HDR Photography - is it Passé? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

HDR Photography - is it Passé?

(119 posts) (35 voices)

Tags:

12…5 Next »

spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

I'm interested to know whether other people on this forum think that the 'traditional' HDR photography method is now clumsy and outdated? When I came across it I thought it was a fantastic idea - still do think that about the theoretical idea - but I have become quickly tired of that the over-processed look the pictures get which I think is unrealistic so it has become for me just a toy now.

I am moved to post this after seeing my photographic club members competition photos the other night. Some of them were to my eye very much over-processed and gimmicky.

It may be my fault (I may be using it wrong or something) but even using a highly acclaimed software package to like Niksofts HDR Efex Pro on my pictures results in a 'change' to the colours that I find spoils the image (exacerbated to a lesser extent the noise and halos that happen too). I would have expected the default image that is generated when the plug-in first opens to be pretty much an exact replica of the original image (plus some cumulative noise) but with detail in the highlights and lowlights. One could then add different effects by choosing a different preset or adjusting the various parameters manually. Reality is that they all seem to have this plastic look to the light and adding effects seem to make that worse.

The thing is that with the dynamic range of the newer sensors, I am finding that a lot of pictures give the effect I want with a single careful (RAW) exposure and use of the excellent shadows control brush in Lightroom 4 which results in no change to the look of the light and texture.

I recently went on a trip to Europe where I bracketed a lot of shots and put them through Photomatix Pro when I got back. The result was 100Mb TIF files and unrealistic photos. In sheer desperation I made a virtual copy of each middle exposure and just spent a few minutes on it in LR4 - this resulted in files a fifth of the size that looked pretty good (to me).

So, two questions:

1/ Have the traditional bracketed exposure HDR shots now become of very limited appeal due to the unrealistic effects giving results that are not matching the hype around the software?

2/ Are they now unnecessary due to superior sensor performance and inbuilt dynamic lighting software?

Posted 1 year ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

1 - HDR is anything between "unnoticable" to unrealistic. I think there is room for all tastes.
2 - Definitely not. Sensor performance will never be enough for backlit/uneven light photography.

Having commented in favor of HDR, allow me to say that the number of serious HDRs I have made is no more than 20 in total :-). I'm old fashioned !

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

1 " Have the traditional bracketed exposure HDR shots now become of very limited appeal due to the unrealistic effects giving results that are not matching the hype around the software?"

Yes, but then I never liked them in the first place

2 "Are they now unnecessary due to superior sensor performance and inbuilt dynamic lighting software?"

Yes they are completely unnecessary If you have a D800 and LR4

I do sometimes use 2 exposures for sunsets, I combine them in with 2 layers , one of foreground, one of the sky, make two layers in CS5 and remove the unwanted section with the eraser tool

but most of the time I can use a single exposures and LR4

Posted 1 year ago #
Godless

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 241
offline

spraynpray said:
I'm interested to know whether other people on this forum think that the 'traditional' HDR photography method is now clumsy and outdated?

I haven´t been interested in HDR and I doubt I will be. I´d rather spend my time shooting (or doing anything else) than processing images. Just a basic treatment with DxO is enough for my photos in most cases.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

Paperman said:
1 - HDR is anything between "unnoticable" to unrealistic. I think there is room for all tastes.
2 - Definitely not. Sensor performance will never be enough for backlit/uneven light photography.

Having commented in favor of HDR, allow me to say that the number of serious HDRs I have made is no more than 20 in total :-). I'm old fashioned !

Hi Paperman,

My main point is that the images don't ever seem to be "unnoticeable". Even with manual intervention and a light touch, they still seem plastic - if you don't agree, what software are you using? If you have discovered one which combines with altering the colour etc as above, I'd like to hear about it?

Your point 2/: Agreed - massive dynamic ranges such as you describe are beyond any sensor at the moment, but that is the most extreme case (short of wanting to expose the surface of the sun to see sunspots!). For improving most scenes though, I am impressed with what my D7000 can do even by comparison to my D90. I wonder what the D400 will do!

