007

Agreed. But Photomatrix and Photoshop have taken what was a painstaking manual process, and it essentially automated it, and therefore made it more accessible. Hence the explosion of HDR shots... and this thread about how pleasing the new batch is. Or isn't.

Swartzy · February 1, 2007

Agreed Waxy

wxwax wrote:

Agreed. But Photomatrix and Photoshop have taken what was a painstaking manual process, and it essentially automated it, and therefore made it more accessible. Hence the explosion of HDR shots... and this thread about how pleasing the new batch is. Or isn't.

Same is true for the camera and those behind it. Film shooting was painstaking...now everybody & their brother has at least a point & shoot. The HDR automation parallels the same mindset: Someone takes a snapshot and calls it a photograph, then load them into the computer, run it though a program and now it's art.

methd · February 2, 2007

Here's one I took not long ago...

Serrator · February 2, 2007

Nice fisheye shot and treatment methd!

Since trying out different HDR techniques I have not had the opportunity for any real landscape type shots. So I have started with other scenes to see what I could achieve and do with this method...here are few of my endeavors. All of these are derived from 3 shot exposures (-2 0 +2)...even the last one of the folks, I asked them to not move for 5 seconds...and yes they probably thought I was nuts.:D

Shay Stephens · February 3, 2007

wxwax wrote:

From what I can see, High Dynamic Range (HRD) photo merging sucks.

[SIZE=-1]"If you do somthing right, its like people will think you have done nothing at all" - Futurama[/SIZE]

wxwax · February 3, 2007

Shay Stephens wrote:

[SIZE=-1]"If you do somthing right, its like people will think you have done nothing at all" - Futurama[/SIZE]

That's the point.

TylerW · February 6, 2007

Swartzy wrote:

Same is true for the camera and those behind it. Film shooting was painstaking...now everybody & their brother has at least a point & shoot. The HDR automation parallels the same mindset: Someone takes a snapshot and calls it a photograph, then load them into the computer, run it though a program and now it's art.

I think that's why I have such a hard time with HDR, is because I feel like I don't have enough control over the final product. You just get a handful of sliders and hopefully you can get what you want with that - most of the time I don't. I hemmed and hawwed over this one for a while using HDR - until I finally threw in the towel and combined the exposures using layer masks, faking the effect provided by an ND Grad filter. Which I found was much more satisfying, and provided a more appealing image overall.

Prove to me that HDR works

Comments