# What's so bad about HDR?



## Jay Khaos (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't get why HDR is laughed at like it's an Instagram filter... I mean, I guess a "purist" would say its like driving automatic in a sports car—or at least that's the same vibe I pick up when I see photographers discuss it—though it really doesn't seem like there is any good reason to scoff at it. Personally, I'm not a fan of the photos that are blown out or as I like to call it, "Lisa Frankensteined," where it looks like the photographer went full retard with the effect sliders... but I think in general, and when used tastefully (like anything really), it's pretty useful.

Anyone who thinks HDR is ridiculous, I'd like to hear why..

PS - _Or is it like I'm suspecting_: The people complaining are the same people who bitch about less experienced photographers using expensive pro gear, manual-only snobs, and "its not the gear, its the photographer" preachers.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 31, 2013)

PSS - Does anyone have examples of photos using HDR that break the lisa frank HDR stereotype?


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 31, 2013)

I can answer that. It is because people take it too far. Using HDR in difficult lighting situations is perfectly acceptable. But to make it feel like you are tripping on acid... it isn't nearly as cool of an image as you want it to be.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 31, 2013)

Some people are tired of razor thin DoF look. Some including me are tired of over sharp over saturated HDR. No problems will well done, subtle HDR.

Just personnal tastes.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 31, 2013)

I'm uploading a crap ton of stuff right now... so I'll have to find some of my more tasteful HDR images tomorrow...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 31, 2013)

Nothing is wrong with HDR. Infact a user here named @!ex has some fine HDRs that I quite like. It that some users crank it up to compensate for bad composition by making the light look more interesting.


----------



## fugu82 (Jul 31, 2013)

I do a lot of HDR, but a little bit of "grunge" goes a very long, tiresome way. I've seen HDR portraits that looked like stills from a B Zombie flick.


----------



## infared (Jul 31, 2013)

I love using HDR...but beauty is in the eye of the beholder....always.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5526/9350600136_97749e8089_o.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/9358583225_e6b58dab64_o.jpg


----------



## fugu82 (Jul 31, 2013)

Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.


----------



## Zv (Jul 31, 2013)

I use it if and when required like very high contrast scenes or when there is a lot of detail that could benefit from the technique. I try and aim for photorealistic. I also think some HDR can look good in B&W. nowadays with improved camera, lenses and software you can get by without it. The graduated filter tool solves 90% of my issues!

I think I've only done about 5 HDR shots in my life, so maybe it's not for me. But I wouldn't knock it if done properly and in a subtle way.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 31, 2013)

infared said:


> I love using HDR...but beauty is in the eye of the beholder....always.



The real question/issue is: _What is HDR?_

The Wikipedia definition that hdr is when you've maxed out your digital imaging's dr for one shot is moronic for image evaluation purposes because in this case the same shot can be hdr or not!

For me, hdr is when your mind tells you (subjectively) that this whole scene is something you'd never be able to see with your own bare eyes. but you'd have to look at specific parts and let your eyes/mind adjust. You can get this effect from merging shots and tonemapping, or from a single shot by too much pp, esp. raising the shadows too much. If this results in a plastic/artificial/cgi look I'm not a big fan anymore, and the links above look like software rendered images, nice shots though.

I personally like hdr a lot for night scenes and for gently getting around blown highlights though (windows to the outside, the sun). And I know people who didn't do as much hdr as I did go "wow!" looking at an old school hdr shot when I go "Harrrrggnnnn"


----------



## gecko (Jul 31, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> Anyone who thinks HDR is ridiculous, I'd like to hear why..



It's just another technique, whic can be done well or OTT.

My rule of thumb; if I look at an image and my first reaction is 'oh, HDR', then it's more likely to be OTT than done well.


----------



## LewisShermer (Jul 31, 2013)

It's a question of taste and refinement, as with anything, some folk just don't know when to stop. It's also a matter of style. some HDR is done amazingly with regards to exposure and composition, some is really bad. some shallow DoF is done amazingly, some is realllllly bad (I'm quite an offender of the DoF thing combined with a little cross processing...). BUT... you wouldn't tell Van Gogh to stop painting with those daft lines and do a realistic painting like Michelangelo, nor would you say to Picasso to stop it with the ridiculous shapes and colours.

