How much HDR is too much?

[Beau Hudspeth]

Good day all.

This question is based more on ones personal preference rather then 'hard science' but I was wondering what you all think.

When you are viewing or creating an image in HDR, do you tend to like more realism in the image or more of the heavily processed artistic look that can be created?

I, myself, tend to stay closer to the realistic side of the processing end of the spectrum. My idea of what an HDR image is: is the ability to represent, in one image, the wide contrast and color range there is viewable with the naked eye while maintaining a look that is neither fake or unrealistic.

The example I will use of the unrealistic aspect or HDR is when shooting a set with trees in it. After processing, the images branches against the sky look pillowed due to the bright and dark edges. This is what you see when you use very little to no light smoothing during the HDR process. That, to my eye is unrealistic - there are no 'pillows' or very obvious halos when I look at a tree against the sky. Our eyes/brain compensate for it so we can see both the clouds in the sky as well as the bark on the tree.

As I said, I'm just looking for what people think of as the 'correct exposure' in their minds.

PS: Feel free to post examples of what you think of as not enough, just right and too much.

[canonloader]

IMO, there is no correct exposure possible with HDR. You can adjust the sliders in the software to get close to reality, but all these programs work by manipulating the liminosity of each pixel, no matter what color it is. That's how it lightens shadows and darkens highlights, and that certainly is not how our eyes see reality. Photmatix has an option to do exposure blending, and that's about as close to reality as you can get when using digital or film images, but that is not HDR.

But, I prefer the slightly processed artistic look for some, and the more extreme look for others. I do not have any problem accepting HDR as an art form or a scientific tool. Some have a real problem with it though and complain that HDR has just gone from "real" photography, whatever that is, to art. :lol:

[Oneslowz28]

Please see Zackers post in this section to see what I believe is the perfect HDR renderings.

[ArcticShooter]

IMO, there is no correct exposure possible with HDR. You can adjust the sliders in the software to get close to reality, but all these programs work by manipulating the liminosity of each pixel, no matter what color it is. That's how it lightens shadows and darkens highlights, and that certainly is not how our eyes see reality. Photmatix has an option to do exposure blending, and that's about as close to reality as you can get when using digital or film images, but that is not HDR.

But, I prefer the slightly processed artistic look for some, and the more extreme look for others. I do not have any problem accepting HDR as an art form or a scientific tool. Some have a real problem with it though and complain that HDR has just gone from "real" photography, whatever that is, to art. :lol:

I agree with you on this. You have to look at what you have in your image. And then base the further processing from there.

Please see Zackers post in this section to see what I believe is the perfect HDR renderings.

Zacker has some amazing HDRs. He have found his type of image that he prefers. If he suddenly starts to take wide landscapes and process the same, they might look funny.
But you never know with him, it might be extraordinary

[zacker]

i believe that it depends on the scene, the users preference and what the viewer wants. I like (love) the more (paint, cartoony, plastic) look like the ones i make, but then again, I do enjoy looking at some of the really well done, realistic ones too.. I guess im 50/50 on this.

[Duder]

I despise the fake/cartoon/unrealistic/haloed images. It's a horrible gimmick and I can't understand why anyone likes it...just looks like really poor processing. Then again, people can do what they want with their own images.

[Beau Hudspeth]

I despise the fake/cartoon/unrealistic/haloed images. It's a horrible gimmick and I can't understand why anyone likes it...just looks like really poor processing. Then again, people can do what they want with their own images.Hey, Duder ... do you have an example you can show us of what you think is the ideal look of HDR?

[ArcticShooter]

Hey, Duder ... do you have an example you can show us of what you think is the ideal look of HDR?

I think that some of theReal7's HDRs are as good as they get :)

[canonloader]

Yeah, Scotts stuff is definately closer to the real look. On the other hand, Craigs stuff is very extreme, but excellent in it's own way. I love looking at both. :)

[Beau Hudspeth]

I think that some of theReal7's HDRs are as good as they get :)I tend to agree. He and I tend to produce ones with a similar look.

