Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

View Poll Results: What should be the fate of the HDR?
Death. Show no mercy. HDR needs to die. 72 31.58%
HDR is great photography. It shouldn't go. 156 68.42%
Voters: 228. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 8, 2012, 01:05 AM   #76
NeGRit0
macrumors 6502a
 
NeGRit0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
Wonder why this got moved here... we already have an HDR thread...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=401234
__________________
Flickr.. | Tumblr | Google+ | Instagram
NeGRit0 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 01:11 AM   #77
Geckotek
macrumors G3
 
Geckotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeGRit0 View Post
Wonder why this got moved here... we already have an HDR thread...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=401234
Because the existence of an HDR thread here does not negate the fact that this one was in the wrong forum.

Feel free to ask the mods to merge the 2.
__________________
Gecko Art | Facebook | flickr
Geckotek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 01:40 AM   #78
NeGRit0
macrumors 6502a
 
NeGRit0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckotek View Post
Because the existence of an HDR thread here does not negate the fact that this one was in the wrong forum.

Feel free to ask the mods to merge the 2.
Well since s/he was specifically talking about the HDR function on the iPhone. I'd agree with the OP that the iPhone forum would be the best for that. Also the threads are about two different things, and do not need merging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackberryroid View Post
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.
__________________
Flickr.. | Tumblr | Google+ | Instagram
NeGRit0 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 01:42 AM   #79
Geckotek
macrumors G3
 
Geckotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NYC
Seems the mods disagree.
__________________
Gecko Art | Facebook | flickr
Geckotek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2012, 08:57 AM   #80
Pigumon
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachnelson View Post
This is the silliest explanation of it ever.

High dynamic range... means the camera takes a picture with focus on the bright parts (sky, lights, sun) and takes a picture with focus on the dark parts (shadows, non-bright areas) and combines it into two. Basically the bright parts are exposed right and the dark parts are exposed right and when combined into two, it looks pretty legit.
Actually it combines it into ONE... (>_<)

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doylem View Post
HDR... Just another tool in the photographic toolbox. Of course, some tools are more useful than others...

Image
I think that's an example of a tool that's difficult to use, not less useful.
Pigumon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 09:15 AM   #81
sim667
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicWok View Post
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.

Funny that cus I've sold a lot of prints of the top ones.

I think its very easy for photographers to criticise as they actually know how HDR images are made. A lot of people who likes those HDR images aren't into photography as a hobby/profession.
__________________
Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, G4 Powerbook, iPad 4, iPhone 5, 2X TV, Nikon D800, ACSP Trained - Photography and Mac tech
Music and UK festival Blog
sim667 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 09:17 AM   #82
Geckotek
macrumors G3
 
Geckotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim667 View Post
Funny that cus I've sold a lot of prints of the top ones.

I think its very easy for photographers to criticise as they actually know how HDR images are made. A lot of people who likes those HDR images aren't into photography as a hobby/profession.
In just over a month? You must have a really good place to market your shots.

I don't think it's because we know how they're made. It's when the results are so extreme and out of whack that I really get annoyed.
__________________
Gecko Art | Facebook | flickr
Geckotek is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 09:21 AM   #83
sim667
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckotek View Post
In just over a month? You must have a really good place to market your shots.

I don't think it's because we know how they're made. It's when the results are so extreme and out of whack that I really get annoyed.
Eh? I shot the iceland one nearly 2 years ago, and the other about a month ago.

Its the iceland one thats done me proud. I only really sell locally and to freinds and family, so 'respectively' they're the ones that have sold best. I only really sell prints for a bit of pocket money.
__________________
Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, G4 Powerbook, iPad 4, iPhone 5, 2X TV, Nikon D800, ACSP Trained - Photography and Mac tech
Music and UK festival Blog
sim667 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 09:42 AM   #84
Geckotek
macrumors G3
 
Geckotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim667 View Post
Eh? I shot the iceland one nearly 2 years ago, and the other about a month ago.

Its the iceland one thats done me proud. I only really sell locally and to freinds and family, so 'respectively' they're the ones that have sold best. I only really sell prints for a bit of pocket money.
The "top shot" is the one I clicked on and followed to your Flickr and it showed a date of 9/7. I thought that's the one you sold several prints of.

I had several friends and family tell me that want to buy mine, so I put up my website. None of them bought.....so perhaps the website wasn't the best choice because I know the pics don't suck. (or perhaps they thought my prices were too high.)
__________________
Gecko Art | Facebook | flickr
Geckotek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 04:32 PM   #85
sim667
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckotek View Post
The "top shot" is the one I clicked on and followed to your Flickr and it showed a date of 9/7. I thought that's the one you sold several prints of.

