To Hdr Or Not To Hdr?

Totally subjective.
I generally like a lot of saturation.

HDR has it's place and some do it really well. I have never been a fan and never got out of the free trial version of Photomatrix, but that's just me. Sometimes the ones I like are subtle; sometimes they "scream saturation." Just be true to the image if you do them. My biggest peeve is when the photographer doesn't have a decent image to begin with and tries to "work photoshop magic" on a shot that needs to be deleted.

What I've noticed about a lot of HDR that I've seen, there is too much "black-ish" tint. That hurts my eyes. I prefer natural with just a boost of saturation (color, not black). But yes, I agree with Tamara that it's subjective.

Screaming Saturation




Just enhancing something (not really a very good example)




As close to "natural" look

Out of the three I prefer the "natural". The slight enhancement is OK as well. I'm not a huge fan of the screaming variety.

I like a more "natural" effect for HDR, but I have to admit, it's difficult for me not to "overcook" my photos. Here's one I did using Photomatix. Would be interested to know what other HDR programs photographers are using and how they like them.

I like the airport one..but where is it?

just so we are on the same page - HDR is combining many images into one final image - it's not using an HDR filter to murder an image. if your using a single jpg and pushing it - that's not hdr. it might be considered tone mapping.

as for effect. pushing it hard will kill an image. while sometimes the effect is "pleasant", it usually isn't. it hurts the eyes and destroys the integrity of the image. use HDR only when it needs to be used. when you have a blown out sky and a shadow area - that's when you use it.


this is a real HDR, it used i think 4-5 images.


this is a real hdr, it used 5 images.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

That's a great clarification. I can see a lot of warmth in an image that combines several images.

Jane: I'm using Photoshop as my HDR "composing" tool, haven't used others until now.

Amanda: The airport one is Otopeni Airport in Bucharest, Romania.

HDR is just another tool. It doesn't replace the individual artists vision.

don't enlarge your images btw, unless those are pano's. you lose all detail and they may not print if they look bad to the eyes of the printer. i see detail loss in many of these, they only have to be 6200px to get the largest ones, and if your making them larger 13000px x 7000px, your bound to be running into size limit issues as well

i don't consider the airport screaming, but i don't see it as realistic either.

to post pictures, post the code that shows up in the box where the description is, just paste it in here.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

HDR is High Dynamic Range and, as Mike pointed out, involves the layering of several bracketed images. You can set up your DSLR to shoot these in several modes. The airport one is more of a saturation and detail boost-I find the HDR in Photoshop truly lacking compared to Photomatix. I can get completely "natural" looking images in Photomatix although they are layers or I can go off the grid in saturation and detail boosting. Both images below were processed in Photomatix:




The effect should match the subject. I wouldn't dare do to a portrait of a child what I did to the first one, as an example.But the second one is merely tonemapping the layers in Photomatix so that it's balanced light to dark.

I don't like HDR.

:)

I use HDR when I need it. ( bracketed image.) I don't when I do not need it.

About 80 percent of my work is hdr.

I love using HDR and like JC, about 80% of my work is HDR. Most of the time I prefer just a slight hint but there have been a few occasions that "cooking" has worked better with the image. My program of choice is Photomatix and I've created about 50 different presets so far that I like to use.

I'm a big fan of HDR! How it's used -- natural, pushed, or crazy over-processed -- should depend totally on the story you're trying to tell with a particular image.

HDR, like all post-processing/manipulation tools, is not meant to be 'One Size Fits All'.

I use it for some images - like these





each of the segments of the pano have 7photos (first HDR i did, so I didn't really know what i was doing) - but it is my best selling image - both at art fairs and here on FAA.

I used Photomatix until I recently discovered a technique called "luminosity masking." I was always pretty conservative with my HDR, preferring in most cases to just bring out the dynamic range that the eye would naturally see. Luminosity masks are quite a bit more labor intensive, but I really like the results I've been getting. And no added noise! My copy of Photomatix is now sitting on my hard drive gathering dust.

I use HDR in some of my images. Actually HDR, not filters.