Yeah, Scotts stuff is definitely closer to the real look. On the other hand, Craig s stuff is very extreme, but excellent in it's own way. I love looking at both. :)Which Craig is that?

[S-S]

realism ftw

[luigis]

You are asking about the level of tonemapping, not exposure.

I think different tonemappings are fine for different scenes, excessive tonemapping is nice for vehicles, planes sometimes people.
Realistic tonemapping is great for glass and landscapes.

When the dynamic range of the scene is not very big an excessive or double tonemapping is a good idea because otherwise the HDR is more or less the same as a regular picture. When the dynamic range is really big a realistic HDR has impact.

Luigi

[ptbarnum]

I've been experimenting with different ways to approach the process of creating a HDR images. I've been using one image then created multiple exposures with some presets I made in LR and the results are interesting and look very natural.

example:
I think it replicate what the eye initially sees when composing a shot.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2880235985_4145f03bf2_b.jpg

[Duder]

Hey, Duder ... do you have an example you can show us of what you think is the ideal look of HDR?

I don't think there is an ideal 'look' for an image with a high dynamic range, since the main purpose of using the HDR technique is simply to provide higher quality detail in the highlights/shadows. By producing an HDR, and restoring/improving detail in the image, the final processed look can be whatever the creator decides (depending on skill/expertise in PP).

This is my best example of a truly high dynamic range image, as it simply wouldn't have been remotely possible to capture all the detail in a single exposure. I needed 7 exposures in all 2 stops apart to cover the dynamic range of the scene, and obviously I was going for realism in processing the final version.

http://www.pbase.com/petejackson/image/67298946/original.jpg

[jdizzle]

I don't think there is an ideal 'look' for an image with a high dynamic range, since the main purpose of using the HDR technique is simply to provide higher quality detail in the highlights/shadows. By producing an HDR, and restoring/improving detail in the image, the final processed look can be whatever the creator decides (depending on skill/expertise in PP).

This is my best example of a truly high dynamic range image, as it simply wouldn't have been remotely possible to capture all the detail in a single exposure. I needed 7 exposures in all 2 stops apart to cover the dynamic range of the scene, and obviously I was going for realism in processing the final version.

http://www.pbase.com/petejackson/image/67298946/original.jpg
Excellent as always Pete!:) I also favor the natural look if you're doing HDRs but, it really comes down to preference in the end for the photog.

[ArcticShooter]

Yes this is really an eye catcher. If this have been highly overdone it would have looked funny. So I think we can be safe to say that landscape like this looks best this way.

But if you had a cottage or something in the close foreground it could have looked nice overdone. But here the composition is focused on the mountain so I think it is perfect like this.

[NorCal 2500HD]

I think it comes down to personal pref and what one enjoys looking at. Some people I know cant stand HDR, but others love it....heres 2 of mine...
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y45/norcal2500hd/Bronze-Kids.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y45/norcal2500hd/Sillmancenter.jpg

[canonloader]

Which Craig is that?
His forum name is Zacker.

[zacker]

I think they are both good, real / unreal.. i think people just NEED to know the difference between HDR and TONEMAPPED.. alot of folks will throw the sliders right as far as they can and say "Look, its an HDR" as will alot of folks see a heavilly tone mapped image and say "Ewww, I hate HDR" not knowing the difference.. Petes Image is HDR, alot of mine arent really, although i use multiple exposures and I use Photomatix or DPHDR to make the starter image, I do alot more processing than just a bit of tonemapping. I try to make the kind of images i like to see...

[Beau Hudspeth]

Good info thus far all.

[zacker]

Nice album Beau.. (I got an old Betterphoto album there someplace..lol)

[Beau Hudspeth]

I saw that ... but it was empty ...;)

[canonloader]

After seeing you guys' photosites, I can say, I have a loooong way to go. :lol:

[Beau Hudspeth]

After seeing you guys' photo sites, I can say, I have a loooong way to go. :lol:Well fire up that HDR SW and get crackin' mister! :lol:

[canonloader]

HA, I use it every day now. My problem is scenes and subjects to use it on. Small town is kind of limited in grand buildings. :)

[S-S]

Good info thus far all.

