Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 10, 2012, 11:06 AM   #1
Member
 
1hdr4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 70
Default HDR objectionists

Does anyone here care to comment about those people who oppose HDR photography & don't consider it a valid form of photography or call it "fake"?
1hdr4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 10, 2012, 11:51 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

I will say this;

If you don't think HDR is "real" photography then you also have to consider all the highlight and shadow recovery methods commonly used by post processing programs to be not "real" photography also since they rely on the same type of layering at different exposures. Even shooting film such layering techniques were used in the darkroom.

We had a debate on this on flickr a few days back, in light of people entering HDR photos in the un-altered category of a photo contest. In the end there was somewhat universal agreement that HDR is a form of alteration when it is used to go beyond what the reality of the scene that was photographed was. In short, HDR to bring out shadows and highlights and produce more color range is not necessarily alteration that needs to be declared, but when you go the next step in tone mapping and turn it into something surreal that vastly differs from what the human eye saw at the time of the shot, then it is altered.

That doesn't mean I don't like those HDRs where the sky is surreal and the buildings are 3-d .... I quite like them. I also like the artistic filters such as the paint brush in certain situations.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 12:05 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Spain, Costa Blanca.
Posts: 90
Default

In general I do not like HDR photography. The majority of results I have seen do not look natural and are unpleasant to look at.
No it's not "fake", it's just another form of photography. It becomes fake when, as already said, it is not declared. There are many instances on this forum where HDR photos are presented in catagories other than the HDR catagory
__________________
You know you're getting older when your mind makes commitments your body can't meet.

Fujifilm HS20-EXR & Pentax K20D
18-55 mm DA & 28-200 Sigma 3.5/5.6 ex SLR

My Flickr account
Mito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 12:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,643
Default

The problem is there is a difference between an HDR image and a poorly done Tone Mapped image. A good HDR image does exactly what ramcewan has stated, bringing out the details in the highlights as well as the shadows giving the image a greater dynamic range. What should happen is the image quality is greatly improved, even noticeably giving it a WOW factor, but still photo reality. Poor tone mapped HDR images or single file tone mapped images are considered (to me) as digitally altered images and belong in that category.

As for those people who say HDR images are fake are just out to lunch if they are referring to a properly processed image. There are still people who say the world is flat. Do we listen to them?

Last edited by Bynx; Jul 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 1:41 PM   #5
Member
 
1hdr4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 70
Default

Let me make clear the fact that I do like HDR photography and enjoy working with it very much. I don't think it's fair though for those that don't like it to attack it in such a way as to say it shouldn't be a legitimate form of photography. If you don't like it then don't look at it, otherwise know that more than 70 percent of people who see HDR photos like them. No, I don't care for the overdone looking HDR photos but most of them I enjoy, although I do like the ones that lean a little on the artsy/sureal side every now & then.
1hdr4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 2:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

end of story is that people who go around criticizing others ought to go out and shoot something cause they obviously have too much energy directed in the wrong direction (criticizing others)
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 2:15 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 111
Default

Agreed. I know this is an extreme counterpoint, but people who object to it need to poke a hole in a piece of paper and let the sun's light expose a photo for them. Anything above and beyond that is using technology to get a better picture.
Pure Evo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 2:19 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,643
Default

No one can complain or put down a properly processed HDR image. In fact they shouldnt even know its an HDR except for the fact that its the kind of image that would bring a WOW response. An HDR image is simply a better image than any single shot would be. People who say they dont like HDR are always referring to poorly done tone mapping. There is some painterly look images I like, but they border on being more of a digitally altered image than a true HDR. Unfortunately there is a slight gray area where the line should be drawn where HDR and tone mapped images should be stored. I think if the OPs intention is to start with an HDR image and go from there then Im betting it should be stored in the Altered Image file. There is no question if its an HDR image. Having a folder like that here would be nice. There is also a Digitally Altered Image folder which should be used more by these tone mapped images. Especially if they are single file (jpeg or raw) images just tone mapped.
Here is an image I took last week. Its a 7 shot HDR composite. Now what person who doesnt like HDR can give a reason why they dont like it? Dont talk composition or some aspect which is the fault of the OP, just the merits of the HDR processing.

Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 5:37 PM   #9
Member
 
1hdr4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 70
Default

Bynx, excellant shot & nicely processed. You brought up some good points but I'm afraid that no matter what we say, we'll never be able to sway the opponents of HDR to our way of thinking so let's just enjoy(those of us who do enjoy it) our HDR photos & leave the rest of them to themselves.

1hdr4u.
1hdr4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2012, 6:44 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,643
Default

Well I think the point 1hdr4u is that people object when they see stuff that is called HDR but is really tone mapped crap. There wouldnt be a single opponent if they saw a photorealistic image that was processed properly. How an image is processed is not an issue. But the final outcome is what should be judged. How can you give thumbs down to a really good clean image. And anyone who would has no credibility in my eyes.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.