I am leaning more toward luminosity masking also, which gives me more control than Photomatix. I like JCs understated HDR look. He always starts with great light. I also like the hand work of Mike Savad.
I am still learning HDR. I have sold one image where I used this to get a white fountain in bright light and a dark shady path. That image sold twice and I could not have done it without combining exposures. It looks a bit weird to me actually.
It's one more tool and I have locations in mind.
This sold twice.

It depends on the photo.

This one I edited from the RAW file and didn't use hdr.



These I used hdr but only minimally, so hopefully you can't tell I was using hdr processing. All I want to achieve is to have a more realistic look to the images and hdr can bring out detail in the shadows and the lighter areas like the sky, and I like to achieve that without an unnatural look.


I see to much hdr focusing on detail and sharpness or other spectacular effects without having an appealing image to begin with.

I really like your jet wing.

HDR is a tool, most of my work uses it. Some of it I use a program (I prefer SNS-HDR to Photomatix, but I own both). I try to use it to show what my eye saw in the scene. I constantly struggle to make it look more realistic, and I am to the point now where i am using software HDR, and then layering over parts of original images, really whatever I need. I've started playing with Luminosity masks as well, haven't got the hang of it yet though>

Realistic....
Processed using SNS

This was done manually.

A little more painterly, more unnatural, done some with software, and some manual layering.

Overcooked.

Sometimes overcooked sells.....but not BADLY....but ya know....pushing it.

Not a fan of HDR. I call it the "circus poster" effect. :)

~ Bill
~ US Pictures .com

HDR is simply the digital software based manifestation of what photographers have been doing for years.....namely managing the dynamic range of the scene so that they can reproduce something close to what their eye saw.

Guys,

This is really an interesting thread. I know plenty about art and how to make it.

That said I have only a smattering of knowledge about photography.

I did not know what HDR was. I have a better understand of it now.

I still dont fully know how the software goes through the process, but I have a bit of an
idea.

For those who dont like HDR it is a modern day tool. I was sitting with a well trained
photographer today talking about creativity over lunch. At least in his case he has
no well formed voice or aesthetic as a photographer that allows him to make
a mark in the creative world. Over the last two years he has advised me on
digital imaging and equipment, but said a few times to me that he has no real
creative bones himself.

He is only now getting into layering his photos with some of the methods shown on
this thread.

It is very easy to over work these techniques. I am half way over into Bill Swartwout's camp
that I dont like the outcomes, but I understand the need to experiment. Babies should not be
thrown out with bathwater.

I do know in my friends case the moment he even begins to push it he fails. He just does
not have the eye for this on an artistic level. He never did. He also is a very honest with himself
and never thought he could do anything creatively.

On a separate note save your work in PS. I was saving a piece three times yesterday. I am
making far more complicated work that takes over 12 hours per piece to make. I went to crop
a layer, when I pasted it back in the cropping tool was active. My whole image was then under the cropping
tool. I went to the move tool hoping to deactivate the cropping tool. I moved the whole thing, layers and all.
I then decided I had to hit enter to rid my self of the problems. Suddenly six commands went off, one
after the other with quick moving percentages of work done going by. My entire
image went up in smoke. About 8 hours lost.

I looked for my saved file with the open file command. I got nothing, but ruined images.

I was living in minutes of terror.

I brought up the bridge. I found my image undamaged. What a relief.

Hopefully this image will be completed by Monday. I think some of the work on it
will be done Monday morning and then I will post it.

This work will be my aesthetic, not the underlying artist's. The work inherently
is far more complex. This is the first in a sub-series of work, so as the first it is taking
much longer. I have been studying for the last three weeks with some anxiety that I could not do this work. It is
far more problematic. I have found I can get this work done, that alone is a reward.

Dave

In night photography, when there are artificial lights, I merge 3-5 bracketed shots to a 32-bit file in Photoshop and edit the result in Lightroom.

