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

[Policar]

I guess I fall in line with most people on the forum. End the freakin' vomit saturated tonemaping and edge glow. Next be mindful of the dynamic range. If you try to fit 30 stops of DR on a computer screen it looks fake. Shadows should be dark and highlights should be bright...

I don't see anything wrong with taking several pictures to enhance the dynamic range of your camera. However, it can be hard to get a balanced end result.

To the purists, shooting with a graduated filter is HDR so I don't get why you're getting your panties in a bunch...

I'd use it for video or 135, but never for landscape... okay... maybe a one-stop filter, but I'd have to go to photographers' confessional. Of course ND grads are HDR. I used to quite like ND grads, but they compensate for small format and bad light rather than enhancing the scene, at least more often than not.

 

[dweezle3]

This thread is still alive?!

Having met Trey Ratcliff in person the other night, I'm a bit embarassed to be part of this discussion. (Although my thoughts are still the same. )

Haha exactly! He's really a fun guy. Although after talking with some of the people on here, I've definitely solidified my view that moderate HDR is preferable over slightly extreme, as a few of his photos tend to be. But on the other hand, he just edits them based on how he happens to be feeling, so he's got plenty that aren't so extreme.

 

[Geckotek]

This thread is still alive?!



Haha exactly! He's really a fun guy. Although after talking with some of the people on here, I've definitely solidified my view that moderate HDR is preferable over slightly extreme, as a few of his photos tend to be. But on the other hand, he just edits them based on how he happens to be feeling, so he's got plenty that aren't so extreme.

I was sitting there talking to him sounding like a total idiot. "So you're here uh, gonna uh, go around and uh, take some pictures?

 

[MyRomeo]

That is not HDR: The first is a crappy image clipped beyond usability thanks to a dramatic D-range, probably 5-6 stops. The second is an underexposed image with a 8-10 stop d-range every DSLR is capable off at ISO 400-800. If you had a D800, a standard image (14+ stops) would have an even better D-range by default, making the grass much lighter with even more detail in the clouds than the second image.

I think you missed my point. Yes the first image is awful and yes a $3000 fx dslr would easily take a better picture with no effort at all but these two pictures were taken on a cellphone with the only difference between shots being one had the HDR option enabled. I'm not trying to sell HDR as a wonderful thing, nor do I believe the iPhone implementation is true HDR but in certain instances its use, whatever you think of it, absolutely improves the photograph.

For the record I shoot Nikon dslr daily, those shots were a few years ago before I got in to photography hence were shot using what I had handy, an iPhone 4.

 

[nburwell]

While I do not like HDR photography, I do dabble in merging two RAW files together to get the most tonality out of an image. I don't do this frequently, only when I may forget a filter at home while I'm in the field. HDR certainly isn't horrible, but those that like the over the top type work, I just can't get into. Everyone has their own style, and HDR certainly isn't for me. However, when it's done right, I have seen some amazing images from it.

 

[wgnoyes]

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?

For those who don't know, it's otherwise called bracketing. That is, automatically adjusting the exposure up and down by a specified f-stop value so that your chances of getting the correct exposure on a picture are increased. "HDR needs to die?" Simple answer: Fine, so don't use it.

 

[MCAsan]

HDR or merging via layers is the only way to capture the full range of light the eye can see as DSLRs these days only capture around 5 stops of light per image. When DSLRs can capture around 14 stops, then we would need HDR or layer merging.

Saying HDR does not in and of itself tell you how natural or unnatural an image will appear. It is up to the artist and the capabilities of the HDR product being used. I use Nik's HDR Efex 2 often for very natural looking effects.

It is the DSLR light range limitations that causes unnatural scenes.

 

[dweezle3]

Simple answer: Fine, so don't use it.

This entire thread summed up in one sentence.

 

[Blackberryroid]

This thread is still alive?!

Surprisingly. I thought this baby died a few months ago.