Sick of HDR

[cjc145]

I use HDR way too much, and as a beginning photographer, I think its a crutch from me actually learning to get great results the right way. I'm going to ditch it for a while. does anybody else ever feel this way?

[OdiN1701]

It has its place. But a lot of scenes have too much dynamic range to capture fully. So you can either do a few things:

HDR
Multiple-exposure blend in PS
Filters

Now if you use filters, you want good filters - Singh Ray. But they are very expensive.

I just use whatever method looks like it will work best on a particular scene.

[jrader]

Personally, I can't stand HDR, although I accept it as an art form. I'm a purist when it comes to photography, in that I try to take images that are as the eye would see. Most of the time, I do this by using filters (such as GNDs). Sometimes, however, it requires special techniques, such as exposure blending using masks/layers in Photoshop when the light in the scene is "complicated".

I honestly agree with you in that you should drift away from HDR and learn to do photography the right way, by learning about exposure and determining how to manage the light that is presented to you. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck doing HDR photography.

My thought: invest in some proper filters, learn how to (at least) spot meter, and learn to use Photoshop.

Just my 2 cents.

John

[chauncey]

I don't use filters...Use LR instead.

[Picture North Carolina]

As Odin says, it has its place. But yes, you are correct. But not only about HDR. Also consider some of the more dramatic plugins available for PS. To be sure they, as well as HDR, offer creative possibilities. But they also offer the ability to transform an otherwise mediocre image.

Do as you say. Shoot the good pic to begin with. Then if you transform it, it becomes better, and not just a mediocre shot becoming made acceptable.

[Lesmac]

I've always disliked HDR for a variety of reasons, but to continue your self proposals, I would agree entirely, photography is about the interpretation of light, understanding and using it to the best advantage, it's not about manipualting pixels in photoshop.

[chauncey]

Les, I find your comment about manipulating pixels in Photoshop puzzling, especially after looking at your website.
Where do you draw that line in the sand?

[lostid]

I tried HDR for a little while and quickly lost interest. I know that's not for my taste.

[jrader]

Les, I find your comment about manipulating pixels in Photoshop puzzling, especially after looking at your website.
Where do you draw that line in the sand?

Hate the sin, not the sinner!!! :P

John

[Exposure101]

I'm not really a big fan of HDR. I mean it has its place sometimes but most of the pix I've seen were too fake-looking.

[Lesmac]

Les, I find your comment about manipulating pixels in Photo shop puzzling, especially after looking at your website.
Where do you draw that line in the sand?


Not sure why you find it puzzling, as all my landscapes depend on finding/understanding and interpreting light. They are produced with camera/lens and filters, not relying on the bells and buzzers of PS for the final image or those ghastly HDR techniques.

[blackcap]

I use HDR way too much, and as a beginning photographer, I think its a crutch from me actually learning to get great results the right way. I'm going to ditch it for a while. does anybody else ever feel this way?

There are different ways to use HDR. Your style is the highly-saturated, cartoony look which is what a lot of people associate with HDR. But a lot of people use HDR to get natural-looking photos in place of filters. Personally I find it much easier to use grad filters or manual exposure blending as I just can't get the hang of HDR to get a natural look.

Chris
____________________________________
http://www.chrisgin.com (http://www.chrisgin.com/)

[sjones]

There are different ways to use HDR. Your style is the highly-saturated, cartoony look which is what a lot of people associate with HDR. But a lot of people use HDR to get natural-looking photos in place of filters. Personally I find it much easier to use grad filters or manual exposure blending as I just can't get the hang of HDR to get a natural look.

Chris

Yes, that's the irony of HDR, I believe it was first employed to capture a dynamic range similar to that which the eye naturally sees, but once discovered as a method to produce images that look like computer generated graphics, the fad could not be stopped. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it will become a permanent style, but it is one of which I am not very fond either way.

That said, I don't really believe in the concept of a "purist" photographer, since it effectively connotes that anyone not attempting to take a mirror image of the world is somehow impure.

[Karl Johnston]

I've recently moved into doing a lot of HDR....but for my purposes I'm using it to increase detail and sharpness and the dynamic range of course.

I don't like the overprocessed look of HDR, but I respect its usage as a tool, like anything.

Maybe you need a new tool to play with

[chauncey]

Les, "Not sure why you find it puzzling, as all my landscapes depend on finding/understanding and interpreting light. They are produced with camera/lens and filters, not relying on the bells and buzzers of PS for the final image or those ghastly HDR techniques."

If you don't use Photoshop or the like, where does your post processing take place?

