Does anyone actually like Haloing?

[JLew24asu]

all I keep hearing is how HORRIBLE haloing is in HDR. GOD FORBID you have halos, the photo is ruined!

personally, I think Halos are awesome on some photos.


anyone else?

[adam8080]

No. I can't stand it. The ONLY good HDRs in my opinion are the ones that someone would have to tell you that is an HDR for you to know. I can't wait for the whole HDR fad to blow over, but I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time.

[JLew24asu]

No. I can't stand it. The ONLY good HDRs in my opinion are the ones that someone would have to tell you that is an HDR for you to know. I can't wait for the whole HDR fad to blow over, but I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time.

I'll respectfully disagree I guess. I love HDR and haloing in some photos. it brings an aspect people have never seen before. there are still many people who have never heard of HDR, especially those you arent into photography.

[clippo]

No. I can't stand it. The ONLY good HDRs in my opinion are the ones that someone would have to tell you that is an HDR for you to know. I can't wait for the whole HDR fad to blow over, but I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time.

I agree. It's too easy to create this effect with software like Photomatix. Once you've seen one shot you've seen them all... and they look over processed.. IMHO!

[JLew24asu]

I agree. It's too easy to create this effect with software like Photomatix. Once you've seen one shot you've seen them all... and they look over processed.. IMHO!

I wouldnt necessarily say its easy. you still need to take the right shots and the right exposure and stops away.

[RaymondXTi]

I like mild HDRs, but the halo'ing does bother me if it's really harsh. Sometimes it's unavoidable with some shots though.

[gjl711]

HDR is a great tool and I use it from time to time. But, I only like two types of HDR pics. The ones that if you weren't told that it's HRD you wouldn't know, and the ones that are using HDR specifically for effect. i see too many that just look like over precessed pics and the HDR does not add to the image. Haloing kind of falls into this category.

[kirkt]

I'll poke my semantic head in here and just note that HDR is not a fad and haloing is not "HDR". You are referring the the artifact (or feature :) ) of TONEMAPPING using specific tone mapping operators that aim to control local contrast in a dataset (you don;t need a true HDR dataset to use the tonemapping operators that produce haloing).

So, as long as we all realize that we are talking about the effects that are produced via tonemapping operators in this thread, and not HDR image data, or the techniques of acquiring and manipulating high dynamic range scene data.

Tonemapping and extending dynamic range is not a new concept and several techniques have evolved since the beginning of film photography to manipulate the "sensor" DR to more closely capture or represent the scene DR. Again, the fad is the appearance that modern tonemappers give to images when those images are tonemapped in an extreme manner.

Semantically yours,

Kirk

[TweakMDS]

I absolutely loathe the halo effect, and can and will actually spend up to hours per photo to avoid it / get rid of them. This did improve my skills with layers/masks though ^^

[Naturalist]

I can't wait for the whole HDR fad to blow over, but I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time.

+1 to that comment!

[JLew24asu]

I absolutely loathe the halo effect, and can and will actually spend up to hours per photo to avoid it / get rid of them. This did improve my skills with layers/masks though ^^

LOL, this is what I dont get....why people are so passionately against it. ah well, to each their own :cool:

[airfrogusmc]

Halos are great if you're photographing a nuclear power plant and trying to maybe make some kind of Three Mile Island statement but they look like a huge mistake. Do what ever you want its your image but if you post it on an forum and not be prepared to take the heat. There are plenty of HDRs out there that have full range and don't glow.

[adam8080]

LOL, this is what I dont get....why people are so passionately against it. ah well, to each their own :cool:

Because it looks so bad to us!

[JLew24asu]

Because it looks so bad to us!

well not to me :)......sometimes of course. I agree they look bad sometimes but I'll take some subtle haloing over overblown saturation anyday.

even the slightest of overdone saturation bothers me, while it really takes alot for me to even notice halos.

and I'm curious..who is "us" ? The Leading Authority of POTN Photography Experts of the World?

jk ;)

[airfrogusmc]

HDR is a great tool and in the right hands can make interesting photographs. PP should be seamless and should not become the main focus of the image. HDR can extend range but a good deal of the time its misused. How many times do you see HDR that has blocked shadows and blown highlights? I thought the idea of high dynamic range was to hold detail in those areas. And when the glow is the topic instead of the image, sump'm's wrong.

The problem with the glow is it can be avoided if the image is shot right and processed right. But that takes time to learn how to do.

[mid_gen]

I don't like it normally, especially around trees and window frames etc....but occasionally it can frame the scene quite nicely.

This is a shot I took of St. Pauls where I think the halo works :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/diffracture/3463533706/

[JLew24asu]

I don't like it normally, especially around trees and window frames etc....but occasionally it can frame the scene quite nicely.