HERE (http://www.betterphoto.com/Premium/Gallery.aspx?iPage=1&id=80048&cat=3120&mp=V3) are a few examples of what I tend to shoot for. You can click the thumbs on the left for a better view.

beau LOVE that chessboard pic and your other work is really stunning too
i assume you have done courses with betterphoto... how did you find them? i have been considering them for a while now

[Beau Hudspeth]

I have never taken a photography course outside of the one I took back in 1983 - and it was not useful at all. :D

As for the BP courses: I see that a lot of folks there have taken them, but the majority still seem to take bad photos. I'm not sue if that reflects on the course or the student :|

[Avi]

checked your album...it was amazing...very nice images there...

Avi

[zacker]

i took one about shooting creativly and did learn some stuff.. it was with Tony Sweet.. the problem is, I dont retain ifo that well and seem to "forget" everything i learned when im out in the feild shooting..lol I can hardly remember the rule of thirds.

I was on BP for awhile but let the subscription on my site run out so they cut it back to the free version and I guess now thats gone too... lol

[Beau Hudspeth]

checked your album...it was amazing...very nice images there...

AviThanx Avi!

i took one about shooting creativly and did learn some stuff.. it was with Tony Sweet.. the problem is, I dont retain ifo that well and seem to "forget" everything i learned when im out in the feild shooting..lol I can hardly remember the rule of thirds.

I was on BP for awhile but let the subscription on my site run out so they cut it back to the free version and I guess now thats gone too... lolThe rule of thirds is your friend! :lol:

[CameraBuff]

Now all those photos are awesome examples of HDR - wow!

[Beau Hudspeth]

Now all those photos are awesome examples of HDR - wow!
Thanx CB. but what is your answer to the question? ;)

[Collin85]

I definitely prefer realism. The overprocessed look never goes well with me in general. I only ever use HDR to enhance the tonal range of the image and for me atleast, it always creates somewhat of an artificial look. So personally, I actually try to avoid it if possible. As an example, for landscapes I'd much rather use the different exposures to merge several parts of the photos together manually in Photoshop, rather than say throwing them all together into Photomatix and seeing where it gets me.

[Collin85]

Thanx CB. but what is your answer to the question? ;)

I checked out your 'favorite image'. Boy, what a keeper! :lol:

[Beau Hudspeth]

Thanx Collin ... ;)

[Serrator]

To answer the original question...I strive for a more true toned or natural result.

I also enjoy the many variations that HDR/TM can produce. If we all created the exact same thing how boring would that be?? So I am never dismayed at a technique due to what I consider to be "bad" examples but try to focus on the great ones that I see.

Here are some of my HDR/TM journeys (all 3 exp 2 stops apart):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2736672969_6541b4aeab_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2709357044_82706a7e59_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/1461238383_568a194425_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1162/751640311_05b00cb28d_b.jpg

[Beau Hudspeth]

Man, that second one is KILLER. It looks like a HD game render. WELL done!

[Noel_]

Serrator is on point with it :) This is how cameras will shoot in a couple years ;)

[Cathpah]

serrator,
those are some great shots...especially that second one! mind telling us where it was taken? domestic, or abroad?!

[Serrator]

Thank you very much guys, I appreciate the input!

Also the second image is from Cottonwood Pass in Colorado, it is between Gunnison and Buena Vista. It is a very beautiful area and the pass is at ~12,126ft. We parked at the pass and backpacked in this last summer for about 10 miles...loved every minute of it.

Here is one more from the Cottonwood Pass area:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2769485529_bee92f4d7c_b.jpg

[Beau Hudspeth]

NICE!