[stathunter]

I've recently moved into doing a lot of HDR....but for my purposes I'm using it to increase detail and sharpness and the dynamic range of course.

I don't like the overprocessed look of HDR, but I respect its usage as a tool, like anything.

Maybe you need a new tool to play with

I too have started to use it......I personally do not like over processed HDR images or over processed Photoshopped imaged.

I have been experimenting with HDR on portraits and found that if used correctly can really bring an extra pop to them--- and even photographers do not recognize the use of the HDR in the image.

Find your niche and work within it--- but by no means forget to experiment and work outside of the rules and boundaries.

[colbyb25]

Well I for one believe that HDR definitely has its place as a form of art within the medium of photography. As SJones said, HDR was ment to produce an image that was more accurate to the human eye, which is irony in the fact that a number of people commenting on this form and in other places, complain that it isn't "pure". The idea of "pure" photography is laughable at best in my opinion. Even the great Ansel Adams used heavy chemicals to produce the red filters on his black and white images, creating very stunning sky scapes. One of my hero's in photography, Galen Rowell, learned to master the dark room as well. Now days, instead of a Dark Room we have the Digital Dark Room. Yes it is easier to "manipulate" a "pure" image, but that doesn't make it an less legit then any photograph taken over the last 100 years where someone "manipulated" the chemicals they used.

Photography is Art and Art is subjective to the individual both producing it and the one experiencing it. "Pure" or "true" photography doesn't exist beyond ones on subjective experience with a given piece.

[stathunter]

I agree with Colby-- I have been in this business long enough......no one consistenly "sells" straight out of the camera photos anymore.

[airfrogusmc]

I've recently moved into doing a lot of HDR....but for my purposes I'm using it to increase detail and sharpness and the dynamic range of course.

I don't like the overprocessed look of HDR, but I respect its usage as a tool, like anything.

Maybe you need a new tool to play with

Karl I think you make a very good point here. HDR is a tool and if used properly can be a very effective way to have a full range final print kinda like a color zone system on steroids. If done right you can hold detail in both highlights and shadows and extend dynamic range. But that means having a good knowledge of what detail you need to hold and making the correct exposures to blend. We've all seen images that suffer from strong technique like the Chernobyl effect I like to call it. I also like some of the stuff that is over cooked on purpose and has that old post card look. But the ones I do like are done that way for a visual purpose.

Only one example here; to many times I see HDRs that say theres a moon in the image and the moon has no detail:confused: Think of Adams and moonrise over hernanadez. Using the zone system and the knowledge of how many ft candles the moon had at 3/4s full he was with film able to hold the detail in the moon and still have great shadow detail in the landscape and hold those beautifully lit crosses in the grave yard and he only had one shot to do it with because after he made his first exposure the sun dipped behind the mountain behind him killing the light on the crosses.

With HDR you have the ability if done right to say shoot a room interior and through maybe two or there blended exposures be able to hold detail in the room and also detail out the window.

[airfrogusmc]

I agree with Colby-- I have been in this business long enough......no one consistenly "sells" straight out of the camera photos anymore.


Agreed. What does straight out of camera mean:confused:? Photoshop is just a digital darkroom. Just like a wet darkroom it can be an effective tool to help one produce an image that they saw at the time of exposure or it can be abused. The important thing is to find the techniques that help you achieve that vision and see it through to the final image. I doubt there is an image that I take that I don't do some PP on. That doesn't mean I'm fixing bad technique just doing the next part of the process. They're both one in the same. Part of a trilogy. The camera, the capture, and the final image. 3 parts that make one whole....

[olz]

All this about what the eye sees and what not, photoshopping and no photoshopping, what we/they did back then and how it's done now, filters no filters etc. There's always a great emphasis on saying "straight out of the camera" - we don't say "straight out of my expensive technologically super advanced DSLR and lens, that does a million things to my bit's and bytes (which we now call an image) that only a handful og engineers in Japan know of."...

Photography has and will always be technologically mediated and a more or less situated constructed practice performed by the photographer. It's an interpretation and that's it. You zoom with your lens, or your feet for that matter, to include or exclude things in your frame. You turn towards the sun or away from it, put up a million remotely triggered speedlites, using them as a mean to an end. People use different ways of interpreting what they're confronted with. I respect every one of them, but I don't necessarily like them all.

As long as journalists don't manipulated images I don't really care.

My post's not meant to offend anyone in any way, but it's a thing that puzzles my mind quite a bit. Actually the naming of my own blog that I just started is based on these kinds of considerations. "It's kind of natural" you know... but not quite. :D

[ssabripo]

I dont mind HDR if done in the proper setting