I'm using HDR software more to bring out texture these days than compress tones.

@ Godless: Processing an HDR can take 2 or 3 minutes - that is not too long I reckon?

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

I am asked if HDR is used on my photos sometimes and I have tried it once or twice, but really do not use it unless there is some very unusual circumstance. I find the D4 sensor and Lightroom 4 seems to work fairly well.

Having said all this, I am such a neophyte in the post processing world, this should be considered the opinion of.... maybe an idiot, ha, ha, ha.....

Posted 1 year ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

I played with it for a while and also got tired of the fake look, despite a few very successfull and even impressive images.

I think PP is like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it best succed when one do not see the trick. Unfortunately, the PAD is full of very good magician that will say 'ya, HDR, he could had worked his halos'. Even the public is becoming aware of it as they get overebxposed.

I now almost exclusively rely on the info I find in the Raw of one frame and when I do HDR-like techinque, it is often in the reverse direction, when I would use an underexposed frame to bring dramatic clouds. I sometime explore the photomatix output to give me idea of directions to take.

The raw has its limits and playing with exposures in CS5 also introduces noise in the darks.

That being said, some excellent artists have made this style their trademarks and produce astonishing images that requires far more than a few sliders and buttons actions. They probably spend hours if not days on a single shot and elevate it to an art of its own.

Me I sometime like to bring a few dashes of tone-mapped into a regular photo but photomatik make it hard because they chop a few pixels off of each sides in their output, making it very cumbersome when aligning over the real photo layer. I worked out the exact math and will probably post in the 'teach a trick' thread.

The cheap point-an-click approach surely nolonger impresses but for sure HDR done by real masters will probably keep its niche.

Posted 1 year ago #
rburgett

member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 22
offline

I view it as an entirely artistic choice. I'm pretty selective with which images I use it on, but when I get an image that I think would look good as an HDR, then it's an artistic choice to use it.

I know that a lot of photographer's look at using tools like this as a "sacrilege", but I think it has it's place. I use Nik HDR Pro. I generally start with a preset that is close to the look I want to achieve and then tweak settings to get closer to what I want.

I guess my point is that I don't think it will go away, but it's really just another brush, pen, pencil or whatever in your tool box.

Posted 1 year ago #
Yetibuddha

preferred member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 466
offline

I will add some fuel to the fire. I think whether one uses HDR processes depends on what story one wants to tell and also on some technical aspects of the image. Does one want to use oil or water color? B&W, Sepia or color? In some cases, I use HDR because of the wide dynamic range of light in a possible image and I want to capture detail and a particular feel. For example, my images posted in PAD a couple of months ago of the inside of buildings in the ghost town of Luderitz were based on an assessment of capturing the range of light and compositional elements in the image, e.g., not blowing out the elements appearing in a window. In a few of those cases, some would probably argue that I overdid the HDR, but I could argue I was interested in emphasizing the grittiness of the image. So, yes HDR is an artistic technique that some like and some do not like.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

I agree with all who believe it has a look that has its place, that it is an artistic effect and just another tool, but that isn't what I thought it was about when I bought it - I though that apart from extra noise to be processed there would be no difference between the input image(s) and the output image. To find such a changed and unrealistic look was quite a disappointment to me.

@Yeti - your use of it in your South African pics are a case in point where it has its place.

Maybe there will be developments in future generations of software that make the software - er - what it says on the box or if anybody knows of a package which doesn't affect the images in this way, could they post the name?

Posted 1 year ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

When "good" HDR technique and/or software was coming out, HDR was the next big thing in photography, or so it seemed. Just didn't happen. SOme images are very subtly done, and they look good because you can hardly tell they are HDR. Many exploit the capabilities of HDR to the pooint that it looks freakish. Yes, just like the velvet "art" you see being hawked along the side of the road, there must be a market for it, but it certainly isn't mainstream. I doubt that HDR will go away anytime soon. I have not seen any truly good wide dynamic range (HDR equivalent) images from D4 or D800 - although I haven't really been looking.

