Hi all,

 

I'm Janaka.

Basically I'm not a photographer, but my hobby is photography. Among the photography tracks, one of my favorite is HDR.

I also practice HDR from couple of years and actually, it give me the opportunity to see in vast range of colors in a simple snap.

Moreover it make the images 3D and give a live feeling to my eyes. Those are my personal feelings.

 

Lets discuss about others feelings about the HDR photography and lets make this stage to discuss about why we need HDR photography and what is the usefulness of HDR to the track of photography.

 

JaNa

I think I will mostly be the contrarian in your thread as I am not a fan of HDR. My rule of thumb with any technique in photography, especially in post processing, is that if the technique is what I think about when I first look at the image, it has failed as a technique. The technique has called attention to itself and I am thinking about it and not the subject of the photograph.

 

Now I realize that is more of a problem with the processor than the process. The vast majority of folks over use the sliders in HDR! I have used it a few times and have never really been that happy with the results. I much prefer to blend layers in PS. I do shoot brackets in certain circumstances but have better luck getting a pleasing result with layers and masks.

 

The biggest reason that HDR was developed was to extend the dynamic range of digital photography. One reason this was perceived as a need was the sever lack of ability to capture a wide dynamic range in the first several generations of digital cameras. Some of the newer generation cameras can capture a much wider range.

 

The biggest "flaw" in HDR processed images that I see is the flattening of the tonal range. So many of HDR images loose much of the drama that deep shadows and bold highlights create. Yes you can see lots of detail in those areas but that's not necessarily better photography imo.

 

More later....unless you don't more...

Agree with you most of you said Clyde. On my side, HDR is only used as a way to leverage dslr dynamic range and I try to keep a natural rendering.

A good example could be this one :

http://1x.com/photo/308204/all:user:435192

 

"Yes you can see lots of detail in those areas but that's not necessarily better photography imo."

 

THIS^^. That's exactly my problem with how many HDR photographs are processed: shadow detail is considered some sort of holy grail, but it actually completely kills the tonal range when overdone. Shadows exist! We shouldn't be trying to completely eliminate them in our photos.

If the HDR technique takes your picture where you want, then use it. If it doesn't, then don't.....

I think that kind of sums up my feelings about HDR.

The place where apparently most HDR users take there pictures is not a place for me. I do however use it from time to time, but in 90 % of the cases I don't like the result and end up using other techniques.

Here is one example where I was satisfied with the result:

http://1x.com/photo/42625/group:122:all

 

Yes, well said.

And your example is certainly a good one. The technique is not so apparent that it's what you think about when first viewing the photograph.

 

Thank you Clyde! And I agree with you that its presence should be invisible......like a filter.

An insufficient photographs can be dramatic when we use HDR technic. Its covering our technical mistakes (about lighting especially), I think...

Another example where HDR is used to bypass dslr dynamic range constraints...

 

http://1x.com/photo/341760/group:122:all

 

HDR Is a powerful technique and I'm a fan when it's done well, but not when overdone or done inappropriately (musicians will know that the same applies to vibrato!).

 

Of course it depends upon the subject but for me the main argument for it is that it is actually how the eye sees a scene - with details in the highlights and in the shadows. Have a look around you, you see detail everywhere.

 

One of the first things I learnt about darkroom printing was that a photograph should (generally) have an area of pure black and an area of pure white and the same applies to digital - as long as it's got that you can't go far wrong.

 

I have not used HDR technique now since around 5 years as there where no need for that. Also the processing is much too time consuming and our nowadays sensor technology makes HDR most of the time obsolete.

I am new to HDR and I like using it often for the options it gives me during post processing. It depends a lot from photographing style and different shots have different dynamic range requirements in many cases exceeding the dynamic range of even the best and most modern sensors. As to post processing style, that's all a matter of taste and I wouldn't so easily as some here dismiss even the most surreal post processed HDR image. In my case, instead of wondering during capture, I prefer to take a few bracketed shots (if possible) and then decide later if one of the shots is enough or if I need to combine more of them into HDR.

 

In any case I am new to 1x and new to this group and I am looking forward to exchanging points of view with more experienced users.

 

Notis.

I'm not a fun of this technique too. However HDR enables to expand the colour range in the photograph. It enables create a similar look to what we can see by our eyes. It also allows us to take photographs we never could capture in an other way. For example right exposing sky and a building while taking photographs against the sun would not be possible without it.

 

I think that many photographers makes their images a bit to "fancy" rather than keeping to the natural look.

 

In my opinion HDR images looks great on the wallpaper and it is the only place for this kind of pictures.

 

I am not sure has anyone know, that the first HDR image have been produced in 1850 by Gustave Le Gray who used two differently exposed films to merge the sky and the sea on the final composition.

