DSLRUsers.com

This is a very good discussion, well worth reading for a number of reasons
Full discussion can be found;

https://plus.google.com/100073645661563176484/posts/S2xWuz7Nois?hl=en

HDR techniques are tar sands which trap weak and less agile photographers. It's a cheap trick photographers use to attact attention when they don't know any other way to create compelling images. As the "new age music" of photography, the images look impressive at first - full of 'Avatar'-esque synthetically intense color and artificially exaggerated contrast - but the more you look at them the more you realize how cheesey and superficial they are - or worse: how much they look like someone choked down a bag of rainbow colored Skittles and then gagged their self with a banana, spewing the concoction across the front of your flat-screen.

I don't mind HDR as a technique to solve a specific technical problem, but I hate it as a look. My take is, if you can tell a picture has been "HDR'ed" - it's overdone.

Cheers
Steffen.

I think HDR is definitely a valuable technique if done properly, but most of the images associated with the "HDR" label are tonemapped, overdone, and tacky.

Any technique can be used for good or bad... ie, making everything black & white, or fake tilt-shifting, etc...

I don't agree with a blanket statement saying HDR is evil.

OK, then, since I've just posted these, how many of these eight images do you think are HDR and how many, whether HDR or not, do you think are overdone? Candid opinions welcome.

Murray Foote wrote:OK, then, since I've just posted these, how many of these eight images do you think are HDR and how many, whether HDR or not, do you think are overdone?

Ok, I'll play

To my eyes, only the first one ("Wreck in Stanley Harbour") has the HDR look that makes you stop for moment and think "hm, weird"… If you have used HDR in any of the other images you've done so very well.

Cheers
Steffen.

These types of discussions never go anywhere. It's like arguing to photoshop your photos or not, does anyone remember EnergyPolice

Canon vs Nikon, PC vs Mac, Renoir vs Picasso, NSW vs QLD, the list goes on.

radar wrote:These types of discussions never go anywhere. It's like arguing to photoshop your photos or not, does anyone remember EnergyPolice

Exactly. I think it more appropriate to just generally say that any photographic technique that detracts from an image is, well, detracting.

Substitute HDR with:

1. Tilted shots;
2. On-camera flash
3. Off-camera flash
4. Monochrome
5. Selective colour
6. Solarisation
7. Artificial blur
8. Etcetera

Oh, wait a second, that would just be boring.

The best HDR I've seen are images with cracker composition which evokes a hyper realism and usually makes people look again (and again) and sells products...

As usual with any technique, some abuse it; some do it badly etc etc...

Murray Foote wrote:OK, then, since I've just posted these, how many of these eight images do you think are HDR and how many, whether HDR or not, do you think are overdone? Candid opinions welcome.

Anybody else want to comment?

Murray Foote wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:OK, then, since I've just posted these, how many of these eight images do you think are HDR and how many, whether HDR or not, do you think are overdone? Candid opinions welcome.

Anybody else want to comment?

My guesses as to which may have HDR treatment are:

Wreck;
Gift Shop;
Remains of old ship

This is not to convey any sense of judgment on the images themselves, just my guess as to which are HDR.

I'd vote, but I would be accused of insider trading

There is HDR and HDR! I quite like HDR, but I detest HDR!

Reschsmooth wrote:8. Etcetera

Can never get enough of this technique. Absolutely brilliant!!!

Murray Foote wrote:Anybody else want to comment?

I will. I think that they all have had some degree of HDR treatment.

My view on HDR is that, in the proper hands, it shows degrees of tonality that are impossible to achieve otherwise.

The point is that with the right technique and the appropriate software (nik's HDR Efex Pro is excellent) you can bring out hitherto unseen detail. You need to bracket exposures, but that's easy enough with today's cameras. A tripos is preferable, but in the right conditions, hand held works well if the software can align the images.

HDR doesn't have to be about garish over-produced images at all.

Mr Darcy wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:8. Etcetera

Can never get enough of this technique. Absolutely brilliant!!!

the foto fanatic wrote:HDR doesn't have to be about garish over-produced images at all.