Posted 1 year ago #
MikeWhis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 131
offline

Most ugliness of HDR comes from Photomatix's detail enhance and tone compressor. From there, every single software out there copies them. Their exposure fusion setting is much more natural.

Posted 1 year ago #
proudgeek

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 222
offline

Started playing with HDR about 2 years ago. At first, it was "Look what I can do." I even tried to justify it by saying stuff like "this is what the eye actually sees." My wife would counter, "I was there too, and it looked nothing like that."
I soon learned that HDR processing is like good scotch—good in moderation but a mess if used too much or too heavily.
I'd used Photomatix for a long time. I found that once they added the "Exposure Fusion" functionality it got better. I also learned that the best HDR shots were the ones that no one asked if it you'd used HDR. I've seen a lot of just the opposite, where images were made to look like paintings.
I recently came into a copy of HDR Efex (from NIK). I haven't had as much time to play around with it. It certainly gives you a greater ability to vary what you're doing, but it tends to look less realistic in my mind.
Here are two recently taken in Utah. Both shot with a D90/17-35. I admit I got a little lazy and just used the bracketing function +/- 2.0 EV. Had I been more patient (or if my wife hadn't been hiking with me), I might have gone 5 or 7 exposures. Like I said, if it's done right you shouldn't have to ask. I like it as a tool to make images taken in tough conditions better rather than as a tool to create an entirely new art form. I'm sure some will disagree.

Posted 1 year ago #
EricsCamera

new member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 3
offline

I registered for this forum (finally) because I wanted to comment on this thread.

To be honest though I think proudgeek explains it well. I'll quickly describe my thoughts.

Essentially HDR is like most creative endeavours. At first we push the boundaries purposefully so we can see the extremes for ourselves. Through practice we learn to utilize the tools that we have to express our vision. Our vision is rarely the overdone clown puke HDRs that most people produce. Our vision is more moderate. Being good at producing HDR photos results in an image that doesn't have the draw backs of overly done HDR while still utilizing the advantages of HDR.

If you think all HDR is bad you haven't seen good HDR. Actually I'd argue that you probably have but you just didn't know it. In most cases people that don't know what they are doing can only identify an HDR photo if its "bad". That would be like going into a prison to try and find a model citizen. Its impossible and you'd most likely leave thinking all humans were terrible.

Ultimately lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

ps. my typical HDR work flow 1. Camera Raw
2. PS photomerge HDR
3. Nik HDR
4. Nik ColorFX 4
5. Dodging, burning, Frequency separation, curves etc etc (final touches)

I can provide a few examples but again I think proudgeek has done a good job illustrating proper HDR.

Posted 1 year ago #
Yetibuddha

preferred member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 466
offline

Erics, good comment. and welcome to the NRF.

Posted 1 year ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

True story! I was at an art fair last weekend and there were 4 or 5 photographers with boths there. One had landscapes with impossibly beautiful colors. I asked if they were HDR, his response "No, Fuji Velvia!" thought I'd slapped the guy in the face. He did go on to explain film to me and I laughed. I remember when I first used Fujichrome ProfessionalD 50 asa (think that's what it was called before Velvia), everyone thought the colors were unreal. Before there was HDR there was Fuji Chrome!

Posted 1 year ago #
rburgett

member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 22
offline

proudgeek said:
Started playing with HDR about 2 years ago. At first, it was "Look what I can do." I even tried to justify it by saying stuff like "this is what the eye actually sees." My wife would counter, "I was there too, and it looked nothing like that."
I soon learned that HDR processing is like good scotch—good in moderation but a mess if used too much or too heavily.
I'd used Photomatix for a long time. I found that once they added the "Exposure Fusion" functionality it got better. I also learned that the best HDR shots were the ones that no one asked if it you'd used HDR. I've seen a lot of just the opposite, where images were made to look like paintings.
I recently came into a copy of HDR Efex (from NIK). I haven't had as much time to play around with it. It certainly gives you a greater ability to vary what you're doing, but it tends to look less realistic in my mind.
Here are two recently taken in Utah. Both shot with a D90/17-35. I admit I got a little lazy and just used the bracketing function +/- 2.0 EV. Had I been more patient (or if my wife hadn't been hiking with me), I might have gone 5 or 7 exposures. Like I said, if it's done right you shouldn't have to ask. I like it as a tool to make images taken in tough conditions better rather than as a tool to create an entirely new art form. I'm sure some will disagree.