If an artist can do what they do well, then kudos to them.

There are some god awful HDR's out there. You just have to look at the ad's that are used on these forums. If beginners see them and think "that must be good, it's advertised on a photography forum" then we can't blame them. Same with those ads that advertise the model retouching software...


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 31, 2013)

I like natural-looking HDR. I don't want comic/artificial-looking HDR. Sometimes I want a picture that's the almost the same with what my eye can see. It's my personal preference though.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Jul 31, 2013)

Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print. You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights. It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.


----------



## Cannon Man (Jul 31, 2013)

I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural. I don't like it AT ALL.

Isn't the idea to expand the dynamic range but i don't think HDR does that well.
If you combine 3 pictures with different exposures the blacks will have detail and whites are not blown out but what happens to the parts that were already exposed well and now there's two unnecessary layers what looked good already.
The end result is not pleasing. It seems everyone overdoes it too?? or the whole process just ruins the photo no matter what you do.

I don't know everything about it and because i hate the look it gives i have never tried it.

And i doubt i will ever try. I'll just stick with good looking exposures and other more normal looking enhancements.


----------



## infared (Jul 31, 2013)

fugu82 said:


> Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.



Thanks, fugu!


----------



## LewisShermer (Jul 31, 2013)

infared said:


> fugu82 said:
> 
> 
> > Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.
> ...



In agreement. there's a reason for what you've done and it's executed well with regards to composition and exposure & you've not made it just look ridiculous. It's tasteful and a pleasure to look at


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 31, 2013)

As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jul 31, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.



Really? You probably just haven't noticed them then.



> And i doubt i will ever try. I'll just stick with good looking exposures and other more normal looking enhancements.



A (not overdone) HDR is the most natural looking enhancement you can make to a photo as it merely overcomes the limitations of the camera and produces a result that more closely resembles what the eye can see e.g. detail in the subject as well as the sky.

Tell me, does jdramirez's photograph taken in Colonial Williamsberg look near natural? I can tell you that the non-HDR version would look much less natural.

I think you're just reacting against HDR that's been taken to the extreme and somehow oblivious that it can also be subtle.


----------



## CTJohn (Jul 31, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print. You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights. It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.


Agree. I use HDR quite often to expand dynamic range, but am sure to make it subtle. My complaint about HDR is the overuse of the sliders, resulting in a comic book look. It's the same problem I have with over-saturation, and over-sharpening that seems the norm too often.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 31, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.



Imho that's a nice one and is how I'd expect good hdr to be, it impvoves the mood w/o too much tonal range compression - though the postcard colors doesn't really improve the "natural" feel, ymmv of course


----------



## bvukich (Jul 31, 2013)

My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots. Looks natural to me. Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 31, 2013)

bvukich said:


> My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots. Looks natural to me. Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.



Though I'm doing these shots not with "real" hdr (i.e. merging every pixel & tonemapping) but exposure fusion (1px input = 1px output) which looks more natural to me out of the box, but doesn't work on every picture.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 31, 2013)

HDR gets a bad reputation because anyone with a camera and a computer can attempt it and post their "work" to the World Wide Web. Post processing is a completely different skill set from photography and takes work and time to master. Automated HDR programs / filters in the wrong hands will just produce junk. On the other hand, in the right hands, it's just another tool for an artist to express his/her vision.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 31, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.



Yeah this one is cool. Makes me think the application would work well for B&W for a photo like this too...



bvukich said:


> My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots. Looks natural to me. Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.



I like this one. I plan on messing around with shots like this indoors....

Thanks for the input everyone. I'm in agreement with most all of the comments except Cannon MAn lol (no offense). But really, that just proves everything is subjective...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 31, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I can answer that. It is because people take it too far. Using HDR in difficult lighting situations is perfectly acceptable. But to make it feel like you are tripping on acid... it isn't nearly as cool of an image as you want it to be.