 

You know they do still make film...don't you?? Of course it's possible to produce images with sky and building properly exposed without HDR!! You can still do it the same way Le Gray did or you can just use layers in PS. And some of the newer sensors have VERY wide dynamic range, even approaching film. So HDR is only one tool to use to create such images. And, sadly, it's the most often misused of the bunch.

 

For example, this image may look like subtle HDR but it is not. It was created with bracketed exposure from a single RAW file layered in Photoshop.

 

http://1x.com/photo/30282/latest:user:1972

 

This one is shot on film and shows a very wide dynamic range without any or much processing at all.

 

http://1x.com/photo/281022/all:user:1972

 

(I know they still make film. I started with a Minolta. ) :)

 

HDR is the any photograph with a greater dynamic range of luminosity than a normal image Therefore any technique which leads to approach this effect can be named as HDR. When you use single RAW frame you change the brightness of the layers so you used different exposures and I think it still counts as HDR. In my opinion it is a powerful tool however, as we all know in photography, is better to weak than a to strong effect. BTW this sunset is cool ;)

 

No not really. HDR is a technique that involved tone mapping a 32 bit per channel image. Not at all the same a layer blending in PS. But I do agree on a conceptual level with your statements. Yes my color sunset shot is one that involved 3 exposure bracket from one raw file. But the result is very different than if I had combined the same three images into one 32 bit image and tone mapped.

 

Yes you right... Thank you... I really like your work. How long are you taking photographs for??

 

 

I'm 61 years old and have been around photography at one level or another since birth. My parents were avid snapshot shooters of me an my brother growing up. I even have a photo album of old family photos that my mother collected, some of which go way back into the 1800's.

 

I studies TV and Film production and minored in photography in the early '70s. Even ran my own small photo service while in college photographing guys drag racing cars. After college I kept shooting film for a few more years and then switched to just shooting family stuff while my son was growing up.

 

I got my first digital camera in the early 2000's and bought a scanner and started shooting film a couple of years later. So a LONG time I guess.

Yes, I am impressed

While not fancying the "elitist wave" that seems to prevent many purists to even "accept" the whole concept of PP (don't even mention HDR), which, to me, is like rejecting the concept of "innovation" itself, I am still puzzled not really by the technique but the purpose.

I do agree with Beamer in saying that taking a pic whose only purpose is that of being HDRed in a second time is pointless but I feel there must be a niche for HDR (that, also in my opinion, is every technique targeted at increasing the dinamic range, blending more shots to compensate each other).

Fact is I'm still looking for a situation where HDR is THE only option to deliver THE best picture of a specific scene.

I'm an amateur at best, being an IT guy makes me a tamperer also, so I indulged in some HDR playing, fact is that it served, at best, to drag out little meaning from meaningless shots.

 

I would love to see HDR driven by purpose, an idea, where all Raw shadows and highlights management would fail utterly, where the medium is a slave of the product, not the contrary, and I'd kill to learn to do it properly.

Hi everyone,

I shoot large format film. Mostly Black & White Infrared, because I like a little mystery. I also Paint With Light in the dark. HDR can't make either of those types of images but it does not matter to me in the least. A well done HDR image can be sublime and ad so much to a scene, especially indoors like a cathedral.

 

The only time I get a little on edge about HDR, is when its not done right or well and gets an award in international competition.

Otherwise, I think their is a definite place for HDR in photography.

"Vast range of colors,3D and give a live feeling to my eyes"

 

I totally agree with Jana plus amazing details and texture.

 

HDR is the trend of digital image.

 

The problem is not too many

 

people can really use it well. Only few people can reach its peak where you can't

 

see any HDR mark on their works. Only those people can realize the fantastic

 

feeling of HDR.

 

Fred Zhang

When we talk about HDR (High Dynamic Range) as a way to process photos, we may mean two things:

 

1. Effort to expand the dynamic range in general.

2. Using HDR software to do that.

 

HDR softwares are tools, and there are many ways to achieve the purpose of capturing wider dynamic range.

 

While I do feel to expand DR can overcome the limit of camera sensors, to use HDR softwares is not necessary nor the most desirable way, especially if we do not have a sense when to stop and how to control. If I can detect that the pictures are processed with HDR software, in most cases they seem quite artificial to my taste. When that happens, I would say the process is not helping but ruining the pictures.

 

Personally I do not see the need to use HDR software, because to use layers and masks can help me not only achieve the same purposes but also put more control in my hands; it also forces me to do what is needed specific to the picture only, instead of relying on a software that are controlled by algorithms developed by somebody else for broader, if not generic, needs (although you can manipulate them as well) .