Pitfalls of HDR

I've really started to enjoy doing HDR more and might be late to the 'party'... however, I've noticed many comments there are pitfalls that make some HDR undesirable to many.

Im curious what these pitfalls are, and if so, what makes a good HDR or bad?

Thanks in advance.

Really, it's a matter of degree and a matter of taste. I use Photomatix for HDR and really like the program. I know a you can move all the sliders to the right and get an almost garish rendition. Some folks really like that look and others just hate it. It is a little unnerving to see highlights and shadows rendered equally in a photograph. We are just not used to seeing in a photograph what our eyes naturally adapt to. I happen to like it, a lot. but yrmv. It's a lot of fun to do and really, there is no wrong way to do this as long as it floats YOUR boat.

What it is, is there are basically 2 looks of hdr, the realistic look and the surreal, paintery, grunge look. The problem is the photographers who like the realistic look hates the other. They say it is wrong, done incorrectly, gives hdr a bad name but none of this is true, it's all just a persons opinion. But honestly I haven't came by any photographers who like the surreal look hating the realistic look. The funny thing is, you'll get heated discussions on this from photographers, but the general non-photographer public loves it, wether realistic or not. I like both myself but I think because I'm a graphic artist I do lean towards the surreal look myself when I do hdr.

Subjective then, glad to hear there are no wrongs... I was worried there were industry trends that were highly discouraged of certain techniques.

Yeah, it's just a matter of taste and nothing wrong with that. It might take a little while to get the hang of it, adjusting the sliders and such to get a good look but you'll get the hang of it. Once you get going just post a shot or two on the hdr section and you find plenty of photographers seeing something you might miss and lend some advice to help you out until you get the hang of it.

HDR pitfalls off the top of my head. It can also be appropriately used for creative effects and also for realistic high contrast scenes.

• ghosting due to movement in a scene between frames
  
• Mucho file space
  
• extra time in post processing
  
• rediculous "cartoon" look
  

The hardest part is learning.

Use a tripod as much as you can. I rarely do, but know I should.

Compose your shots carefully.

Right now I'm still running on a lot of luck. About 10% of my HDRs are somewhat edible, and the rest total nonsense. I have a long way to go but plan to really nail it someday in both the realistic form and surreal form. I like both.

* Everything

District_History_Fan wrote in post #9429265
rediculous "cartoon" look

Amen brother.

Some people might like it... if I wanted a cartoon, I'd make a cartoon...

District_History_Fan wrote in post #9429265
HDR pitfalls off the top of my head. It can also be appropriately used for creative effects and also for realistic high contrast scenes.

• ghosting due to movement in a scene between frames
  
• Mucho file space
  
• extra time in post processing
  
• rediculous "cartoon" look
  

This is about it. Especially the "cartoon" look. You can overdo it at times, depending on what look you are going for and what the image is about.

Try to experiment with different HDR setting on one picture. Like the natural look, the cartoony look and something in between.

Hey dudes, I just made my cartoon into a HDR cartoon.

Critiques?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Pitfall 1) Thinking that the "look" of an overly tonemapped HDR dataset is HDR - it is not.

Pitfall 2) Trying to make an HDR dataset out of a scene that is not HDR. There is no reason to take multiple exposures of a scene whose dynamic range can be captured entirely in a single exposure.

Pitfall 3) Thinking you can make an "HDR" out of a single RAW image - you cannot. You can run a single RAW file, or multiple files made from a single RAW file, through a tonemapper, but that does not get you any more data than the original RAW exposure.

Pitfall 4) Having no vision for the actual tonemapped final image. The reason that people engage in HDR, presumably, is to add dynamic range to the data they are PP'ing with the idea that it is necessary to achieve the tonal range and the vision they have for the scene they want to capture. If you can't envision the final portrayal of the scene you are trying to capture and make deliberate decisions about why you are taking the HDR route in making the image, you are bound to have all of your Photomatix-induced slider twiddling fail.

These pitfalls have nothing to do with the physical process of capturing an exposure sequence and combining it into an HDR dataset and then tonemapping the data. They are more conceptual and often overlooked by people who want to "get into HDR." I think the lack of understanding the reason for HDR imaging in the first place is what often leads to the gratuitous use of the technique and the inevitable undesirable results.

Kirk

Bzrk wrote in post #9431287
This is about it. Especially the "cartoon" look. You can overdo it at times, depending on what look you are going for and what the image is about.

Try to experiment with different HDR setting on one picture. Like the natural look, the cartoony look and something in between.

Not a fan of Dave Hill?
http://www.davehillpho​to.com/

lundgrenj wrote in post #9433427
Not a fan of Dave Hill?
http://www.davehillpho​to.com/

Amazing.

lundgrenj wrote in post #9433427
Not a fan of Dave Hill?
http://www.davehillpho​to.com/

See Pitfall #1 above. Certainly is cool, but not necessarily from HDR data.