Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mattyb · Apr 2, 2009, 07:37 AM

What's the point? Apart from making pictures look really fake.

PS. I know NOTHING about photography

Thorzdad · Apr 2, 2009, 10:33 AM

Well, that's pretty much the big debate over HDR, isn't it? Personally, I don't care for the technique. To me, it's sort-of the photographic equivalent of turning up the saturation and brightness on a TV. It might look cool, but it's not at all accurate or lifelike. Of course, that's just fine if your intent is an exaggerated reality or heightened drama. But it seems that HDR is being touted as this "next big thing" in photography, as if all photographers should follow the trend.

Personally, I look at it as nothing more than a Photoshop-influenced trend/technique, much like Tilt-shift photography. It's a tool to achieve a particular effect.

Demonhood · Apr 2, 2009, 01:50 PM

i've found that HDR can look good when used in a subtle way. sure, your brain will still tell you "wait, something isn't natural about this" but if used correctly, then you can create some striking images. of course, i haven't had much luck doing so, yet.

Spheric Harlot · Apr 2, 2009, 02:57 PM

^ That's really it.

It's the same as effects in audio production:

Some new effect comes up (or an old one is rediscovered), and it's the fashioned hype, everybody does it, it's applied to everything, completely overdone to the point of utter pointlessness, and the effect itself becomes nothing more than its own self-justification. (Witness the Cher "I Believe" voice effect.)

Eventually, the fad dies down and the effect becomes just another useful tool in the toolbox, among all the other tools.

Oisín · Apr 2, 2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Demonhood

i've found that HDR can look good when used in a subtle way. sure, your brain will still tell you "wait, something isn't natural about this" but if used correctly, then you can create some striking images. of course, i haven't had much luck doing so, yet.

Personally, I like HDR when it’s used to enhance naturalness and credibility in a photo, not when it’s used to detract from naturalness and credibility.

Cameras, by definition, capture colours more narrowly than the human eye does; a non-processed image will never have the same colours or dynamic range as what the human eye sees. When HDR is used to simulate the dynamic range in a scene as perceived by a human eye, I think it’s a valid tool.

When it’s used to create exaggerated images that look like they were drawn by someone who’s colourblind, then it’s not a tool at all, just a toy that happens to be rather pointless in an Andy Warhol-ish kind of way.

HenryMelton · Apr 2, 2009, 07:16 PM

HDR is great, but it sounds like some people just don't know how to use the tools. As Oisín explained, cameras just can't quite capture the dynamic range your eye/brain system can. I suspect that in another 5-10 years the photo capture technology will advance to the stage that these manual and semi-automated tools for composing HDR photos from several shots will be built into the camera and everyone will just expect it and frown when they see one of our current era washed-out photos. It's much like the shift from SD resolution to HD.

For today, even the best of the HDR software requires experience to use. The first-pass default is never good enough.

(I'm no expert, but wife is an award-winning nature photographer.)

mattyb · Apr 3, 2009, 03:08 PM

I'm probably not looking in the right places, but so far the HDR shots that I have seen seem 'cartoony'.

The camera that I just got can take far better photos than I can, so I'll just stick to my kids, some scenery and the occasional macro attempt.

Oisín · 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by mattyb

I'm probably not looking in the right places, but so far the HDR shots that I have seen seem 'cartoony'.

Yeah, that’s the ‘detract’ use of HDR.

Very likely, though, there are actually lots of pictures you just see as good pictures with very vibrant colours than in reality are HDR pictures.

mduell · Apr 3, 2009, 04:56 PM

HDR is art, not reproduction.

revMedia · Apr 4, 2009, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Thorzdad

Well, that's pretty much the big debate over HDR, isn't it? Personally, I don't care for the technique. To me, it's sort-of the photographic equivalent of turning up the saturation and brightness on a TV. It might look cool, but it's not at all accurate or lifelike. Of course, that's just fine if your intent is an exaggerated reality or heightened drama. But it seems that HDR is being touted as this "next big thing" in photography, as if all photographers should follow the trend.

Personally, I look at it as nothing more than a Photoshop-influenced trend/technique, much like Tilt-shift photography. It's a tool to achieve a particular effect.

Actually it can be used to make a scene look MORE realistic. The human eye can distinguish about 20 stops, whereas your average camera is about 5.

Using HDR to bring out the shadows in a sunset for example will bring it more inline with what you saw when you were there.

revMedia · Apr 4, 2009, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

HDR is art, not reproduction.

So is photography. Look at any print done by Adams. More work was done in the dark room than in the field. Unless you're talking about snaps at a birthday, all photography is art.

mattyb · Apr 5, 2009, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by revMedia

So is photography. Look at any print done by Adams. More work was done in the dark room than in the field. Unless you're talking about snaps at a birthday, all photography is art.

So if I take a picture while in the vicinity of a birthday, the photograph isn't art? Yet If I take a picture of dog crap, maybe in black and white, a bit grainy, while in a large city then it is art?

If this is the attitude of certain people that call themselves photographers, then they can stick their ideas where the sun doesn't shine.

What dross.