The whole art of HDR, is to make it realistic looking, not too much and not too little. If using Tone-mapping you will probably have to lower contrast and effect. The actual HDR software is also of importance. There are great, good and bad ones.

i discovered HDR when it first came out about 8 years ago (it's been out a lot longer than that though), hdr is used when you really need it. i used to make them hot, and push the settings to the top. then later i repaired what photomatix did. and every time they changed the program, the numbers changed and so did the style. i dropped that program years ago. i use photoshop for the most part now.

images like the one above take 5 shots to get right. 3 isn't enough for dark tools. i shoot hand held, taken as a single this shot would be mostly black. on some other site people only want to see the single shot, but you don't. there isn't a single there are many. alignment, adjusting, etc takes many hours, 5-8 usually


@dave - use the undo tool, and expand the history of that so you have more levels. you can do about 15-20 levels worth. i accidentally hit something where it reverted to the saved file and lost a bunch of work. and i still don't know what i did. the move tool and the crop tool are different. if you crop something hit escape and it will cancel. otherwise undo it.


knowing when to stop is the hard part. this one, i really liked the lighting on the machines. i think that was the first dark frame. and i had to color in around that to keep the look.


if you shade it by hand, and the person doesn't move much, you can make hdr with people, this one has 3 frames, no flash.


i'm experimenting using a flash with the work to get cleaner details. i'm getting mixed results because it changes the direction of the light


this one came out better, i can alter the light source a little later on. i like flash because the iso is lower and i get more detail. details that are totally washed away by noise.


i'll often use it to see inside of windows, and into the shadows.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I like Mikes work, but others and probably the majority, are just dreadful.

It completely depends on the image you are trying to get and the shooting circumstances. Sometimes hdr really adds to an image either done as natural presentation or as the gawdiest thing you've ever seen, and sometimes it doesn't.

There is no good/bad answer there for me. It's like saying do you like oil, watercolor or pencil. We'll, I don't like oil because I've seen a lot of crappy oil paintings, or I don't like watercolor because it's too washed out. (for example)

There are things about hdr that are limiting and things that allow you to get images you otherwise would not have. It can be worth learning even if you decide it's not for you, because you don't know until then.

It's a technique and it may or may be part of achieving the image you want. Only you can decide.

On that note. I invite you all to my most recent contest. :)
http://fineartamerica.com/contests/screaming-hdr.html?tab=overview

(Because FAA is all about promotion...) :)

Since I am back at a keyboard and not my Droid I can actually post some examples and HDR as I see it or as I need it…..

To HDR or not to HDR that is the question. I think it is from Hamlet.

This one is a straight shot with little to no editing at all. HDR would not help it as there was no texture in the clouds. Had there been, HDR might have been used.


This one needed HDR if I wanted to keep color in the sky AND show detail in the buildings.



This is not HDR and for that matter was done with a cheap point and shoot. The colors were pushed though.



HDR though it is done with layers simply to make the water about the same brightness as the sky.



This is a seven shot merge and it needed ALL of them to get this look.



A little more pushed HDR because I wanted to.



I picked those six images because they are my top six selling images in order. Doesn’t really matter to me if anyone else likes my vision or not though it is nice when buyers respond to it.

Two more that are obvious HDR and two of my absolute favorites even if they haven't moved into the bestseller list, yet.

Curiously, doing a lot of hdr is what convinced me to shoot more film. I found that some film had greater range than the digital cameras I had, and that I could get images I liked with less brackets, post processing, etc. Not for everything mind you , but for some things.

As is has all ready been said it does depend on the way the photographer wants the image to look just like a painter painting a picture.Sometimes the colours will look natural and other times they can be over the top.
It is then a matter of taste of the buyer some will like natural some will like the over the top look.
There is no correct way.Each to their own.
This one is I think somewhere inbetween

HDR is very over rated, while tone mapping can give many of the same effects, without losing so much of the real looks in the image. I like the fact that you can develop a 3-d look, without degrading of the image that HDR does.

I've been using it for my church stuff and I love HDR in black and white.

Mike,

I was hitting the undo over and over again, no good. I forgot about the esc.

Thanks for the idea of using the history.

I was doing old fashioned saves all along. Lucky I was.

Dave

Here are some notes from Dave Wilson's tutorial on HDR, I think it explains well why and when this technique is necessary:

"The aim when shooting any photograph is to capture all the brightness levels in the scene so that you have detail in the dark shadow areas and in the bright highlights. In many cases you will find that a single exposure can do this. Under tricky lighting, however, exposing for one part of the scene will likely cause other parts to, either become completely white, or completely black and lose detail. This is the kind of situation where HDR can be put to best use.

HDR - is a method of generating image files that contain very much more information on the brightness levels in a scene than a camera’s sensor can detect in a single exposure. It allows us to capture an image in such a way that we record at least as much brightness information as your eyes can detect.
By capturing several images at different exposures we can capture all the brightness information in the image.
Creating an HDR image is only the first part of the process. You have to perform a second step to generate a viewable image from the HDR. This is called “Tone Mapping”. That is the step when so many whacky images are produced.

Given a single HDR image, it is possible to tone map it in hundreds of different ways resulting in very different results. Some people tone map for artistic effect and generate images which look unnatural, others use settings which result in very natural images. The choice is, however, completely up to the person working the image. The point to note here is that HDR is a technique and you can’t equate it to “weird images with cartoon colors and nasty haloes”. What you are seeing is someone’s attempt to convert an HDR back into something that can be displayed on a monitor or printed to a printer and, a lot of people who do this in a way that is not particularly appealing. "

_Elena Nosyreva

Beautiful examples ... fascinating conversation. I use HDR sometimes as a layer among other layers ... or bits masked in or out ... it's fun. I rarely (if ever?) post a full HDR image. It's also very useful in model home photography when I'm under huge time constraints, and am usually shooting with natural light. Again, the hdr is used as a part ... either as one of the layers or in sections. A very helpful technique for some images.

@Elena,

That's an informative bit all right, however this statement kind of got me.

"The aim when shooting any photograph is to capture all the brightness levels in the scene so that you have detail in the dark shadow areas and in the bright highlights"

As wilh all sweeping generalizations, this is not completely true. (Did I just make sweeping generalization?)

@HW - I see your point.

Maybe it was not worded well, maybe getting correct exposure under tricky light conditions is not the aim when shooting the photograph, but rather the matter of using a right tool to get it.

I think maybe I've seen way too many terrible HDR photos, so I'm kind of biased against it. Even the more 'natural' ones seem unnatural to me, as I know lighting doesn't work quite like that irl. I have never used it.

As others have said, though, it's really a matter of personal taste and approach. There are buyers for pretty much any style, and many, many like HDR or similar types of processing/effects.

I love Hdr. Its a fun tool and still learning. I like the more natural and not over cooked. Joann Vitali your Hdr is beautiful.

Well talking about luminous masking, general HDR softwares like photomatic, Nik, etc. These are just general stuff. There are softwares used in the Film and Movie industry which also can be used for stills! These softwares are incredible!! shockingly expensive but well worth it.

HDR, like tonemapping, is neither good nor bad. It depends on what you do with it. Some people like the effect. Some don't. I don't get overly philosophical about it. Following are four pictures shot during a later September trip to vermont. The first two are HDR, the last two are tonemapped only.

These two done in HDR, combining three exposures:





These two were made from a single image, tonemapped:

Too see some examples of very robust HDR, check out my contest that has just opened for voting.

http://fineartamerica.com/contests/screaming-hdr.html?tab=overview

Voting is open to literally everyone. So tell your friends, your neighbors, etc etc... :)

(promotion, promotion, promotion ...)

Yup. You can go as far as you want with it. This is the one I entered in the contest

Sometimes the images look plasticky, blurred, cartoonish...

I know the idea is to enhance the image.

We use whatever tool we have available, whether it be HDR or layers in Photoshop, to get the look we desire. Take a look... these are all either traditional HDR in Photomatix or layers of bracketed exposures or combining elements from different images, done in Photoshop... Celebrate life, Debra and Dave

@Geoffrey - I really like that one.

@Rick - "Sometimes the images look plasticky, blurred, cartoonish.... " True, but then you might want that.

On the other hand it can be a subtle enhancement.