I had several friends and family tell me that want to buy mine, so I put up my website. None of them bought.....so perhaps the website wasn't the best choice because I know the pics don't suck. (or perhaps they thought my prices were too high.)
Oh really? I uploaded it a while ago, dont know why its showing a recent date on there.

Yeah it was slow at first, but im getting asked more and more now. Its normally my mums retired friends etc.
__________________
Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, G4 Powerbook, iPad 4, iPhone 5, 2X TV, Nikon D800, ACSP Trained - Photography and Mac tech
Music and UK festival Blog
sim667 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 05:57 PM   #86
cocky jeremy
macrumors 68030
 
cocky jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntington, WV
Send a message via AIM to cocky jeremy Send a message via Skype™ to cocky jeremy
Personally, i love HDR.. when it doesn't look like HDR. As far as that cartoony garbage, i agree that HDR sucks. Lens flare really depends on how it's used, for me.
__________________
 27" iMac. 3.4 GHz i5. 24 GB RAM. 512 GB SSD - 16 GB iPhone 5S 
cocky jeremy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2012, 09:58 PM   #87
AppLCII
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
HDR photos are like spoilers or wings on cars.

Cool and useful on a F1 car or Ferrari F40.

Not cool or useful on Toyota Corolla.

10% of the time it works, 90% it doesn't.
__________________
Mac Mini (Mid '10), 2.66 GHz, 8 GB RAM, Mac OS 10.6.8 & Windows 7 Home (Bootcamp)
2X LG 1720P monitors - Microsoft OEM 5 button mouse + other stuff
AppLCII is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 09:22 AM   #88
Blackberryroid
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: /private/var/vm/
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeGRit0 View Post
Wonder why this got moved here... we already have an HDR thread...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=401234
This one is supposed to discuss why HDR is horrible and why it needs to die. That thread is supposed to discuss what HDR can do (when used properly)
Blackberryroid is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 01:16 PM   #89
samwise
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Salt Lake, Utah
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
Here's what real (and well done, although it still looks a wee bit processed) HDR looks like:

Image

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.
Unfortunately, to my eyes that looks computer-generated rather than something that I could see with my own eyes stood where the photog was. It just doesn't look real to me.

In comparison, the church photo mentioned earlier by Fujiko7 is very good:



And yes, I do loathe the cartoon-y ones, or the photos that make a vehicle look like a toy.

But everybody has opinions, and it's a damned good thing that we all like different things or life would be very boring.
__________________
Ben
Mac Mini 1.66CD, 2Gb Ram, 320Gb 7200 HD MBP 13", 2.26C2D, 4Gb Ram, 500Gb 7200 HD iPhone 3G[S] 16Gb Black
samwise is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 07:54 PM   #90
dweezle3
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fujiko7 View Post
This recent post in the August POTD thread is my idea of what good HDR should be. Click below for image.
Image
Laurenskerk, Rotterdam.
I agree, it's an excellent example of what HDR is meant to do - reproduce the dynamic range that can be seen with an eye as opposed to the limited range that single photo from a camera can produce. However (and I'm probably just biased as I do a lot of outdoor HDR landscape photography), I personally think that indoor shots, although not necessarily bad, generally fail to showcase the power of HDR to really make colors pop and really be slightly surrealistic. But again, those are the types of photos I take, so I'm a bit partial to using HDR for landscapes

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
To be fair I think people like Ratcliff are the ones that gave HDR a bad name and over do it.
Really? He does have a tendency to swing between both heavy and subtle application of effects, but there's no disputing that he is easily one of the foremost pioneers and lead authorities on the subject. Would you care to share any particular photos of his that you dislike or think that he's "overdone" and why you think so? I'd love to see what others think of his work....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodo123 View Post
I will only vote when the choice "HDR is only great when done correctly" is available; otherwise, meh.
Exactly! Too bad I already voted But I'm glad to see there's people who accept that the majority of "HDR" photos are overdone, surrealistic attempts at a better/more colorful/brighter photo that really just ends up making it look like a rainbow threw up all over them; terribly gag-inducing to look at.... This is a comparison I made (admittedly when I was first getting started into HDR processing) that pretty much shows what most people seem to think HDR is, and what it really should be:
Comparison
Thoughts?
__________________
15" MacBook Pro; iPhone 4S
dweezle3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 08:25 PM   #91
Policar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweezle3 View Post
This is a comparison I made (admittedly when I was first getting started into HDR processing) that pretty much shows what most people seem to think HDR is, and what it really should be:
Comparison
Thoughts?
These are both awful. The second one just looks more strikingly awful. The other image you quoted has a terrible tone mapped quality to it--look outside the windows! It's terrible. Every image in this thread looks bad to me and I am a fervent defender of HDR's viability (and this is all just my opinion); there are a few okay ones that could pass if the skies weren't so heavily dodged and burned and shadows lifted unnecessarily--but in every case it just "looks like HDR" in the same way so much UWA photography "looks like UWA;" if the technique isn't in the service of the subject it just gets wanky and there are a lot of wanky shots in this thread and so far no good ones. If the technique is used experimentally in some sort of novel way, form for the sake of form, that's fine, too, but I don't see it here. But, for instance, I don't like the sound of heavily compressed music (My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy) but when the sake of the sound is compression (Sleigh Bells) it might not be great but it's novel. (That comparison is strained because Kanye's is a great album mastered poorly and Sleigh Bells wrote a competent album with a well-implemented gimmick and, as always, content wins out even over bad mastering....)