And that's the point. HDR's real benefit is to help us to deal with issues where the subject we are shooting carries serious challenges, exposure wise, because it exceeds the dynamic range that our sensors can cope with.

Thus we can shoot several images to cover the lighting conditions that we see, and merge those images into one that comes closer to what our eyes have seen.

Which will not be the oompa-loompa images that we too often see presented as HDR outcomes.

Steffen wrote:My take is, if you can tell a picture has been "HDR'ed" - it's overdone.

Often the general public doesn't even know the concept of HDR. Often they think some of those images are 'cool' .

The iPhone 4 can do 3-image HDR if you want, and the resulting images achieve just what HDR was originally devised for - dealing with a dynamic range too high for the sensor to span. The outcome is very similar to active D-lighting in Nikon cameras, only that iPhone HDR truly uses multiple images at different exposures.

Cheers
Steffen.

surenj wrote:Often the general public doesn't even know the concept of HDR. Often they think some of those images are 'cool' .

Often the general public doesn't have a clue about anything.

First you need to define HDR and I don't think that is as black and white as some would like. As Steffen has already alluded too, d-lighting is HDR in my books, so just because a image is not bracketed does not mean it can't be a HDR image.

gstark wrote:And that's the point. HDR's real benefit is to help us to deal with issues where the subject we are shooting carries serious challenges, exposure wise, because it exceeds the dynamic range that our sensors can cope with.

I agree to a point - not only can it help with teh dynamic range, but is can open up a whole swag of creative possibilities.

Reschsmooth wrote: radar wrote:These types of discussions never go anywhere. It's like arguing to photoshop your photos or not, does anyone remember EnergyPolice

Exactly. I think it more appropriate to just generally say that any photographic technique that detracts from an image is, well, detracting.

I don't think so, the linked discussion raises lots of interesting points and challenges about peoples photography, quite on the contrary i think we can all learn alot from these kind of robust discussions which question what we do and why.

who teh f is the energy police.. oh don't worry, here is a apparently classic thread involving him for people like myself who are uneducated on teh matter http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=15199

biggerry wrote:First you need to define HDR

Well, no. That was done about a hundred years or so ago. Seriously.

HDR is nothing new; it's just that the methods are now much more convenient.

But I think you possibly mean to say you need to define your expected outcomes.

I agree to a point - not only can it help with teh dynamic range, but is can open up a whole swag of creative possibilities.

And that's where the problems lie. it's the "creative possibilities" that are the issue. One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

Murray Foote wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:OK, then, since I've just posted these, how many of these eight images do you think are HDR and how many, whether HDR or not, do you think are overdone? Candid opinions welcome.

Anybody else want to comment?

the foto fanatic wrote:I will. I think that they all have had some degree of HDR treatment.

Trevor is quite correct.

Steffen wrote:To my eyes, only the first one ("Wreck in Stanley Harbour") has the HDR look that makes you stop for moment and think "hm, weird"… If you have used HDR in any of the other images you've done so very well.

Thanks, Steffen.

The two wrecks are both multiple-image HDR and the other images are single-image HDR. All have other processing, mainly in Lightroom and also in Photoshop.

The images of the wrecks were more difficult not because of the multiple images but because the lighting was more difficult. The captures for the first wreck were both flat and contrasty and I haven't quite got that one right. I'll have to let it sit for a while then come back and try again. The second wreck was taken well after sunset. You can see urban lights in the distance. I had to control a cyan caste to the lighter areas of the sky.

biggerry wrote:

It's a cheap trick photographers use to attact attention when they don't know any other way to create compelling images.

I think the person who wrote that doesn't understand HDR and recognises only the images of others with a similar shortcoming.

