What do you guys think about HDR?

goneforever

goneforever

Member
I know this is not really ski-related, but what do you guys think about HDR (High Dynamic Range) photos? I am going to Japan this winter and I am going to take all of my photography stuff. Has anyone taken a lot of ski-related HDR shots? Thanks in advance.
(Some example):
2140372749_bb3b0cc90d_b.jpg
- /\ltus on flickr.com
2305084844_dbe31a6288_b.jpg
- Vin60 on flickr.com
2229916011_450c4964ca_b.jpg
- /\ltus on flickr.com

 
in theory, HDRs are a good idea. the problem is that people take it way to overboard and all the haloing makes the pictures look like shit. All those ones you posted are good examples.
 
The purpose of HDRs is to bring back the dynamic range that your eye can see, but the camera can not capture. Many of those HDR pictures just take it so far to the point that most natural contrast is lost and everything looks funky. I think that blending multiple exposures in photoshop through layer masks is the best way to get high dynamic range without all the haloing that most automatic programs put in.
 
this should be in media&arts. HDR's can be stunning, however they are often overdone as you have proven. tone it down a bit guy
 
actual HDR shots can be very interesting/good. shots where one exposure cannot accurately capture the dynamic range the eye can see, and HDR, or similar manual techniques are used. HOWEVER, ~95% of HDR shots I see on the web are straight up visually offensive in their terribleness.
 
A total gimmick. I hate them.
If I want to create an image based on the "Theory" of HDR... as described above, I will shoot a bracket, Lay one over another in photoshop and slowly create opacities between layers.
I look at that sort of thing as "Digital Imaging" rather than photography (IMO way too separate from the actual photo taking) and I put it in the same realm as the photoshop filter craziness people can get into.
I'm not trying to bag on anyone who likes them because I can see how people would... but in my opinion HDR sucks.
 
I think it's gimmicky to a certain extent.... but only when brought to an extreme degree. When done tastefully it can bring true depth to a photo and come closer to the impression you might get having seen the subject matter first hand.

And those at the top are some of the shittiest HDRs I have ever seen.

Here are some of mine:













and for the absolute pro www.davehill.com
 
its an incredible technique, but it was murdered by amateurs a good 3 or 4 years ago...HDR is played out now and simply unimpressive the majority of the time
 
Know what would be sick...if they started using this technique in movies. Like they could pull apart the whole movie frame by frame and put this effect into each one. It would look sick i bet...like a live action movie with a hint of HDR animation. Would prolly work best for a comic book movie...
 
i was thinking about that once, but more along the lines of if there could be a camera that took 3 frames at the same time with different shutter speeds, and i decided there would be no way for that to work or look good
 
ok, so i dont know how it works...but if you can do it to pictures...and a movie is made up of a bunch of pictures...then couldn't you apply it to a movie??
 
no and this is why not.

HDR is a merging of typically 3-5 photos sometimes more. each photo taken at a differnt exposure to get the tonal range. then using a program like photomatrix pro you get the final product an HDR image. with video unless you could film in .RAW format you wouldnt even be able to do a sudo HDR film.

Closest thing i have seen are some HDR timelapse work.
 
word. all of yours were dope, except the face one, wasnt really feelin that.

but yes, when done properly, and not just halo'd out and fake looking it can be dope
 
the issue there is that with the single photo you are using a format called RAW which allows you to change exposure after the photo has been taken.
 
yours are much better, but still, that's way more effect than I think should ever EVER be used, unless you are going for some sort of a surrealist look.
It really just looks like another photoshop filter applied to photos to me. I don't think that that is anywhere near what the subject matter looked like first hand, unless perhaps you're on LSD.
once again, whatever floats your boat, but I personally don't like it.
 
Ya, exactly...It ends up looking like someone cranked the brightness/contrast and applied find edges, or something equally heinous.
 
Can be good, but most people over-do it. If you look in the mountain picture, you can clearly see where the brushing was done. I'm perfectly ok with bracketing +1 and -1 stop and having a some difference.
 
my friend is big on it, here i'll post one of his pics...his name is Robert Wensley btw, best photographer i know (he's devoted his entire life to it).

dc6452c7.jpg


(obviously not the stock size, i don't think he would want me giving that away haha)

 
I have no problem with HDR when it is done professionally. A friend of mine uses it for real estate photography and it turns out well. Amateur HDR is usually terrible. It looks like some shitty Photoshop Elements filter. I've always stayed away from it and I wish more people did.
 
1217907354sailboat.jpg


HDR, if people do it with caution i don't mind it, but a lot of people on flickr seem to get carried away
 
I agree with Twoods. Not only does it look gaudy, unrealistic and overdone, but it also offers and excuse to make up for shitty photos in the first place, in most cases. Like that tutorial guy, really shooting Times Square and night skylines? Please have an ounce of creativity.
 
Thanks for the replies!
I am not a huge fan of HDR myself, but I had never really seen skiing photos with HDR and I wanted to see what people thought/think about it in skiing and in general. As said above, it really is an easy way to turn a bad/okay picture into something more "exciting." (lack of wording)
What I do like about HDR, as stated in the tutorial's link, is that some places are very vivid in my mind, but the pictures I take of it looks less appealing. On the other hand there are many other ways to make a picture more vivid without making it look psychedelic.
On a side note: I didn't really pick the best examples; just the first few on Flickr.
 
Word
My rule is that I don't do anything that i can't do physically with my camera or anything i can't do in a darkroom (besides a few things, fixing blemishes or something real small like that. )
 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_235kDQq-iuk/SJfkwoHnJcI/AAAAAAAAACU/EhinraoQNFE/s1600/hylandsmall.jpg[/IMG[

This is one i shot earlier this summer.
 
looks sick if it is done correctly, but those original three that the creator posted... they just look way too fake.
 
i could see it working well in a real estate photography setting, for lighting up possibly darker corners of a room for instance if your access to multiple strobes is limited, etc.

do you have any photos you could post of how your friend uses it?
 
HDR is sick when done right.

Most people dont have the patients for it and theres end up turning out shitty.

you can easily tell when someone put a lot of effort into it compared to someone who did it in an hour
 
Theortically I think you could. If you had 4 or 5 cameras that had lenses that converged very close to eachother tuned at different exposures recording you could stack them like an HDR. There might be a slight fuzz because there would be a slightly different POV for each lense but if it was done correctly could be minimal.
As far as HDR being gimmicky i disagree. Its just another experiment with photo technology i think its cool.
 
It's only gimmicky if you misuse it. A lot of the examples in here are horrible ones. The black and white ones look amazing, though. I think its best for scenery.
 
i agree, i think pretty much everything in photo or filming for that matter could be considered gimmicky if it's misused or overused, i.e. time lapses, desaturated photos, wealthy white kids dying to look hood as fuck, etc etc. the list goes on. all about moderation and knowing how and when in my opinion.
 
The thing about HDR is it cannot be done with a singe exposure of an image. HDR like many people have said can be good but the point is not to just make cool looking pictures, its intended for pictures where the contrast is too extreme for the camera to catch. Human vision has about a 13 stop range while most digital cameras get about 7 at best. As for HDRs of people, they are not true HDR, its impossible because even the slightest subject movement is obvious in the final image, the images above of people are just tone mapped (the process of merging the multiple exposures) to mimic the look of HDR. HDR is not a gimmick if done correct, it is actually very difficult.
http://http://flickr.com/photos/34512455@N08/3204416376/in/set-72157612686443422/
This is one of my best examples, but im still not completely satisfied with it due to the haloing in the windows in back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top