# Your *worst* hdr creations ("skeleton in the closet" thread)



## Marsu42 (Sep 29, 2014)

Now we know we're all great photogs, well, at least we would be if our cameras would have more resolution and dynamic range . But there is an infamous fix for the latter: bracket the scene, let loose the tonemapping app of your choice and dial everything to 11!

Looking at the neighboring "best hdr shots" thread, I've got the impression that a typical photog evolution seems to include loving surreal hdr shots with histogram inversion (i.e. parts that were darker in the original now is brigher). *So here's your chance to show courage and let the world see your very early creations!*

_Note 1:_ Please only link/post your own shots and not those of others around CR, even if it is tempting :->

_Note 2:_ No cheating, only real skeletons in your closet, unlike saying "My weaknesses are perfectionism and forgetting to cash in my overtime slips" in a job interview.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> bracket the scene, let loose the tonemapping app of your choice and dial everything to 11!



My first entry is also my very first hdr shot, right after buying my shiny new 60d! Seemed like "instant art" to me back then


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 29, 2014)

I experiment to some extent. Will see if I have anything barf-worthy that still exists on my disks...


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > bracket the scene, let loose the tonemapping app of your choice and dial everything to 11!
> ...



Everyone has these art shots hidden in the hard drive somewhere. I'll check tomorrow and post the particularly ghastly ones. ;D


----------



## tolusina (Sep 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > bracket the scene, let loose the tonemapping app of your choice and dial everything to 11!
> ...


There are some scenes, mostly junkyards, ruins and such that seem to do well as overcooked HDR subjects, I think you've got such a scene here. 
Would you happen to have a larger version of this one to post? Please?
---
Dang! See my avatar? It's part of a local, what I call a modern ruin, construction never completed. The site sat abandoned for 15 years. It had a very stark and surreal beauty, I think a SciFi movie or two got filmed there.
Had juicy financial scandals, swindles and frauds associated with it.
Anyway, I shoulda wish I woulda thought of doing and then done done some overcooked HDR at that site, they've now torn it down, the opportunity is gone forever.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 30, 2014)

Yes but to really take it over the top why not play with wide angle perspective at the same time.


----------



## zim (Sep 30, 2014)

Guilty as charged m'lud

But in my defence it was in a folder named 'practice' :-[
Really nailed the o'l halo effect, hate hate hate it, I have no idea why I even kept it, maybe just in case a topic came up which I felt competent to participate in ;D


----------



## NancyP (Sep 30, 2014)

What causes the annoying halo?


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 30, 2014)

NancyP said:


> What causes the annoying halo?


I think it relates to overdoing the local contrast, if I remember correctly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 30, 2014)

Funny thread. I have nothing to post though as I strongly try to avoid this look (although it is popular with many and I've even seen it do a lot for some people's sales.)


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 30, 2014)

This is my only kept one. I believe it fits as one my earliest attempts IIRC.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 30, 2014)

NancyP said:


> What causes the annoying halo?



It's caused by the hdr software being dumb and just assembling the source brackets according to exposure with no concern for the image content (how could it?). I find this to be a great problem with a *lot* of tonemapped shots, even with ones that are considered good by their authors.

Esp. with parts of trees or something else tall reaching into the sky, it's a halo and/or the top part of the object going suddenly very dark. The latter probably like our eye sees the world, but it isn't supposed to be in a single image.


----------



## zim (Sep 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > What causes the annoying halo?
> ...



As I think I ably demonstrated ;D ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 1, 2014)

Hi Marsu! 

I would have voted "_Nope_", because I normally don't do HDR and also haven't really tried it out.
I was kept from doing so because of the "_I've got taste_" and I think that's not fair (although with humor).
I understand that it's fascinating and that a lot of people like this kind of art. And so it's just a different taste.

My approach to digital photography was always the one of the film days with having the convenience of the digital age during pp.

So therefore I cannot share any "skeleton in the closet". But it's fun to look at the pics others share here. Thanks.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 1, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> I was kept from doing so because of the "_I've got taste_" and I think that's not fair (although with humor).
> I understand that it's fascinating and that a lot of people like this kind of art. And so it's just a different taste.



Well, it's a fun thread, and I really do hope no one feels offended. I amended the option with a ;-) just to make sure the point comes across.



Maximilian said:


> So therefore I cannot share any "skeleton in the closet". But it's fun to look at the pics others share here. Thanks.



I hope people keep participating, I find many photogs are way too serious about what they do - in many good movie dvds, there are "outtakes" with embarrassing scenes, and that doesn't diminish the quality of the product.



DominoDude said:


> I promised to enter something, but I had tossed a lot. Here's one where I just experimented to see what I could get from HDR in a situation that I haven't figured out what to do with - yet.