This is a shot I took of St. Pauls where I think the halo works :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/diffracture/3463533706/

exactly. I tend to shoot almost 100% architecture and landscapes. there are certainly situations where halos look bad, but by no means is it bad in ALL cases. people act like a mistake was made if a halo is there. thats simply not true.

great photo btw :)

[airfrogusmc]

Well I'm not so sure. To a lot of us old film guys it looks like an obvious dodge/burn and if you do it right you don't have to get the halo.

Also if you're doing HDR I would really like to see some detail in that upper window that all in shadow.

[airfrogusmc]

exactly. I tend to shoot almost 100% architecture and landscapes. there are certainly situations where halos look bad, but by no means is it bad in ALL cases. people act like a mistake was made if a halo is there. thats simply not true.

great photo btw :)

If you look at the technique and not the image then you need to perfect the technique.

[mid_gen]

Also if you're doing HDR I would really like to see some detail in that upper window that all in shadow.

But I'm not 'doing HDR', I'm taking a photograph and doing some post-processing to make something out of it.

I think some people make it more than it is, and it becomes a technical exercise in evenly exposing every part of a scene, be it in shadow or not.

That shot was bracketed and I had all the detail in the shadowy area in Photomatix if I wanted it, but it was flat and dull. No point in HDRing it to death just for the sake of it!

[airfrogusmc]

Not suggesting that but you can still get some detail and not make it flat but I still look at the halo and that I see as a flaw.

[JLew24asu]

But I'm not 'doing HDR', I'm taking a photograph and doing some post-processing to make something out of it.

I think some people make it more than it is, and it becomes a technical exercise in evenly exposing every part of a scene, be it in shadow or not.

That shot was bracketed and I had all the detail in the shadowy area in Photomatix if I wanted it, but it was flat and dull. No point in HDRing it to death just for the sake of it!

the problem is, some people think they are experts and their way of doing something is the right way and whoever disagrees is wrong, flawed, stupid, amauter, etc. but with photography, more so with HDR, this is no right way. yes, photos look best when properly exposed but HDR is a post processing technique that has no rules, only opinions. or else photomatix wouldn't need those sliders on all its settings :)

[airfrogusmc]

Well don't know if I'm an expert but I have been around long enough to know good and bad technique and there are plenty of others that have posted here that agree with me. If you're happy rock on but I do remember you asking people how to fix it. I would highly recommend if you are going to do this a lot learn to properly use the tools and get your technique down because there a plenty of good photographers out there that do have that down.

[Zoltan]

No. I can't stand it. The ONLY good HDRs in my opinion are the ones that someone would have to tell you that is an HDR for you to know. I can't wait for the whole HDR fad to blow over, but I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time.

Why are you spending time in the HDR forum if you dislike HDR's so much????

[wolfden]

everyone has their likes and dislikes, do what you like. I'm not a fan of black and white photography, but I don't wish for it to be gone. HDR has been around longer than ya think, even before photomatix, you just see more people using it as it's easier to do with such programs.

Do what you like and be creative with it, have fun with it. Take that boring snapshot and create a masterpiece out of it.

[JLew24asu]

well said wolf

[adam8080]

Do what you like and be creative with it, have fun with it. Take that boring snapshot and create a masterpiece out of it.

Exactly. That is my biggest problem with the overdone HDR halo look. Start with a bland picture and and end with a masterpiece. The focus is no longer the actual scene or person, it is now the post processing (HDR halo look). And when the focus shifts from the actual photo into the digital processing, I have a hard time calling it a photograph. Maybe call it a digital representation of the artist's idea, or simply digital art. :cool:

[JLew24asu]

Exactly. That is my biggest problem with the overdone HDR halo look. Start with a bland picture and and end with a masterpiece. The focus is no longer the actual scene or person, it is now the post processing (HDR halo look). And when the focus shifts from the actual photo into the digital processing, I have a hard time calling it a photograph. Maybe call it a digital representation of the artist's idea, or simply digital art. :cool:

who cares what you call it. as long as the person or others find it visually appealing then its a success. there are no written rules that say halos RUIN photos....and any photo with a halo is an outright mistake. I think haloing can add alot to a photo and other times it can be bad, thats just my opinion. I'm just tried of people acting like they are the authority of whats right and wrong in terms of photography or a technique. not you personally, just sayin.

[adam8080]

Just my personal opinion and nothing else.

[JLew24asu]

Just my personal opinion and nothing else.

yea, I know I probably came across as angry but it wasnt directed towards you personally. I respect your opinion. :cool:

[airfrogusmc]

So please show us an example and an in depth statement of how you think a halo is helping an image.

[wolfden]

Exactly. That is my biggest problem with the overdone HDR halo look. Start with a bland picture and and end with a masterpiece. The focus is no longer the actual scene or person, it is now the post processing (HDR halo look). And when the focus shifts from the actual photo into the digital processing, I have a hard time calling it a photograph. Maybe call it a digital representation of the artist's idea, or simply digital art. :cool:

Yup, digital art is good way to put it. I guess I see all types of photography an art. Look at Lomo Photography for example, not my thing, but others love it. You see a lot of cross processing done too, not really hip on that either. There is so much people are doing to photos today, it's definately digital art if you ask me.