Very nicely done, both in words and photos. This is a perfect example of how you have made the choice in how to use the tools to create what your vision of the images should be.

As Yetibuddha stated, sometimes it's cool to emphasize the grittiness in a shot. It's not for everybody, but it's your artistic vision.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

andrewz said:
"No, Fuji Velvia!"

For digital photographers there is Velvia Vision a Photoshop plug-in ( not used it myself)

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

Well, this thread has taken off.

@Proudgeek:

Is there any chance you could post the 'middle' exposure of those to beauties for comparison? The point I was making is that I have yet to do any kind of HDR - light or heavy touch where the colours didn't get messed up so I am intrigued to hear about your experience with exposure fusion.

@Erics: Welcome to the forum.

Posted 1 year ago #
Kurve702

member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 18
offline

HDR is a tool not a look. HDR can be extremely natural looking to overally extreme it all depends on what the photographer wanted his photo to look. Remember Photography in many forms is art and art is subjective to the viewer there is really no right or wrong way to art.

The key to getting natural looking HDR is keeping the dynamic range of the photos pretty close together dont go to extreme from on spectrum to the next. Sometimes the best images for HDR are images that can hold on the dynamic range naturally and the HDR just gives it that extra detail. When processing HDR i tend to use very conservatively the HDR in my images by using a ton of smoothing. I do however believe the only thing holding back HDR from its true potential is the software it self. I find it i get better results by manually blending layers to achieve that high dynamic look on photos.It comes more time consuming but i have more control to where i need that dynamic range and where i dont. With that said sometimes less is more when it comes to achieving the realistic look in HDR processing.

Posted 1 year ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

spraynpray said:
I though that apart from extra noise to be processed there would be no difference between the input image(s) and the output image. To find such a changed and unrealistic look was quite a disappointment to me.

This may have more to do with your use of the program and the nature of the photos that you are starting with. A useful trick to lessen the unrealistic look that you're not liking is to just layer the final HDR image over top of one of the original images and then ease down the opacity of the HDR layer until you get to the look that you like. Also, maybe it might help if you uploaded some examples of whats happening to the images and how they looked before you started, and then maybe someone might notice where you may have gone wrong.

Posted 1 year ago #
proudgeek

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 222
offline

Per your request. Here are the two originals. The river difference in the river shot, which was taken at dusk, was pretty subtle. Just a little more shadowing in that middle mesa and a little more structure in the mesa to the right. Also the trees along the riverbank in the left foreground aren't quite as dark. In retrospect, I may have been able to achieve a lot of this without resorting to HDR.

The difference in the arch shot was much more pronounced, in part because it was taken at mid-afternoon, when the light was pretty tough. The canyons created some really challenging conditions. You can see that the structure to the left has almost no detail, while the canyon floor is either too dark or too blown out. Also, in large part due to the time of day, the color of the red rocks is totally washed out. The HDR process brought out the detail in the rock to the left, as well as some detail and color to the rocks on the right. Note how you can also pick up detail in the sand on the floor, as well as the brushes. It wasn't a lot, but I think in this case using HDR made this one possible. I don't think a single metered shot would have looked like this. I did try it in other places that day and no amount of PP can save some of these. Granted, this is a pretty extreme environment when it comes to light.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

HDR.....I personally don't use it and don't like it for my personal work. I will sometimes two images to stack a sky but never the HDR. I generally don't like the look, it gets either unrealistic or so subtle that it seems to be a waste of time. I actually don't think Dark features are bad, but then again I push contrast to extremes in a lot of my work. Even when done well, I can still tell when it was used as there are parts that should have some shadow, that doesn't. Done really well = using this "unrealistic" as the focal point. If it's not, then I see it as a distraction.