[DougHerrick]

How much is too much? I think the underlying question is "what is photography?" Are those of us who make exposures simply recorders of the moment or artists who submit their own interpretation of their personal visual experience? Was Van Gogh a painter or an artist? He never sold a painting in his lifetime but now his work is priceless! What changed? Not him, but how people react to his paintings.
Personally, I like the images that demand an emotional response, something other than "Nice Picture". When someone see one of my images and says "I gotta have that!" I know I got my message across, I've expressed myself, I've created an image that stirs their imagination.
To answer your question: There is no "too much". The sky's the limit!!!
Doug

[canonloader]

Personally, I like the images that demand an emotional response, something other than "Nice Picture".
I have seen this argument numerous times, and I always think it isn't well thought out. The Nice Shot responses may be all the person is able to say at the time, yet they took the time to leave a response. There are as many reasons for the so called "terse" response as there are people who left them. A Nice Shot response is better than having your post drop off the bottom isn't it? Better than someone ripping you a new one? Personally, I use it more these days than I use to, and for a reason you might never understand. Until that is, you reach 62 yourself. It's not that that's all I want to say, I mean, look at my post count. A lot of times, it's all I feel up to leaving, if you know what I mean. Probably not, but you will, in time. ;)

[zacker]

i do that too mitch... i figure if you post a shot that doesnt have "Please critique" in the title, im not gonna critique it, if i like it, i will say. if i hate it, i will pass on being negative. I have seen many a flame war start (a whole lot of them here on POTN) because someone left critique on a photo that the OP didnt ask for. Not evry posted photo is looking for critique, alot of folks are just proud of their shots and want to share em.

[canonloader]

Craig, I pretty much did most of my posting in the Bird forum, and there is a sticky there that mentions we should all try and see to it that a post, no matter how bad the photography, never be let drop off the bottom. There are a whole slew of reasons for that maybe, but they all go back to making POTN a better place for everyone. There are some forums here where you can get 75 to a hundred views and not a single posted response. I think that sucks a lot of wind. People coming in and just looking, taking but never giving. Isn't that why the world is in this pickle now? If your going to be a member of a community, then be a member, not a lurker.

Anyway, it's better to say something, anything, even if it's short, than nothing at all. And I do leave long winded posts a lot of times to make up for it. ;)

[Tsmith]

Good job on those Serrator.

I strive to accomplish a natural looking photo as possible using three exposures.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/100361543/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/100204420/original.jpg

[canonloader]

Wow, those are beautiful.

[Jaykue]

interesting thread.

while i've got to agree with the many responses here that it is definitely up to the photographer and their interpretation that determines what is and isn't too much, I also have to refute by saying one needs to understand what makes good photography. for myself, it's not just one facet, but a combination of elements - composition, subject appeal, emotional response, and most of all, lighting and how it effects that scene. it's this combination that separates a merely average to good photo from a great one.

With that said, I find the way the majority of people use hdr (or maybe it is the purpose of HDR, I'm not sure, I've yet to experiment fully with it) takes away from lighting. the interplay of light and shade is removed and so you're taking away a fundamental part of the photo. In no way am I against slight surrealism either. I myself love processing, and do it very heavily, but you need to understand what you are trying to accomplish to add to the photo than simply just moving sliders up and down.

On the whole, I'm not a big fan, but I will experiment with it down the track. I have seen some commercial photographers do great things with it, especially when compositing photos together.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I'm not so much into landscapes anymore. But I use to try and do HDR... most HDR I can't stand (bad processing).

In this shot here, I tried to go for a natural look. Though I might have gone a little OTT with the colours. It's disneyland (Hong Kong) so who cares...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2632589715_b0ef84e8f7_b.jpg

It's when you get that horrible cartoon effect that makes me sick. BTW the people who posted those pervious landscape shots in HDR... AWESOME! If you didn't say, I couldn't tell they're HDR.

IMHO any HDR that looks like a cartoon*, or is too unreal, then it's too much (it's personal though).

*i.e. HDR that looks like HDR.

[canonloader]

A very interesting composition, but it looks a bit dark here.

[bunyarra]

Good job on those Serrator.

I strive to accomplish a natural looking photo as possible using three exposures.