+1


----------



## Zv (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/6852135367/#in/set-72157628661905185


----------



## danjwark (Jul 31, 2013)

I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.


----------



## infared (Jul 31, 2013)

danjwark said:


> I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.



Well said!


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 31, 2013)

danjwark said:


> I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.



This is basically the explanation I was assuming without having read anything else explaining it like this until now... But I was starting to second guess my interpretation after hearing so many generally negative comments regarding HDR. 




Zv said:


> I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/6852135367/#in/set-72157628661905185



Love that photo..


----------



## infared (Jul 31, 2013)

Zv said:


> I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zanjum/6852135367/#in/set-72157628661905185



Very nice balance!


----------



## Zv (Jul 31, 2013)

infared said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.
> ...



Thanks Jay and Infared I appreciate the comments.


----------



## Vern (Jul 31, 2013)

I guess I think about it on three levels: 1) what is the artist's intention; 2) did they achieve their intent and is it technically sound; 3) do I enjoy the resulting art?

I love HDR and sometimes I want it to look fairly realistic - similar to what I would experience in the moment but I need HDR b/c of the dynamic range. Sometimes I want the photo to look like a painting or somewhat 'magical'. Here are two examples that fit these extremes (more or less). The snow scene had a large dynamic range and I am happy with the technical result - you can see the grain of the snow in the highlights and the detail in the shadows. I'm not 100% happy w the composition, but the HDR added to the shot. The midsummer's day in Sweden is intentionally painterly - I wanted to invoke the timelessness of the ritual and did not want it to look 'natural'. I like it, but no one else has to - i.e. - #3.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2013)

When HDR is used to allow a wider DR, it can look very natural. Often, its over done and looks unrealistic. In the end, its a matter of personal preferences, we don't all like the same things.


----------



## Joellll (Jul 31, 2013)

Without HDR, I wouldn't have been able to make this shot. Most of the time, a visible light source is already strong enough to blow out highlights, but with HDR, I have much more wiggle room, especially in dimly lit situations where the sky is dark, and I don't want the lighting to have a strong spotlight effect, simply because the lack of dynamic range from the camera.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=304136873054213&set=pb.277925329008701.-2207520000.1375287483.&type=3&theater


----------



## LewisShermer (Jul 31, 2013)

infared said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.
> ...



Yeah, everything looks natural on that. I wouldn't have even guessed it was HDR, just a real nicely exposed night scene


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 31, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.



Perhaps it is because a good HDR shot does not look like an "HDR shot" but looks more natural, like what you would actually see with your eye.

A bad HDR shot looks like HDR.

So unless the image was identified as being HDR, you may have looked at natural looking shots and not known they were HDR.

But if you look at bad HDR shots, you know you are looking at HDR. 

That is one of the reasons I like Exposure Stacking as opposed to actual HDR.


----------



## RGF (Jul 31, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I can answer that. It is because people take it too far. Using HDR in difficult lighting situations is perfectly acceptable. But to make it feel like you are tripping on acid... it isn't nearly as cool of an image as you want it to be.



+1000. Natural looking is great. Grunge is can be really nice or over done. More often than not, it is over done.


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 31, 2013)

As so many others said before me HDR (tonemapping) is just a technique. You can use it to keep more DR in your final, realistic result, you can use it to create a cartoonish/painting/ridiculous result, or you can flirt with the gray area in between.
Here is an example of the latter:


----------



## Vern (Jul 31, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> As so many others said before me HDR (tonemapping) is just a technique. You can use it to keep more DR in your final, realistic result, you can use it to create a cartoonish/painting/ridiculous result, or you can flirt with the gray area in between.
> Here is an example of the latter:



Anthony - I think that is a great shot and not too artificial. There are days or moments when the light can be almost that perfect - HDR just makes that moment "now".


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 31, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> Here is an example of the latter:



I like this.. its obvious it's HDR but not overdone—in fact, I'd argue its probably MORE realistic (in terms of what your eye sees) than a photo with a blown out sky. But again... depends on what you're going for. I'd rather judge the execution of what someone is intending to do, rather than blindly judging the use of a technique.



RGF said:


> +1000.