Images like these are HDR done right. The first is naturalistic; the latter painterly; both are heavily processed. You can't immediately see where they defy tonal hierarchies, though, and there's no tonemapping halos since they don't use tonemapping. They have lots of contrast and beautiful light in the first place but beautiful light with a pretty high scene DR that needs to be compressed for the print; HDR techniques (zone system with dodging and burning and multiple exposures blended and dodged and burned in Photoshop, respectively) are used to subtly increase that contrast in an internally consistent way, but the sake of the photographs is the subject matter first, light second, and HDR way way down that list, as crucial as it might be to the "look."

Thumb resize.

Thumb resize.
Policar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 08:57 PM   #92
NZed
macrumors 65816
 
NZed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada, Eh?
Downloaded Photomatix Pro once. Never used again.
__________________
Marty: Wait a minute, Doc. Are you telling me that you built a time machine, out of a DeLorean?
NZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 09:22 PM   #93
cocky jeremy
macrumors 68030
 
cocky jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntington, WV
Send a message via AIM to cocky jeremy Send a message via Skype™ to cocky jeremy
Quote:
Originally Posted by NZed View Post
Downloaded Photomatix Pro once. Never used again.
I can't get realistic results with it at all. No idea why, i've seen others get nice shots with it.
__________________
 27" iMac. 3.4 GHz i5. 24 GB RAM. 512 GB SSD - 16 GB iPhone 5S 
cocky jeremy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2012, 09:41 PM   #94
NZed
macrumors 65816
 
NZed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada, Eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocky jeremy View Post
I can't get realistic results with it at all. No idea why, i've seen others get nice shots with it.
I've been playing with the t4i new HDR mode. Seems not too bad
__________________
Marty: Wait a minute, Doc. Are you telling me that you built a time machine, out of a DeLorean?
NZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 05:53 AM   #95
dmax35
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Here some HDR teasers

Photomatix User Gallery

http://www.hdrsoft.com/gallery/index.php
__________________
(2) 3.5 GHz New Mac Pro 6 Core - (3) Macbook Pro's- iPad Air x 3,i,ATV3. Beech King Air 350,P645+ Phase One IQ280, Nikon D800E, .
dmax35 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 09:07 PM   #96
dweezle3
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policar View Post
The other image you quoted has a terrible tone mapped quality to it--look outside the windows! It's terrible.
You mean that it's blurry? That's just a bad attempt at a tilt shift effect, the intent was to get an HDR look on the building, the foreground was just blurred to draw attention away from it. If that's not what you meant though, could you please elaborate a bit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Policar View Post
The first is naturalistic; the latter painterly; both are heavily processed.
Really? Neither looks very heavily processed to me Maaaaybe the second one, but it certainly doesn't look "heavy" (although it's of course entirely possible that my perception of what "heavy processed" looks like is quite different from yours). I personally much prefer the look of the second photo to the first - it at least has a bit of an "HDR look" to it (exceptionally high contrast, high amounts of texture etc). The first photo may also be HDR, but I feel like a photo like that that does nothing more than allow the underexposed and overexposed ares to be properly seen in one photo almost defeats the artistic purpose of HDR and limits what it can really do. Yes, the true purpose of HDR photography is to increase the dynamic range of a photo, which that one certainly has done, but it just doesn't have the same dramatic feel to it that is generally why people use HDR photography (again, this is all my opinion - I may just be too accustomed to seeing tonemapped HDR's ). Do you just tend to prefer extra-subtle tonemapping or none at all to the tonemapped HDR's?