This is the wikipaedia definition [it must be the correct one ]

wikipaedia wrote:In image processing, computer graphics, and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than current standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. This wide dynamic range allows HDR images to more accurately represent the range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight, and is often captured by way of a plurality of differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter.[1][2][3]
The two main sources of HDR imagery are computer renderings and merging of multiple low-dynamic-range (LDR) [4] or standard-dynamic-range (SDR)[5] photographs. Tone-mapping techniques, which reduce overall contrast to facilitate display of HDR images on devices with lower dynamic range, can be applied to produce images with preserved or exaggerated local contrast for artistic effect.

gstark wrote:

biggerry wrote:First you need to define HDR

Well, no. That was done about a hundred years or so ago. Seriously.

humour me Gary I am uneducated. My experience with the definition of HDR came first from gaming where there was some awesome technology put into the way gaming scenes were lit, this was followed by the photography sense of HDR which was bracketed images, however over the years I have found that the definition of HDR is not simple. For me, a HDR image can simply mean a scene that has just teh right light levels which give a large range, it can also mean a image where the in camera function of D-lighting is set to the max, it can be a bracketed composition, it can be a single frame tonemapped. For me, the definition of HDR is not simple....

surenj wrote:This is the wikipaedia definition [it must be the correct one ]

How about tone mapping? Is that part and parcel of HDR??

biggerry wrote:tonemapped

Does any of our 100+ yr old member know how this was achieved 100 years ago?

surenj wrote:Does any of our 100+ yr old member know how this was achieved 100 years ago?

I think it involved a lot of hand-waving

Cheers
Steffen.

biggerry wrote:

gstark wrote:

biggerry wrote:First you need to define HDR

Well, no. That was done about a hundred years or so ago. Seriously.

humour me Gary I am uneducated.

No worries.

For me HDR goes back (not personally) to early photography, where images were bracketed by exposure setting, in order to achieve the high dynamic range.

Suren, the concept of image bracketing is not a new technique, but with digital imaging, it's just so much easier. Previously you would just do the same thing, using film. Printing was tricky but with masks on the negatives, anything was possible.

To this day, I have yet so see a photography technique applied using Photoshop that could not be done (albeit with a greater level of difficulty) in a wet darkroom.

And by way of contrast, it remains difficult to create a photogram of, for instance, a large leaf that's fallen from a tree, in photoshop, yet it's all too easy in a wet darkroom.

And as an observation, there are now so many TLAs that now have multiple meanings. Is a SLR a camera or a gun? Is a RPG a game or a weapon?

gstark wrote:For me HDR goes back (not personally) to early photography

So you're saying you weren't involved with Niépce at the time?

gstark wrote:Is a SLR a camera or a gun?

Neither, it's the race version of the LH/LX Torana (which is an acronym, according to Ford, for "Tonnes of Rust And No Acceleration").

Murray Foote wrote:

gstark wrote:For me HDR goes back (not personally) to early photography

So you're saying you weren't involved with Niépce at the time?

Not personally, no.

Will we be catching up at Windsor again in a few weeks?

gstark wrote:
And by way of contrast, it remains difficult to create a photogram of, for instance, a large leaf that's fallen from a tree, in photoshop, yet it's all too easy in a wet darkroom.

?

Easier still with a photocopier or flatbed scanner.

gstark wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:

gstark wrote:For me HDR goes back (not personally) to early photography

So you're saying you weren't involved with Niépce at the time?

Not personally, no.

Will we be catching up at Windsor again in a few weeks?

No, I'll be in New York (for 17 days). I've had to opt out this time. Looks like a good lineup, though.

My old Rotel amplifier has high dynamic range. Am I missing something here?

Matt. K wrote:My old Rotel amplifier has high dynamic range.

I don't think so. They were either all black or all silver

Cheers
Steffen.

How many of you noticed this story in the SMH yesterday?

Whilst not HDR, it does demonstrate that retouching photos is definitely NOT new, and could be done in the "olden days" of film.

the foto fanatic wrote:definitely NOT new

I agree. Some of the brilliant photographers are also brilliant re-touchers/photo editors. Just look at Ansel Adams.

gstark wrote:Suren, the concept of image bracketing is not a new technique, but with digital imaging, it's just so much easier. Previously you would just do the same thing, using film. Printing was tricky but with masks on the negatives, anything was possible.

Thanks Gary for your comprehensive answer. I knew about the masks (although never done it myself) but struggled to understand how you could increase midtone contrast or micro contrast in the dark room. How was regional sharpening applied?

surenj wrote:

gstark wrote:Suren, the concept of image bracketing is not a new technique, but with digital imaging, it's just so much easier. Previously you would just do the same thing, using film. Printing was tricky but with masks on the negatives, anything was possible.

Thanks Gary for your comprehensive answer. I knew about the masks (although never done it myself) but struggled to understand how you could increase midtone contrast or micro contrast in the dark room. How was regional sharpening applied?

Contrast was easily varied depending on the paper you used, if you used multigrade then you placed different filters in the enlarger to achieve different contrast but as far as I know you couldn't sharpen. Retouching negatives to remove blemishes was the work of real artists.

phillipb wrote:t but as far as I know you couldn't sharpen.

Correct.

Sharpening is required in the digital workflow because of the nature of sensors, along with artifacts introduced by the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor.

Retouching negatives to remove blemishes was the work of real artists.

Oh yes.

gstark wrote:Sharpening is required in the digital workflow because of the nature of sensors, along with artifacts introduced by the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor.

OK That makes sense.

phillipb wrote:Contrast was easily varied depending on the paper you used, if you used multigrade then you placed different filters in the enlarger to achieve different contrast but as far as I know you couldn't sharpen.

How about if you wanted localised microcontrast adjustment? Would you have to cut the filters into pieces and use multigrade paper? How would you control the edge? Could you make it 'feather'?

surenj wrote:How about if you wanted localised microcontrast adjustment? Would you have to cut the filters into pieces and use multigrade paper? How would you control the edge? Could you make it 'feather'?

We used to expose (with the enlarger) for the bulk of the photo then use either our hands or masks between the lens and the paper to cover the parts with the right exposure and burn in the parts that we wanted to darken effectively giving it more contrast.

Steffen wrote:My take is, if you can tell a picture has been "HDR'ed" - it's overdone.

I agree with this. However, I think THIS is nice...
I've only done one HDR myself, from 3 exposures, and it's very subtle.

Ok, so I have read thru the response and I still do not see a clear definition of what people think HDR is, ok its been around for 100 years, but that is not really helping now that there is so many other ways to get a HDR image so the conclusion i make and did so before was that there is not clear definition of it nowadays, it is merely another processing technique which can be adhered to at any level, from slight d-lighting thru to 15 bracketed images.

I think the point on whether you can tell its HDR'ed or not is irrevelant, i guarantee there are plenty of images out tehre which people could not pick whether its a HDR and that in my opinion has little bearing on whether its a good image or not.

On another side note, has anyone looked at the real estate pictures in the domain recently? they stand out like dog balls as HDR images... ahh bring back the days of old over exposed shitty real estate images....

The definition's simple enough - HDR = High Dynamic Range = images with extended tonal ranges.

You can probably say there are three kinds of HDR images though they merge one into the other. (um) There are images that correct the limitations of photographic capturing with a tonal range that better reflects human perception than an abbreviated digital capture. (dois) There are images that provide an enhanced view of reality through the extended tonal range that is in accord with what our perceptions of reality suggest even though they may not be strictly realistic. Actually, this is probably most "realistic" images, HDR or not. (três) There are images that set out to distort reality for special effect. I have no problem with these in principle, as long as they are sensitive interpretations that enhance an already strong image.

Your original quote was from someone who thought HDR images had to be lurid, tacky and tasteless. He was only revealing his ignorance and in two ways. (één) If realistic HDR is done well enough it should appear simply as a normal image. (twee) Most people who generate "surreal" HDR do so as an overpowering technique and often in conjunction with weak images. There is no reason why it can't work in conjunction with artistic sensitivity, photographic integrity and probably judicious use of other techniques that introduce ambiguity and surprise.

And I might or might not add that at no stage up to this point have I mentioned the Easter Bunny.

Murray Foote wrote:The definition's simple enough - HDR = High Dynamic Range = images with extended tonal ranges.

You can probably say there are three kinds of HDR images though they merge one into the other. (um) There are images that correct the limitations of photographic capturing with a tonal range that better reflects human perception than an abbreviated digital capture. (dois) There are images that provide an enhanced view of reality through the extended tonal range that is in accord with what our perceptions of reality suggest even though they may not be strictly realistic. Actually, this is probably most "realistic" images, HDR or not. (três) There are images that set out to distort reality for special effect. I have no problem with these in principle, as long as they are sensitive interpretations that enhance an already strong image.

Your original quote was from someone who thought HDR images had to be lurid, tacky and tasteless. He was only revealing his ignorance and in two ways. (één) If realistic HDR is done well enough it should appear simply as a normal image. (twee) Most people who generate "surreal" HDR do so as an overpowering technique and often in conjunction with weak images. There is no reason why it can't work in conjunction with artistic sensitivity, photographic integrity and probably judicious use of other techniques that introduce ambiguity and surprise.

And I might or might not add that at no stage up to this point have I mentioned the Easter Bunny.

Bartender I'll have what he's having

Murray Foote wrote:The definition's simple enough - HDR = High Dynamic Range = images with extended tonal ranges.

Yep, exactly.

If realistic HDR is done well enough it should appear simply as a normal image. (twee) Most people who generate "surreal" HDR do so as an overpowering technique and often in conjunction with weak images. There is no reason why it can't work in conjunction with artistic sensitivity, photographic integrity and probably judicious use of other techniques that introduce ambiguity and surprise.

A couple of years ago somebody posted a link to some HDR images that someone was doing in NYC. These were street and nightclub images, and while they were quite overdone in one sense, I found them to be very creative, artistic and strong images, and a very different use of the HDR technique, given that the subjects were often moving, rather than the normal static subjects that we typically see in HDR imaging.

And I might or might not add that at no stage up to this point have I mentioned the Easter Bunny.

Actually, Murray, that would be very tasteless of you.

Everyone knows Christmas is on the way. I was actually in Woollies last night, and they already have Christmas stuff on the shelves.

It's not even Halloween.

gstark wrote:Everyone knows Christmas is on the way. I was actually in Woollies last night, and they already have Christmas stuff on the shelves.

It's not even Halloween.

What's Halloween got to do with it?
Christmas shopping starts on October 1st when it becomes legally possible to Lay-By for Christmas. Not sure if anyone actually uses Lay-By any more, but that's the historic reason.

phillipb wrote: Bartender I'll have what he's having

Better keep it to small doses. I've tried it & it's powerful stuff.

Good Summary Murray.
But shouldn't you be using (ichi)(ni)(san)...

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:Everyone knows Christmas is on the way. I was actually in Woollies last night, and they already have Christmas stuff on the shelves.

It's not even Halloween.

What's Halloween got to do with it?

More than you'd care to know, probably.

Seriously, when we lived in the US, in October the stores would be full of it.

Halloween stuff, that is.

Good fun. You should've seen how I turned up at the office on the day.

Hmm, upon reflection, no, probably not. Suffice to say I was an even less pretty sight than usual.

November 1 saw the start of the Thanksgiving season. Pumpkins made way for turkeys. I'll leave the permutations of that to your collective imaginations. I always enjoyed this part of the year, btw. People started to be nice to one another. Why it takes a national holiday for that to occur is beyond my comprehension, but what can I say?

The day following Thanksgiving was the start of the Christmas season. Shops were typically packed - that day is the biggest (or maybe second biggest) shopping day of the year in the US, and is used as a barometer for the upcoming holiday season shopping.

And while Boxing Day as such isn't celebrated in the US, stay well clear of the stores, because there are typically two very long lines in each store: one is for the cash registers, as people line up to buy their post Christmas bargains, and the other is the line for the returns of unwanted or ill-fitting goods.

gstark wrote: The definition's simple enough - HDR = High Dynamic Range = images with extended tonal ranges.

Yep, exactly.

ok, just to flog a dead bunny, i mean horse...

one could very well consider a HDR image as one that comes straight outta a D7000 with the wick turned up on the D-lighting.

Perhaps. Marginal because that's a jpeg setting and you will be ending up with less than the range of a RAW image.

For there to be HDR there has to be NDR (normal dynamic range, no such acronym). Different cameras (films, ISOs) have different dynamic ranges which doesn't make one HDR and the other NDR. I would be inclined to suggest that D-Lighting is just a variant of NDR.

Ultimately, it's all semantics, an image is an image which stands or falls according to its juju or mana. If it's good enough, technique should be irrelevant to appreciation.