To me, what Proudgeek did (good shots btw) I just don't see much difference or what that particular process enhanced that I couldn't just do with LR4. Not to criticize the photo, but in the application of HDR, I just don't see the tool enhanced much that others could do just as well. Kind of like using a huge flat-head screwdriver on a small screw - it works, got the job done, looked awkward doing it, but the result was the same.

I think sometimes each of us learn an editing program and "push" images into it to edit rather than expanding our skills on better programs for a particular image. I push images in LR very hard where I probably should use PS, but I may just be too lazy or the end use doesn't warrant the additional time. The same "lazy" thought on utilizing (or the lack thereof) ND filters as well.

That said, I have seen some great indoor interior shots that are minimally HDR'd and they looked great. There are applications for HDR, but many times I see it applied to the wrong situation.

Posted 1 year ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

This thread and the discussions it spawned is magnificent. It is a rare case where people seem to argue against each other while I can agree with almost every comments or point of views. I especially like the black & white argument.

I do not want to fuel the pro-or-against this or that, it has been intelligently covered by others.

Even if ‘realism’ is the name of the game for many, which I totally respect, I would just like to (sorry if I am repeating myself or others) emphasize on photography in general as a non-realism art form. Many painters like Dali, Rembrandt, Monet or Siudmak and many others are (were) true explorers that totally departed from the traditions of their time and yet render such rich stories, setting the viewer in motion through alien counties and emotions and even creating art revolutions triggering waves of innovations. Photography and post-processing may just be a different canvas.

I just love the Avatar, Blade Runner, Dune, Harry Potter, Sin City and the 300 style while many would not care. My ambition as an artist (if I am one at all) using photography media is to discover a personal style, something in me that is dying (perhaps literally) to come out, something that may have never been seen before. I may never succeed despite my best intentions, it may take years, I may get discouraged along the way or simply fade in laziness and maybe no one will care either ways but it is surely a worthy and noble journey to take, if only I could commit more time to it.

The photos that had the strongest imprint in my mind were those from artist that were/are pushing the mastership of their personal and novel style. I am still haunted by a large print exposition I saw at Mont-Saint-Michel last year. The photos were almost completely black with very subtle and almost unnoticeable highlights around boats on beaches, people, ponds, textures and structures. I could lose myself in them for hours. Different corners of the same scene were bringing different set of emotions and trigger memories from past times. I could almost feel the breeze or smell the saline waters or the memories I have of them. They left plenty of room for my own imagination and different people would have interpreted them differently. That is true art.

To me, the differentiating factor here is talent and how deep one masters his art. Every grandma can purchase Photomatix or the like (not that I have anything against them msmoto ha! Ha!), zip though it thousands of pictures like everybody else does and yet have zero talent or personal style. Some could use the same tool and come up with truly novel approaches or use it with such talent that it stuns you. The PAD is full of example of people using known tools while pushing the envelope and I just love it. There was nothing wrong in my eye with any HDR posts on the PAD, and some were simply amazing, even if personally I am moving away from it.

I just find that these point-and-click tools make us lazy if we use them as-is and therefore prevent us from discovering our truly personal style.

HDR, tone mapping or whatever may have their times, be just the beginning or may just be a stepping stone that gets you started.

I totally encourage anyone that got the ambition, talent, will and opportunity to depart from tradition and go as far as they can in the expression their art. Come and amaze us all. And yet there is absolutely nothing wrong with any tradition. What turns you on is what counts and others’ appreciation may come as a bonus.

Posted 1 year ago #
redirector

member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 28
offline

The HDR setting on D800 was helpful on a recent job, shooting a Bed and Breakfast... The interior bedrooms were furnished in dark rich colors, and there were windows on two sides. HDR allowed the colors to deepen and saturate while preserving the detail in the windows and white lace curtains which were brightly backlit from daylight. Otherwise the windows would have just been blown out. So I would rate this as a practical, easy successful application in camera and minimal post needed for a final image. not rising to the quality of interpretive art, but the client appreciated a well balanced, detailed and color saturated view of the bedrooms. and I'd rather do it in camera than in post whenever possible.

Posted 1 year ago #