[airfrogusmc]

There are many different types of photography that I don't like but I always respect if the photographer respects the craft. There are many HDR images that the photographers have gone through a good deal to learn to avoid things like halos. Adams was a master in the darkroom and whether you like landscapes or not or you like B&W or not you can still admire his craft. Jerry Uelsmann was/is a master at visual manipulation and his images though surreal and heavily altered never show a lack of craftsmanship.

There have been through out the history of photography movements against the norm. The Photo-Secession founded by Stieglitz and later the f/64 group with Adams and Cunningham. The one thing these groups had in common is they were promoting higher standards in photography and promoting the things that separate what a photograph is from other 2 dimensional art forms.

I'm sorry but I can't see a strong movement towards the Chernobyl-Secession because there are to many out there trying to prefect their craft instead of arguing for excepting flaws. Glowing is fine if its supporting a visual statement but I'm afraid in a good deal of cases its because the photographer lacks in the skills to do it right.

[wolfden]

There are many different types of photography that I don't like but I always respect if the photographer respects the craft. There are many HDR images that the photographers have gone through a good deal to learn to avoid things like halos. Adams was a master in the darkroom and whether you like landscapes or not or you like B&W or not you can still admire his craft. Jerry Uelsmann was/is a master at visual manipulation and his images though surreal and heavily altered never show a lack of craftsmanship.

There have been through out the history of photography movements against the norm. The Photo-Secession founded by Stieglitz and later the f/64 group with Adams and Cunningham. The one thing these groups had in common is they were promoting higher standards in photography and promoting the things that separate what a photograph is from other 2 dimensional at forms.

I'm sorry but I can't see a strong movement towards the Chernobyl-Secession because there are to many out there trying to prefect their craft instead of arguing for excepting flaws. Glowing is fine if its supporting a visual statement but I'm afraid in a good deal of cases its because the photographer lacks in the skills to do it right.

Interesting information, thanks and yes, I agree with the halos. Halos are usually frowned upon in general.

[JLew24asu]

Yup, digital art is good way to put it. I guess I see all types of photography an art. Look at Lomo Photography for example, not my thing, but others love it. You see a lot of cross processing done too, not really hip on that either. There is so much people are doing to photos today, it's definately digital art if you ask me.

I agree. I like this quote I read once from a famous photographer..."all pixels are meant to be punished"

sure not all situations but I like the art of creating a digital masterpiece.

Interesting information, thanks and yes, I agree with the halos. Halos are usually frowned upon in general.

thats fine if its frowned upon, but they shouldn't be considered a mistake. in some photos I like halos. that doesnt make me some amateur that has no clue what he's doing. or lacking skills to do something right. there is no right and wrong. its a matter of taste.

[wolfden]

I didn't say it made u anything, just that it is frowned upon

[Chopper Al]

In certain circumstances, I do like the haloing effect. It tends to lend a surrealistic quality to the image, which again, in certain circumstances, can be quite effective.

Al

[canonloader]

I like the HDR effect, mild, none or strong, but I do not like haloing.

[_GUI_]

I love HDR and haloing in some photos. it brings an aspect people have never seen before. there are still many people who have never heard of HDR, especially those you arent into photography.

This is the problem, many trend to think something is good just because it is new and amazing to them. But new or different hasn't necessarily to be good. You have to look deeper into it.

In digital postprocessing there are easy ways to avoid halos so they are not technically justified, that's why I consider them a flaw. From an artistic point of view they are a bad taste and tiring resource for me.

Just my opinion, as valid as that from ha-lovers.

Regards.

[mid_gen]

If I'm honest, if I had the patience to spend longer on PP rather than just banging it through Photomatix I'd remove the halos from most of my HDR shots....but then I'd only spend a serious amount of time on PP if I had a picture I thought was good enough to put on the wall. It's just a hobby for me so I don't really have the time!

I don't mind if halo-ing is frowned upon, I don't mind if someone comments on a picture I post and say they don't like it because of XXX, it may be something I've not noticed, and I'll agree and take note, or I'll just say well, I disagree, and it's my picture, so nerrrrr :P Life would be terribly be dull if everyone liked the same things.

I do wonder about people that don't like the HDR technique and still venture into this forum.....or are they waiting for an image that will change their mind?

[007]

It is amazing how much the two opinions divide the groups.. Hate Love.. isnt it just about the message your trying to capture.. Cool moment in time.. I have been bouncing back and forth trying to see what each processing brings out.. sometimes I want the original idea behind HDR.. a very crisp shot that normally I can't get. But other times I want the artistic effect of super high gamma and lots of halo.. Doesnt it just depend on what your trying to capture?

[canonloader]

Halos are the difference between technical photography and art. IMO, haloing does not belong in a tecnical shot, and even though I do not like it in any shot, anything goes in art, even painting two eyes on the same side of a womans head. Go figure. :lol: