Hdr Photographs

it depends on the scene and the skill of the artist.

hdr doesn't have a look. it does have an abused look, and i can't say they sell well, but i can tell they look like trash most of the time. but in the end it depends on the buyer and it depend on the scene. hdr comes in many flavors, choose the one you like and exploit it the best you can. i went from illustration like hard lines, uneven tones, to a smooth palette that makes you want to just enter the picture.

if i had to put my finger on it, i'd say realistic sells better.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Thank you so much..

Regards,

Rudra

Do what appeals to you. Do it well. That is the formula.

80% of my images are HDR. You can judge what style they are but I sell reasonably well.

Mike is correct. All things considered, realistic / traditional sells better. This assumes, of course, that the HDRs being compared are not those so horribly over-tonemapped they look like clown puke. Those probably sell very little and to a very small and select sector.

The question should not be HDR vs. non-HDR. Rather, it should be about style. Formulate something that is different, unique, or at least sets you apart from the maddening crowd.

like does the scene even need HDR? not all of them do. but so many are wild for the look, they push it when its not needed.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

@ Rudra

Don't forget the term or phrase HDR is often taken out of context, especially how you phrased your question. High Dynamic Range is not a look, or an effect. It's a blending process. I utilize a masking process in PS usually with at least 3 NEF files bracketed to save both highlights and details in shadows. Takes 200% more time than using software like Photomatix but the results are very natural, which is of utmost importance for published nature scenics.

I've seen some wonderfully processed work by members of FAA using unique HDR techniques, both JC and Mike are amongst the first that come to mind. Mike pulled no punches and is correct in his observation by stating "They look like trash most of the time". It takes a great deal of self control to make tone mapping adjustments. Shooting Technique needs to be perfect.

To stray back to your inquire : With regards to "sales". HDR techniques won't help anyone make a sale on this or any website unfortunately. What does matter is the composition, the subject, if you photographed the subject in appropriate lighting, your approach to mastering your technique...then how you market your product

HDR and tonemapping have been so abused by people who want their images to look "different" that the terms have lost all meaning for many. The majority of the time, when someone mentions HDR, they're referring to an overcooked look, rather than High Dynamic Range.

I wrote the following when I hosted a long-running photography thread here a couple of years back:



Once upon a time, when darkrooms were all the rage, photographers wished upon their jewel-encrusted film canisters for a way to expand the dynamic range that their film was capable of recording. Photography, as was life, was all about compromise; and dynamic range was no different.

What is this mysterious substance called "Dynamic Range," you ask? For one, it's the meaning behind two-thirds of the holy acronym, "HDR." And no, the 'H' does not stand for holy. Dynamic range is the range of values (light to dark) that a medium can capture. Neither film nor digital can capture all the shades that the eye can see. With film, the problem is at the dark end of the scale (typically shadow detail), since silver-based light-sensitive materials do not record low light levels very well. Digital is the opposite, and we've all experienced "blown out" highlights. This is because digital sensor elements are easily overloaded. But, on the other hand, digital's ability to record in the shadows is truly amazing.

In the olden days, if we wanted to, for example, shoot an interior picture which was lit by the light coming in through a window, we'd have to choose between letting the window (and the scene outside) go white in order to preserve interior detail; or else expose for the outside scene, leaving the interior go black. The solution was somewhat complicated. We had to shoot two pictures on a tripod, one exposed for the outside and another for the inside. Then each image was exposed onto the same sheet of light-sensitive photo paper. This was the tricky part, since precise alignment was often difficult or impossible to achieve, and masking was required. It was an expensive, labor intensive, trial and error process.

And then came digital. And thereafter came HDR. And photographers finally could put down their very worn jewel-encrusted film canisters. A new god was discovered, and it was called Photomatix. And it was good. HDR (High Dynamic Range) now allowed photographers to take the olde two-shot procedure and improve upon it. We could now combine three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and even more, different exposures into a single image. The magic was all done electronically within our computers. Even though processing times can run into several minutes, it beat the pants off of the old wet method.

Now, I could stand in a pitch-black hallway that looked like this . . .



and shoot five images at different exposures; which, when combined (and with some of my own personal magic stirred into the brew), could yield an image like this:



It was a miracle! Photographers near and far began using this new tool, reveling in their newfound capability. Some then discovered that they could even invoke the gods of HDR outdoors, revealing detail never before seen, like the tones and details in this relatively simple shot:



Nothing is lost to shadows OR to highlights. We had found the Holy Grail.

But then, the forces of darkness discovered HDR, and a new genre was born. They called it "Grunge." You've seen it, I'm sure. Everything looks moody and like it's been out in the elements for centuries. At first it was kind of cool, but it's now been so overdone that a mere glimpse can inspire retching in some photographers.

WARNING: The following image is an attempt to illustrate grunge. I just whipped it up for this rant, and it is not intended to represent either fine art or the best of the genre. It's just a parody, a grungy frickin' example of what's become so easy to do with HDR software; almost a one-trick wonder nowadays:



This genre has become all about the 'look.' Gone is the extended dynamic range, replaced by moodiness and decay. Some like it, but it's not my personal cup of meat. What irks me is that, now, when someone mentions HDR, this is what many (especially younger) photographers think of. There's no sense of HDR's relatively brief history, nor what it was originally intended to do. It's become just another trick.

HDR certainly has its place, and has been said, when the photographer’s vision is solid, it can work very well. On the other hand, when it’s used to ‘enhance’ an otherwise mundane image, I often wonder ‘why bother?’

Dear Sirs,

Wonderful tips. Thank you so much. I take minimum 3 exposures to process my NEF files, when it is needed to extend the dynamic range which my camera's sensor cannot capture. Then process them.

"why bother" ?

Because -

1. Luminosity masking takes much time to process than Photomatrix. I need to know the compromising balance between time of processing and sales.
2. Non photographers often like the grungy so called HDR look than the normal smooth dynamic range extended look. They are often buyers. This is what I read on Internet. So, I need to know whether I should process my images with natural look or with that obvious grungy so called HDR look. If I had time I could experiment with both, I could do both and 5 years from now would know which sold better. I do not have that much time and hence want to know from you, teachers and experts on this.

Hope to have clarified.

Once again, thanks for all the excellent tips and advised given to me, teachers.

My best regards to all of you,

Rudra

you can try the grunge look if you want. and it might sell. i just think they look terrible.

process them the way you think they should look best.


this one is over the top a bit - it sold anyway - it doesn't thumbnail well due to contrast issues and hidden glowing.



this uses 4 shots, in an older style with a different camera, its a darker style - this sells


this is a newer style, it's brighter, uses a new camera and 5 images - it's cleaner, but newer and hasn't sold yet, but it will.


this is a new process using 3 raw and a flash, it hasn't sold yet either because its new - but it should.


this is a dark but natural look, 5 raw.


this is 3 raw, with editing added after, taken on a moving boat.

you tend to develop a style that works. we can't tell you if one works better than the other. if one person is good an making creepy looking hdr stuff then good for them. but its not really doing hdr justice and most people call that killing photography.

i use luminosity masking as well, but that's not hdr, its just another step. most of my images take 5-6 hours per image. the result is what's important. if your just trying to crank out the numbers the quality won't be there and neither will the sales. in the end it really depends on the look you want. the other question is - the buyers - did they like it? or did they buy it?

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Mike Savad,

Thank you so much for showing me the entire spectrum , from grungy HDR look to natural HDR look. I think I am more inclined to image 4 and 5. I should develop myself on that natural looking side of the spectrum.

Thanks for guiding me.

Regards,

Rudra

however they are never easy, #4 took about 8 hours to get right. and #5 was like i think 3 - because the boat was moving so alignment had issues.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

It's really a personal choice in the end. Most I personally find way over done and nearly grotesque to look at. I generally think it should be close to realistic without calling too much attention to itself and only if the image needs it. Murry's sample is a good example IMO.

Mike's are contrary to this. It definitely looks obvious and in the hands of others, could be considered over-done. And yet, Mike's style and additional work on the images transforms them into another realm beyond HDR, and closer to painting and visually very pleasant to look at.

Agreed, it is a personal choice and the effects should match the subject. This image would be called "over cooked" in its processing and I agree, but it fits the subject:


This image is also "HDR" but more the true technical aspect, not an effect to alter the image as blatantly as above:

By shooting 3 bracketed images for each, the shadows and highlights become more balanced when they are blended. Each is "HDR", but the choices I made regarding the editing give me completely different results. Both were shot in the same diner, by the way.

I think we need to come up with a few more descriptions.

Like was mentioned HDR is not really what most people think. When people hear "HDR" they usually think the overcooked, ugly images. That style should have its own term. Instead of HDR it could be called the "overcooked" or "halo heaven" technique. The term HDR could be reserved for the technique, even though it wouldn't be obvious to the viewer. Then we can have another category, the "Mike Savad technique". Truly mastered by only one person but it is a style all its own.

what i always liked about hdr is that, everyone has their own flavor. if you just cook it at the highest settings, it probably won't look like anything, and it will look like everyone else's. after a while you develop style you like best and use that. usually its that constant look that people like. many people like the look of hdr because its a bit surreal and they have nothing else to compare it too. then they see the real stuff and then are more impressed. its like the difference between gourmet vs burgerking. sure the king does it nice, but it may not be as good. still its up to everyones tastes.

i've seen hdr cars where the reflections were enhanced, same with pond water. others simply balance the light. others have nice sunsets and others push the tone out of every pixel.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I add a layer of an hdr version into most of what I do. I either just straight blend it or mask bits and pieces.

But to me, the thing that is really important is to listen to the image itself. I find myself going in spells where all I want to do is one kind of image ... then I fall off the wagon and tread water for awhile, then go off on another tangent. HDR, though, is frequently in there somewhere, at some point in the process. But it's the image itself that says ... hey ... grunge me up ... with HDR



Or ... let's play with textures ... (there's an hdr layer in there) ...



Or ... leave me alone ...



And ... another ... left alone ...



Point is ... I go with what I feel is best for the image. In a round-about way, I'm agreeing with what was said above ... do what YOU think looks best.

Lois, love the diner (I am partial to them!). Their atmospheres and styles lend themselves to the type of processing shown.

The thing that amazes me is that while HDR photos have been around for years now, people still say oooh and ahhh when they see them.

They aren't my thing. But sometimes I see one I like, where HDR connects with the subject, somehow.