That second image is a perfect example of HDR used to it's best effect. The scene looks natural and nothing makes you stop and think "fake".

[bunyarra]

IMHO any HDR that looks like a cartoon*, or is too unreal, then it's too much (it's personal though).

*i.e. HDR that looks like HDR.

I don't know if you have seen the work of Trey Ratcliff (www.stuckincustoms.com). With a few exceptions, his images are firmly in the unnatural-HDR camp yet, as a block of work, they are gorgeous.

The current rash of over-done HDR is undoubtly a phase - but the underlying technique remains uniquely valid for so many situations. Perhaps we are all too jaded about the effect to remember the awe we viewed those pioneers with when it burst onto the scene so many years ago. I know I still love to see Trey's work each time he posts.

[zacker]

I don't know if you have seen the work of Trey Ratcliff (www.stuckincustoms.com (http://www.stuckincustoms.com)). With a few exceptions, his images are firmly in the unnatural-HDR camp yet, as a block of work, they are gorgeous.



Wow thanks for that link... His photos are pretty sweet.. that guy does almost what i do word for word, except for the part about importing the original raw and darkest (+2 stop) file and tone mapped image into PS.. (i will try that though.)

again, thanks for the link!!

[Stealthy Ninja]

A very interesting composition, but it looks a bit dark here.

Looks OK on my calibrated monitor. ;)

It was dusk... which may explain something-a-rather about something-something...

[Stealthy Ninja]

I don't know if you have seen the work of Trey Ratcliff (www.stuckincustoms.com). With a few exceptions, his images are firmly in the unnatural-HDR camp yet, as a block of work, they are gorgeous.

The current rash of over-done HDR is undoubtly a phase - but the underlying technique remains uniquely valid for so many situations. Perhaps we are all too jaded about the effect to remember the awe we viewed those pioneers with when it burst onto the scene so many years ago. I know I still love to see Trey's work each time he posts.

I have seen it before actually.

Some I like, a lot I don't like (maybe just my opinion). I really like his Hong Kong pictures (I had one of them as my desktop at one stage).

I have nothing against HDR really. Just don't like the OTT stuff.

Here is another "HDR" I just did:

[bunyarra]

I have seen it before actually.

Some I like, a lot I don't like (maybe just my opinion). I really like his Hong Kong pictures (I had one of them as my desktop at one stage).

I have nothing against HDR really. Just don't like the OTT stuff.

Here is another "HDR" I just did

Nice Adrian ; a good example of a realistic HDR image.

Do you use photomatix? Can't seem to enamoured with it - never seem to get decent results.

[canonloader]

Can't seem to enamoured with it - never seem to get decent results.
Don't give up. And do go get the most recent update, V3.1 and use that. It's much better than anything previous. I have been trying to do HDR for two years now, many versions ago, and gave up several times. I was loving the look I saw at Flickr HDR Pool, but could not get anything like it here. Then one day, I Goggled some tutorials, bookmarked several and sat here and worked through three or four. I looked for the ones that gave actual slider settings, not the worthless ones that said to just play till you get something you liked. I finally was able to get something close to what I was seeing in the tutorials and since then, it's all been good and getting better. So don't give up, it's not that hard once you get that first one right. ;)

[-Douglas-]

and you can look here for some samples and settings you can download and have fun with!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=599859

[Serrator]

Good job on those Serrator.

I strive to accomplish a natural looking photo as possible using three exposures.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/100361543/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/100204420/original.jpg


Thanks TSmith!

Your "striving" to achieve natural results to me is spot on...great images! I feel like I am there.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Nice Adrian ; a good example of a realistic HDR image.

Do you use photomatix? Can't seem to enamoured with it - never seem to get decent results.

Thanks, but....

Ah HA!

Here is the truth. That photo is actually done in photoshop, playing with layers etc.

It isn't a HDR. It is a manipulated RAW file.

I just did it to prove that sometimes multiple shot HDR images are not as good as one RAW file. :D

Sneaky ain't I?! :p

I agree with you about photomatix. That one sort of sucks.