Maybe it'd help to give an idea of what I feel to be a really good HDR photo:

Thumb resize.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro; iPhone 4S
dweezle3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 09:31 PM   #97
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweezle3 View Post
Maybe it'd help to give an idea of what I feel to be a really good HDR photo:

Thumb resize.
Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of gaudy HDR I was thinking of when saying that most of the time, it's not done tastefully.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 10:47 PM   #98
Policar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweezle3 View Post
You mean that it's blurry? That's just a bad attempt at a tilt shift effect, the intent was to get an HDR look on the building, the foreground was just blurred to draw attention away from it. If that's not what you meant though, could you please elaborate a bit?



Really? Neither looks very heavily processed to me Maaaaybe the second one, but it certainly doesn't look "heavy" (although it's of course entirely possible that my perception of what "heavy processed" looks like is quite different from yours). I personally much prefer the look of the second photo to the first - it at least has a bit of an "HDR look" to it (exceptionally high contrast, high amounts of texture etc). The first photo may also be HDR, but I feel like a photo like that that does nothing more than allow the underexposed and overexposed ares to be properly seen in one photo almost defeats the artistic purpose of HDR and limits what it can really do. Yes, the true purpose of HDR photography is to increase the dynamic range of a photo, which that one certainly has done, but it just doesn't have the same dramatic feel to it that is generally why people use HDR photography (again, this is all my opinion - I may just be too accustomed to seeing tonemapped HDR's ). Do you just tend to prefer extra-subtle tonemapping or none at all to the tonemapped HDR's?

Maybe it'd help to give an idea of what I feel to be a really good HDR photo:

Thumb resize.
This was the photo where the windows bugged me:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/37571009/PO...aurenskerk.jpg

It's not the worst photo I've ever seen, it's okay in a lot of respects, but dim windows make the whole thing feel flat and fake to me. It's very muddy and the lack of believably lighting makes the depth seem kind of ambiguous. The composition is okay and it could be a better photo processed appropriately or done without HDR. I don't know which blurred foreground photo you're referring to, sorry.

I can't blame you for liking the latter photo more than the first; Ansel Adams is generally held in pretty high regard! But I dig both of them; they both have very beautiful light and elegant compositions. I wanted to try and shoot in a style like Gregory Crewdson's until I discovered the budgets for his photos--approaching a million dollars, but I wanted to do large spaces with cinematic lighting and wait for the perfect sky, etc.--but obviously never was able to pull anything off. So I am naturally very fond of the light, the composition, the straight vertical lines, kind of a painterly David Lynch style of sorts, but a lot of his other work is overlit and tacky, to be fair. I just happen to like overlit and tacky from time to time...

That said, the photo you posted looks horrible to me, like a bad parody of the worst digital photography techniques. I'm sorry, it might be my ignorance or stubbornness, but I just don't see any merit to it at all. It's worse than instragram.
Policar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 10:48 PM   #99
aleni
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
it's pretty useful especially since u want to take photos in outdoor that is so bright because of the sunlight.
__________________
easier to see my post.
aleni is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2012, 11:24 PM   #100
dweezle3
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policar View Post
That said, the photo you posted looks horrible to me, like a bad parody of the worst digital photography techniques. I'm sorry, it might be my ignorance or stubbornness, but I just don't see any merit to it at all. It's worse than instragram.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of gaudy HDR I was thinking of when saying that most of the time, it's not done tastefully.
Alright, fair enough, to each his own Maybe I'm just the only one that likes Trey Ratcliff With that said, would either of you mind posting a few more examples of what you consider to be "good" HDR photos, tonemapped or otherwise? I was introduced to HDR by Mr. Ratcliff, and so have naturally followed in creating photos like that one that you both seem to dislike so much. However, as that's been my main focus, I'm really interested to see what other people look for in a good HDR photo...
__________________
15" MacBook Pro; iPhone 4S
dweezle3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you think Facebook will "die" in the coming years, if so how? Viantef Community Discussion 28 Sep 13, 2013 07:57 PM
[iOS] Star Drop: Like "Bust-A-Move" except different and probably a lot worse. bruteforcegames iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Feb 11, 2013 12:20 AM
Delete "other" data and lens flare. Duff-Man02 iPhone 1 Dec 12, 2012 02:17 PM
iPhone5 Camera Purple Lens Flare "Fixed" Boxcar Edit iPhone 3 Oct 17, 2012 06:32 PM
13" pro with worse screen than air? sbb155 MacBook Pro 0 Jun 11, 2012 05:51 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC