"HDR is disgusting and it needs to die, it's worse than lens flares."

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by mulo

But but but!... I like lens flare!

Go watch a JJ Abrams movie then.

----------

Originally Posted by iRCL

For being in a digital photography forum, it's incredible how much completely wrong information is in this thread

Point some out.

[Blackberryroid]

Originally Posted by iRCL

For being in a digital photography forum, it's incredible how much completely wrong information is in this thread

This wasn't in the photography forum in the very beginning. Since the topic is HDR on the iPhone, I placed this thread on the iPhone forum. The first page is full of posts from the iPhone guys.

[chrono1081]

This has probably been said but if you know its HDR, the photographer did it wrong.

HDR can produce fantastic results, but many photogs don't really know what HDR does, how to correctly process HDR images, or how to made the effect subtle not overpowering.

I see soooo many horrid looking images people claim to be HDR (like this, no offense if you are the photog):



That have nasty haloing and uneven lighting. That is NOT correct HDR processing. Most of the times when you see this, its tone mapping not HDR.

[dmax35]

For those of you not familiar with HDR, or in need of great informative topics related to HDR. Trey Ratcliff is a leading expert when is comes to shooting HDR.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

[nateo200]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

This has probably been said but if you know its HDR, the photographer did it wrong.

HDR can produce fantastic results, but many photogs don't really know what HDR does, how to correctly process HDR images, or how to made the effect subtle not overpowering.

I see soooo many horrid looking images people claim to be HDR (like this, no offense if you are the photog):

Image

That have nasty haloing and uneven lighting. That is NOT correct HDR processing. Most of the times when you see this, its tone mapping not HDR.

I actually like the look....If I could see the full resolution version i might see haloing or nasty blur but who's to say what is wrong and right in terms of looks? Maybe the photographer had exactly that look in mind...I read this thread and I found it very bothersome....the iPhone only users posted bogus definitions based on assumptions and people posted about how its over used, no one knows how to properly use it, etc...along with other effects like sharpening and contrast. Sometimes I like lots of sharpness or contrast...of course as said before everything in moderation is good sometimes I like looking at a heavy contrast picture...

sometimes I like looking at something that was obviously heavily sharpened...just depends on the content and the intent its trying to establish...

Now if I take a picture of say someones face and my intent is for it to be a basic portrait over sharpening and jacking up the contrast is a BAD idea, it'll reveal the imperfections of the persons skin...I especially find when I take pictures of older persons I go for a softer image with less contrast and they are generally more please....now if I am taking a picture of say a guy from an action movie and he's just out of combat, dirty, sweaty, and has a hardened "not so friendly" look, I might add a bit on contrast and sharpen up a bit to show his rough skin, the hairs off his face, his visible poors to emphasize the dramatic "raw" nature that the picture is meant to give off...I can't think of any specific movies where these two ideas show case predominantly but I know Ive seen movies where the close up on someone you can see where they shaved, their sweat, etc. and others look intensely soft with less detail on the skin its self (the latter of which is important for say a female model).

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by nateo200

I actually like the look....If I could see the full resolution version i might see haloing or nasty blur but who's to say what is wrong and right in terms of looks? Maybe the photographer had exactly that look in mind...I read this thread and I found it very bothersome....the iPhone only users posted bogus definitions based on assumptions and people posted about how its over used, no one knows how to properly use it, etc...along with other effects like sharpening and contrast. Sometimes I like lots of sharpness or contrast...of course as said before everything in moderation is good sometimes I like looking at a heavy contrast picture...

sometimes I like looking at something that was obviously heavily sharpened...just depends on the content and the intent its trying to establish...

Now if I take a picture of say someones face and my intent is for it to be a basic portrait over sharpening and jacking up the contrast is a BAD idea, it'll reveal the imperfections of the persons skin...I especially find when I take pictures of older persons I go for a softer image with less contrast and they are generally more please....now if I am taking a picture of say a guy from an action movie and he's just out of combat, dirty, sweaty, and has a hardened "not so friendly" look, I might add a bit on contrast and sharpen up a bit to show his rough skin, the hairs off his face, his visible poors to emphasize the dramatic "raw" nature that the picture is meant to give off...I can't think of any specific movies where these two ideas show case predominantly but I know Ive seen movies where the close up on someone you can see where they shaved, their sweat, etc. and others look intensely soft with less detail on the skin its self (the latter of which is important for say a female model).

I understand what you are saying, and to a point art is subjective, but there are good ways to do something and bad ways. If you google "HDR Images" you will find a slew of bad ways.

Telling photogs that their pictures are good when in reality they're terrible (like the one I posted) isn't doing anyone any favors. Sure they may like the look (or say they like the look to cover up their lack of skill) but the pic isn't going to win any awards. Its sloppy with bad lighting. If your pic has bad lighting its pretty much a bad pic.

Here's what real (and well done, although it still looks a wee bit processed) HDR looks like:



The scene looks natural. There are still a wide array of light and dark tones but none (or very few) of the blacks are crushed or whites blown. There is still good contrast in the scene.

[Policar]

HDR isn't inherently bad--it's been in common use for a long time and is a key component of the zone system (in which you take a 10-stop wide-dr black and white negative and, through dodging and burning techniques, get a contrasty print on a four-or-five-stop-at-best contrast paper). I have never seen an automated hdr photo I liked, though there's some recent hdr photography (and even the occasional use of a weak ND grad filter) that's very subtle and hand dodged and burned that looks good. The tone mapped stuff is all terrible, though. Gregory Crewdson's work is painterly but not bad in a hand-painted kind of way, so it's not all garbage.

Lens flares are great and really all lens aberrations can be used in a great way. Abrams overused them in Star Trek, but the theory behind their use was sound and they have a way of expanding depth and putting motion into the frame that is particularly suited to cinema. Chris Cunningham's use of lens flares is really awesome.

So yes...I have trashy taste!

[Blackberryroid]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

This has probably been said but if you know its HDR, the photographer did it wrong.

HDR can produce fantastic results, but many photogs don't really know what HDR does, how to correctly process HDR images, or how to made the effect subtle not overpowering.

I see soooo many horrid looking images people claim to be HDR (like this, no offense if you are the photog):

Image

That have nasty haloing and uneven lighting. That is NOT correct HDR processing. Most of the times when you see this, its tone mapping not HDR.

How exactly is this wrong? The dark details are shown clearly and nothing is washed out due to brightness.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by Blackberryroid

How exactly is this wrong? The dark details are shown clearly and nothing is washed out due to brightness.

To start, stone pillars don't glow.

[joemod]

Originally Posted by Blackberryroid

How exactly is this wrong? The dark details are shown clearly and nothing is washed out due to brightness.

I don't think that this was the scene that a human eye was seeing. That's why it's not good HDR. Correct me if I am wrong but HDR's primary objective is to bypass the limited dynamic range of a camera compared to the human eye/brain and to create a picture as close as the scene perceived from the human eye/brain. Not to create something different and possibly flashy.

[Fujiko7]

This recent post in the August POTD thread is my idea of what good HDR should be. Click below for image.

Originally Posted by appie57

Although I dislike most of the times HDR pics, this doesn't mean it has no application or can be helpful at times. To practice, I took this church interior as a subject for a HDR exercise. After several try outs, I choose a 9 image HDR composite, steps of 0.3 EV, processed with NIK HDR Efex Pro 2.0 and fine-tuned with Aperture and other plugins, but no perspective correction.

Image

Laurenskerk, Rotterdam.

[0dev]

Originally Posted by Blackberryroid

I like the HDR photography thing on the iPhone. And when I presented this HDR idea to the photographers, they hated it with disgust.



Personally, I think HDR is great for colors and details. I like lens flares too because it looks artistic.

I can't believe they rejected the idea of HDR. But since they're experts, I'm am sure I'm missing something.

What am I missing? Is HDR horrible for you or is it not? What about lens flares?

I always make sure to HDR my Instagram photos, tell them that

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by 0dev

I always make sure to HDR my Instagram photos, tell them that

[h1r0ll3r]

Personally I like the whole HDR thing. If done properly, it can produce some really vibrant images which is very nice. Whenever I try to do it, it produces some rather forgettable images that should never see the light of day. Whenever I get around to learning how to do it properly, I'll probably use it more often. But, I've seen some really great HDR pics so I think it's a great thing.

[ankurshr]

When you switch on HDR mode, the camera (be it iPhone / a point-or-shoot, or a DSLR) takes several pictures of the scene / subject using different exposures (opening of the lens) and then overlay them one on top of another to get the final picture. It works best with if the scene you are shooting has dark shadows and / or bright colors.

If you learn how to use this technique, you can definitely click some amazing shots.
Saying that you hate it is like saying depth-of-field is useless since you don't know how to use it.

[MagicWok]

Originally Posted by sim667

Time and a place for HDR. Generally speaking I've found it very good for dramatic landscapes, but also very easy to push a bit too far.....

Examples im pleased with:

Image
Waxham Breakwater by simbojono, on Flickr

Image
Iceland in HDR by simbojono, on Flickr

But for some things its just not so good......

Image
glade 2012 HDR dance off by simbojono, on Flickr

Image
Untitled_HDR7 by simbojono, on Flickr

Not trying to be harsh, even in the examples you put as you prefer are pushing it too far. The second one has a dull and botched sky and the picture seems fudgy, and the first one has the highlights all blown-out.

But the last two are definitely examples of what people think HDR is, and why it has gotten a bad rep by some.

HDR should be subtle, unlike any of those photos.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by MagicWok

Not trying to be harsh, even in the examples you put as you prefer are pushing it too far. The second one has a dull and botched sky and the picture seems fudgy, and the first one has the highlights all blown-out.

But the last two are definitely examples of what people think HDR is, and why it has gotten a bad rep by some.

HDR should be subtle, unlike any of those photos.

I was going to say the same thing earlier but bit my tongue.

[VirtualRain]

Isn't anything that increases the dynamic range of the image fall within the realm of HDR? In it's simplest form, it's all about moving one part of the histogram to another. If this is accurate then a simple contrast adjustment to spread your histogram across the full range would be considered doing HDR. Adjustments to pull in shadows or highlights is similarly HDR work.

So in other words, if you're not doing HDR work (maximizing your use of the histogram) you're not doing it right?!

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by dmax35

For those of you not familiar with HDR, or in need of great informative topics related to HDR. Trey Ratcliff is a leading expert when is comes to shooting HDR.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

To be fair I think people like Ratcliff are the ones that gave HDR a bad name and over do it.

[killerrobot]

I can't say I'm a fan of HDR photography. Everything (including links and photos in the thread) in my opinion look over saturated. I understand peoples' visions and wanting to dramatize the scene, but I think for the most part they over dramatize using this function. It reminds me of the awful trend of the black and white photos with color highlighting.
I know some like it, but I'd rather edit the photo in post and if I still don't get the shot I want, then I'll got out shooting for it again later.

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by joemod

I don't think that this was the scene that a human eye was seeing. That's why it's not good HDR. Correct me if I am wrong but HDR's primary objective is to bypass the limited dynamic range of a camera compared to the human eye/brain and to create a picture as close as the scene perceived from the human eye/brain. Not to create something different and possibly flashy.

You are correct.

Originally Posted by Fujiko7

This recent post in the August POTD thread is my idea of what good HDR should be. Click below for image.

Image

Laurenskerk, Rotterdam.

Fantastic example! Also a very lovely shot.

Originally Posted by MagicWok

Not trying to be harsh, even in the examples you put as you prefer are pushing it too far. The second one has a dull and botched sky and the picture seems fudgy, and the first one has the highlights all blown-out.

But the last two are definitely examples of what people think HDR is, and why it has gotten a bad rep by some.

HDR should be subtle, unlike any of those photos.

I agree they were pushed way to far. Those images were most likely tone mapped vs HDRd.

I swear that I had an excellent HDR book laying around somewhere in my mess of books but I can't seem to find it. I was going to look for it to post for others

[Firelock]

As others have pointed out, tone mapping and HDR are two different things. HDR is merely an automated way to do exposure bracketing. Photographers including myself still use the exposure bracketing technique all the time, particularly in studio set ups where you can lock the position of your camera. I am also a retoucher and can tell you that despite the advent of HDR, exposure bracketing is still alive an well. The photographers who send me work use it all the time.

[nateo200]

http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/...ctrical+storm/

That looks very cool....I don't know how you can look at that and bitch about the lens flare or it looking stupid..

[Prodo123]

I will only vote when the choice "HDR is only great when done correctly" is available; otherwise, meh.

[dazed]

Done right its a great tool. unfortunetly like lens flare, its over used and used by people who shouldn't be allowed near it.

Not fair blaming the functionality when its the moron using it thats to blame.