Well I assume this thread won't reach enough comments to get 1001 votes on a contradicting opinion.... so I guess this means...

/thread

lol


----------



## thedman (Jul 31, 2013)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.
> ...



Exactly. Everybody hates HDR because the only time they realize HDR has been used is when it's done poorly. Nobody looks at a perfectly natural image and says "What a great HDR!", because they don't even know it's HDR.


----------



## Zv (Aug 1, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Thanks, I guess it's not the normal use of HDR to get shadow detail. Instead I went the other way to get detail in the highlights, which only makes up a small part of the image. The only way to get the green sign to expose correctly was at like -5EC or something.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 1, 2013)

Check out the work of Trey Ratcliff. He is a renowned specialist in employing HDR in the realm of travel photography, thus his website "Stuck In Customs". His work is tasteful and well done, always working to enhance an image with purpose and not just throw a lot of effects in for effects' sake.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/

I used his tutorials to produce the following three HDR images. I don't know about anyone else but I think I did a pretty good job with them:


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 1, 2013)

so just to /thread:

HDR is fine as long as it's made so realisticly than you can barely tell it's HDR. Artistic attemps of over cooking might have good intentions but, even well done, quite a few people hate them.

Can we all agree on that? Group hug!


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 1, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> so just to /thread:
> 
> HDR is fine as long as it's made so realisticly than you can barely tell it's HDR. Artistic attemps of over cooking might have good intentions but even well done quite a few people hate them.
> 
> Can we all agree on that? Group hug!



That sounds about right. I will say, early in my "HDR" days, if the image was boring (subject is blah), then I would cook the image and make it look crazy... but over time... yeah... we all live and learn.


----------



## infared (Aug 1, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> so just to /thread:
> 
> HDR is fine as long as it's made so realisticly than you can barely tell it's HDR. Artistic attemps of over cooking might have good intentions but, even well done, quite a few people hate them.
> 
> Can we all agree on that? Group hug!



Yes...and the other end of that spectrum is....if I wanted all of my images to look like Kodachrome 25 from 1967 (with no fill flash). Then I would not have spent all of this money on a digital camera system and a powerful computer. We can do so much more now....I love to bring more tonal range out of images with the new tech...


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 1, 2013)

What's wrong with HDR? It's not cool like RAW. Seriously. You don't see I shoot HDR T-Shirts. 

HDR is Photography's whipping boy, It's Honey Boo-Boo. HDR is the Octo-Mom. HDR is Lance Armstrong
RAW is the Crown Prince., It's Morgan Freeman, It's Michael Bublé. HDR is Lance Armstrong 3 years ago.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 1, 2013)

infared said:


> Grumbaki said:
> 
> 
> > so just to /thread:
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 1, 2013)

I think the whole point is that many destroy the tonal range when trying to produce 'HDR' images.

Not yours ( infared ) though. You produce a unique image which is quite pleasing


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 1, 2013)

HDR is just a technique.
Like in medicine: the dosis makes it helpful or poison.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Aug 1, 2013)

Well.. it IS essentially a creative filter.. as it represents something that is not what you saw, not what the camera captured, and not what anyone else would see if they viewed the scene that was captured - i.e.: a filtered effect or process.. ;=)

If you pose the question from a different direction you might better understand someone else's opposition. (Do you think EVERY shot you take, or anyone else takes, always looks better in some HDR representation?? Of course not, that is why some people consider it more of editing effect than a necessary shooting mode.)

From what I read and hear I think the real opposition is to the effect its popularity has had on manufacturers, given that it is simply the latest fad in photography, where development resources are spent on achieving greater dynamic range than can be perceived by the human eye as if it is some kind of requirement to photography.. In some cases it is pursued to the technology's detriment. As an example I give you Nikon's latest models from the D800 to the D7100 or whatever monstrosity came out last. Nikon has focused so much attention on achieving high dynamic range high megapixels bodies that they have actually 'reintroduced' grain back in digital photography! For those not in photography before the digital age, grain was eliminated with the very first digital bodies, not at all ISO settings of course, but at base ISO. As the technology matured we saw grain free 200 ISO, then 400 ISO, and today as high as 3200 ISO with certain bodies… To reintroduce grain as Nikon is doing (visible as low as 320 ISO in some of their bodies) is just insane, not only from a photographic sense, but especially given that it is all in the pursuit of selling dynamic range and megapixels to consumers who are more interested in spec sheets and rating tables than photography.

As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.

(btw - HDR processing/printing isn't new, hence the curiosity people have over its new found popularity, it is almost as old as photography itself. We just did it in the dark room back in the day..)


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 1, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> (btw - HDR processing/printing isn't new, hence the curiosity people have over its new found popularity, it is almost as old as photography itself. We just did it in the dark room back in the day..)



+1 We used to call it dodging and burning (yes you can dodge and burn in PS, but it's much easier in the wet darkroom)


----------



## agierke (Aug 1, 2013)

> As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.



No dslr or film stock has ever come close to recording what the human eye is capable of seeing. We are capable of seeing 256 shades of grey total. In optimal conditions the average human eye can see up to 100 shades of grey at once with that number falling lower depending on lighting conditions. Every single variance of photographic format and technique is simply a representation of what we see as human beings. 

The terms "accurate" and "realistic" are highly subjective when it comes to photography representing what we see.

I use 2 different techniques when I want to expand the range of tones in a scene in the digital format. The first being a manual merging of bracketed shots in photoshop (if I am going for the "realistic" look) and the second being the automated HDR technique via plugin software (when I want a more stylized look). 

Both require a ton of effort in post to pull off successfully. Most "HDR" photos that I see suffer from 1 or 2 critical mistakes. Either mishandling of the technique (wether it be inappropriate lighting, insufficient bracketing, or straight up slider delirium ie overcooked file) or unfinished post-production after the file emerges from the HDR process (halos not corrected, noise not being corrected, localized color shifting not being addressed, etc )

The only attempts I find egregious are the files where the tonal range ends up getting anhialated and file photo looks like a chalky washed out mess. Whenever I use either method I try to protect and enhance my tones throughout the scene (zone 1 through 10) making sure that I still have rich shadows, rich highlights, and pure blacks and whites.

In the hands of a proficient photographer these techniques can be very useful and successful.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 1, 2013)

The HDR has to be subtle or it doesn't work, IMHO. 


------------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## infared (Aug 1, 2013)

agierke said:


> > As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh...let the light shine in...you are totally on target.


----------



## silvestography (Aug 1, 2013)

gferdinandsen said:


> Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print. You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights. It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.



I beg to differ. Don't you think dodging and burning is much more analogous to tweaking a RAW file? Without doing anything too crazy technique-wise, there wasn't really any equivalent to HDR in the film days.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 1, 2013)

silvestography said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print. You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights. It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.
> ...



True... HDR should be used to fix over/under exposure, not exaggerate it like dodging and burning


----------



## Smurf1811 (Aug 1, 2013)

Two HDR-Pictures from my Trip to Las Vegas...


----------



## agierke (Aug 2, 2013)

to illustrate my earlier points:

here are two examples of hand assembling bracketed shots to achieve greater dynamic range while maintaining a "realistic" look.












here are two examples where Photomatix was used and where a more "illustrative" look was the intent.












all four images required significant retouching after assembling to maintain the integrity that i personally feel a photo should have (density, contrast, saturation, tonal qualities, and tonal gradations). 

i certainly understand if a particular aesthetic doesn't appeal to an individual. my particular position is that if a "look" is appropriate for the subject matter then i accept it as part of the photographic experience. i will be critical of using a certain "look" simply for the sake of using it, without thought or regard as to how it informs the viewer.

arguments dismissing certain techniques as "cheating" or "wrong" or not "photographic" are just silly to me and represent such a narrow view of photography as a whole that i tend to find it just plain useless.

anyway...my 2 cents.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 5, 2013)

HDR gives the photographer great power

Voltaire - "With great power comes great responsibility"

HDR is not the problem. It is up to the photographer whether to use HDR for good or evil in the world. ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Aug 15, 2013)

It's ugly.


----------

