UKC

As per the title, I've recently joined and started posting my own pictures on a FB photography group. I'm just a bit interested to know if anyone else feels that HDR is overused? I don't mean on UKC incidentally, it's just that in the group I've joined more or less every picture on there seems to be grossly over dramatic due to the use of HDR.

In reply to jim jones:
Never used post production software and hate the thought of using it. My photos are ok and have had some good feedback others not so.

Try and get it right 1st time.

(opens the doors for the 'well your camera is digitally modifying it anyway with the settings you use' brigade to appear)

In reply to jim jones:
As camera sensors evolve, their dynamic range improves. You could argue that is moving closer to HDR(?)

I bet anyone who says they dont use post production software also shoots JPEGs only. In which case, i rest my point without wasting further breath

In reply to jim jones:

Bad HDR is definitely overused. I personally don't like the use of hdr setting as I think you get very little real control over outcome of your image. If I'd consider use of hdr (after taking all the exposures ) I'd go through masking in layers rather than automatic. This way you can "paint with light" Looking through facebook/ukc/500px/instagram..... I see over processing is very heavy handed and damaging photos a lot. Mind I'm not against use of photoshop. so yeah keep it simple and make sure your image is lit properly first then touch up in photoshop if needed

In reply to Ali.B:


This is the nub of it. There is more and more dynamic range in image capture through either multiple exposures / post processing or just more sensor dynamic range.

None of this is a problem; the problem comes from compressing all that dynamic range down to fit on a crappy 8-bit display. That compression of dynamic range, to my eye, can become a very gimmicky thing that is easily overused.

If you take an HDR picture and look at it on an HDR display it can be amazingly gorgeous, but compress it down for web/home use and it's cliched. The problem is that HDR displays are very slow in coming to affordable market. You'll find them in vision labs and radiology suites, but that's about it.

In reply to jim jones:

I've just noticed this thread and perhaps should have read through it;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=605318

My particular gripe with use of HDR is it's use to increase the dramatic impact of a subject arbitrarily.

In reply to jim jones:

Overused in the sense that too many people are using it, when its perhaps not necessary. Or overused in the fact that the photos produced are unnatural, oversaturated etc.

Used well a good HDR shot should be more natural looking than a normal shot. By natural I mean closer to what the eye sees rather than closer to what a typical (non HDR) photo looks like.

I think when one first starts experimenting with HDR its probably normal to crank up the sliders to see what kind of amazing effects you get. The longer you play around with it the more likely you are to appreciate more subtle types of HDR effects and its far less obvious that the images produced are HDR.

Like any post processing effect I think done well and images can be amazing. But done badly it can make an image worse.

In reply to jim jones:
I think the answer splits depending on whether you mean photography as dispassionate documentary or photography as an art form. With the former, the objective may be to capture the maximum amount of information and detail (e.g., rock texture, holds...) irrespective of the 'realism' of the final image. With the latter, complaining about HDR is a bit like saying a painting is bad because you can see the brush-marks or a photograph is bad because bits of it are not in focus. Either way, you can make some personal judgements on a case by case basis, but beyond that it's hard to provide meaningful criticism. Yes, lots of people are experimenting with HDR - for better or worse - and eventually its use will settle down to some sort of consensus norm, albeit with the inevitable outliers.

In reply to wintertree:

The problem is that getting good results takes effort, and a lot of people just push the tonemap button in photomatix or whatever and think that horrible halos and compression artifacts are what makes a good image.

In principle an HDR image is just a really good negative after all.

In reply to wintertree:
But isn't it great that the choice of accessible HDR exists. I do not use it personally, but then, the type of images i take and like, do not really warrant it's use.

I have absolutely no like or dislike of HDR, it is just another form of image, which you can take or leave.

Also, using fill in flash outdoors...isn't that another form of HDR?

In reply to jim jones:

I was originally excited by HDR via multiple exposures, but after many experiments I find I can achieve better, more subtle and more realistic 'HDR' by using graduated exposure masks to darken skies, together with shadow lightening, both in Lightroom.

And much less faff.

(Forgive my ignorance but is what I do still HDR?)

In reply to Fredt:


Yep, any manipulation which aim to mimic a higher dynamic range then the reproduction method is natively capable of is 'HDR'. Another sort of HDR-lite is to start with a single raw file (which has more dynamic range than a JPEG), extract two separate images, one optimised for shadow and the other for highlights, and then merge those back together with masks.

O/T:

Your last point is overly simplistic. If you'd like to label me a member of that 'brigade' I could equally label you a Luddite. Both labels are unfair, as they ignore the nuance in each argument. To me, your stance would be fair if our cameras viewed the world in the exact same way we do. But they don't.

I applaud your wish to get the shot right 'in camera', but as you acknowledge, *some* processing has to occur in order for the shot to become a picture. With film, the photographer had a huge range of choices to make regarding type of film, exposure value, and post-processing techniques. So it is with digital.

You don't have an image without post-processing - whether you exercise your influence in that is your choice but it happens regardless. There's nothing wrong with using that process to more accurately show what was in your mind's eye when you took the shot: on the flip side there's a solid argument to be made that the camera manufacturer will have chosen the absolute middle-road settings for each value. This can easily result in a shot which is not merely boring, but also completely unrepresentative of the scene at the time. Landscapes without vibrance, colours without depth, unrealistic skin tones, even eyes lacking sparkle.

Good photography is still absolutely essential to a good shot: IMO no amount of post-processing will save a flawed image (however digital artists are becoming extremely skilled). For me, getting the position, the focus, the aperture / shutter speed exactly right for the shot remains an involving and rewarding effort. Supplement this with creative (on-camera) filters for example and there's a whole world of technical experimentation open to you.

You may find sticking with the old-school equivalents of film choice (e.g. tonal curve) and darkroom techniques (a little dodge and burn perhaps, no more) allows you to better express your creativity while maintaining your photographic integrity, if you like.

In reply to jim jones:
So is there an 'ethical' difference between a graduated filter, or a polarising filter on the front of the lens, and applying the same effect in post processing?


(ah, the days of yellow filters to shoot black and white skies)

In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

You would get better results if you did some post processing - subtly to compensate for your sensors dynamic range limitations. Lightroom is affordable and easy to use.

ND grads can help, exposure blending can also help. But there is nothing better than getting it all right in-camera with one shot.

HDR and any over-processing: cranking up the saturation, over sharpening can be ghastly to the eye and are often used to compensate for a poorl photograph to get 'good feedback from others ; usually in the form of Fb likes

Friend of mine wrote this yesterday...


I recently went off again on one of my ( probably unnecessary ) whinges about over doing the processing.

As the saying goes, "You can't polish a turd but you can certainly cover it in glitter!".

I don't object per-se to cranking up the processing, what I object to is when it becomes a crutch for images that don't have much going for them and would otherwise be dull and uninteresting without the processing. If you find you HAVE to apply more and more processing because your image lacks the punch you think it should have on its own, then you need to consider why your original photo is failing to hit the mark in the first place.

You have to decide if the image is working but if you find you're fighting to save an image, consider if it's a losing battle. A test is if you pull up a grid of your raw images in Adobe Bridge ( or whatever you use ) and none of seem to spring off the screen while you're looking at the thumbnails, then large amounts of processing is probably unlikely to save a dull image."

In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

Goodness that's beautiful.

I'm not using grads at the moment, but I might have a play; just ordered some stoppers though.

One drawback of grads and any filters is the faffing around and missing shots; I witnessed this with someone on Win Hill at sunset on Sunday - it was windy and cold. Similarly some photographers are a slave to their tripods.

A friend of mine has gone from using grads to exposure blending for that reason, he doesn't want to miss a shot. With better and better sensors and Lightroom he says that there is now little need for grads.

I have an open mind on the subject.