Excellent shot for educational purposes, because it proves that you cannot improve a shot just by juggling with exposure or dynamic range! Imho, what needs to be done here is a completely different lighting like putting several flashes to the sides between the trees, with just 2x front/backlighting it will always look awful.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 1, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Well, it's a fun thread, and I really do hope no one feels offended.
> ...
> I find many photogs are way too serious about what they do


Of course I got that humor right  , and of course - as many Germans - I am too often too serious  , but I'm working on that. :-\
And as I said, looking at all those images is also fun to me. 
And also a good justification to stay away form this technique and kind of art - for me 

Thanks for the idea of that thread.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 1, 2014)

I can't vote as there is no option suitable for me.

"Nope, I've got taste ;-p" comes close but I don't like the last part as it is insulting to other photographers. Photographic "taste" (whatever that means) is an individual preference. Just because I don't like some types of HDR does not mean that those photographers who do like it have no taste. 

Photography is art. If the photographer is happy with the result, then from an artistic (not commercial) viewpoint it is a good photograph.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 1, 2014)

I was a member of a Facebook group for nature photographers. If you posted what I think is a proper image, you could get 30-40 likes and a comment or two. If you on the other hand posted a +/-3EV HDR, especially fall images with some water in it, which had been through the complete photoshop color and contrast massacre, you get 500 likes and 50 comments. I just don't get it ...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I was a member of a Facebook group for nature photographers. If you posted what I think is a proper image, you could get 30-40 likes and a comment or two. If you on the other hand posted a +/-3EV HDR, especially fall images with some water in it, which had been through the complete photoshop color and contrast massacre, you get 500 likes and 50 comments. I just don't get it ...



Because the HDR image looks "different" and novelity attracts the eye. The picture looks different and people will spend a little longer looking at it and hence generate more likes/comments. 

There are also some views who like the more graphic art aspect of the more severe HDR. 

In my opinion, there is a point where HDR stops being photography and becomes more computer graphic art.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 1, 2014)

I replied "sure, still do," but only because there are occasions where having a surreal image is what the photographer intended. Sometimes I like that crazy look - most of the time not. I wish I could select "sure, but sometimes" as a poll option. 

I've dabbled with HDR a bit and ended up with a cartoonish looking picture of my house. I ended up laughing at it because it looked ridiculous. I haven't tried it since.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 1, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> I've dabbled with HDR a bit and ended up with a cartoonish looking picture of my house. I ended up laughing at it because it looked ridiculous.



What about contributing a shot?


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > I've dabbled with HDR a bit and ended up with a cartoonish looking picture of my house. I ended up laughing at it because it looked ridiculous.
> ...



Here you go. My house taken with at T1i and 10-22 Lens. I didn't think the house itself was bad, but the sky (setting sun) looked odd to me. Also, pay no mind to the sad looking weed bed in the front of my house.


----------



## SwampYankee (Oct 11, 2014)

how about this beauty?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> I didn't think the house itself was bad, but the sky (setting sun) looked odd to me.



In my experience, with these auto-tonemapped hdr shots it's quite easy to get the sky colors looking really strange - as proven by you 



SwampYankee said:


> how about this beauty?



Thanks, excellent entry :-> ... for a tonemapped shot, the darks are still rather dark (= it could have gotten even uglier), but the post-nuclear war sun is really something!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 11, 2014)

This is probably the first HDR I shot with a DSLR (40D). The high fps made it possible to have people in the frame, but the result is pretty horrible. WFIW I don't do HDR anymore.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 11, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> but the result is pretty horrible. WFIW I don't do HDR anymore.



This is a good example why hdr "flat" tonemapping doesn't replace artificial lighting - at some compression level, it simply doesn't look real anymore even if there would be more contrast in it.

Keep 'em coming people, show that you're brave enough to stand by your early creations


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 12, 2014)

Did give it a try, but feel like is too REAL


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Did give it a try, but feel like is too REAL



Interesting - tonemapped hdr seems to work better on "unreal anyway" sfi-fi interiors than on a natural environment, I'll try to remember that.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Oct 16, 2014)

When I started out with photography, I did try the tone mapping technique, only to never look at the images again. Well, not until now...

Those were shot during my stay in the Netherlands, no needs for critics and comments.

Now, I feel like regular processing of images is already difficult so I better leave HDR tone mapping out of the equation. At worse, I might try to combine exposures, both no more HDR.


----------



## iron-t (Oct 16, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Yes but to really take it over the top why not play with wide angle perspective at the same time.



First off, I love this thread. Second, tcmatthews, these entries are awesome! I tip my hat to your gamely post of these beasts.


----------



## RGF (Oct 17, 2014)

Vic Falls - over processed.


----------

