How many of you like HDR photos and shoot plenty such photos?

[sin77]

I am more referring to scenic landscapes, as well as building interiors.

I am trying to evaluate how good are HDR photos (ignoring composition and framing factors), or they are simply unreal and disgusting (some people hate HDR photos).

Thinking whether to take such photos to impress my audience; or getting backfire.


For those whose cameras have built-in HDR feature, do you use it much or prefer to process HDR on your computer?

 

[edutilos-]

It depends on what kind of touch you lend to your photograph. Some people like to HDR the hell out of photographs just to squeeze out false artefacts that they think is detail.

I still prefer manual blending, but for panoramas that can get rather daunting. So I found that PTGui's Exposure Fusion does a pretty natural job, and keep using it ever since. It's still not as controlled as manual blending but it's close enough for me.

Just keep in mind that HDR is just a tool, and be clear on what you want it to achieve. Yes, some photographs will get 200 likes because they are HDRed and you probably can gather a bunch of avid followers who love that look, but following your heart and getting the output you envision is far more important than meaningless accolades (especially those on social media - a Like is as useful to your life as.. nothing).

MOst cameras' built-in HDR processing is pretty bad in my book.

 

[Mythmaker]

Sony's HDR actually pretty good

 

[sin77]

Sony's HDR actually pretty good

Which Sony model are you using?

 

[Octarine]

Thinking whether to take such photos to impress my audience; or getting backfire.

Impress? You might want to verify the quality of your pictures exactly in those areas you have excluded.
Otherwise you will end up like many movies where the plot is cut down to an empty frame getting filled with pointless and overdone special effects.
HDR is like salt, pepper, sugar .. use wisely, too much will kill the taste. Some can't get it sweet enough, though ...

 

[sin77]

Other than enhancing the highlights and shadows, do you all find it too fake too unreal, like cartoon drawings?

At first I quite like and impressed by HDR, but some people overcook it like cartoon until I find it disgusting.

 

[brapodam]

Other than enhancing the highlights and shadows, do you all find it too fake too unreal, like cartoon drawings?

At first I quite like and impressed by HDR, but some people overcook it like cartoon until I find it disgusting.

I agree; you can use HDR to produce natural-looking photos, or you can overcook it and get radioactive grass and halos. I use HDR (magic lantern dual ISO) a lot for my landscapes, but I never overcook them.

Exposure fusion IMO does a pretty nice job for natural looking HDRs, but tone mapping produces more unnatural photos

 

[MarkersNg]

It depends on what kind of touch you lend to your photograph. Some people like to HDR the hell out of photographs just to squeeze out false artefacts that they think is detail.

I still prefer manual blending, but for panoramas that can get rather daunting. So I found that PTGui's Exposure Fusion does a pretty natural job, and keep using it ever since. It's still not as controlled as manual blending but it's close enough for me.

Just keep in mind that HDR is just a tool, and be clear on what you want it to achieve. Yes, some photographs will get 200 likes because they are HDRed and you probably can gather a bunch of avid followers who love that look, but following your heart and getting the output you envision is far more important than meaningless accolades (especially those on social media - a Like is as useful to your life as.. nothing).

MOst cameras' built-in HDR processing is pretty bad in my book.

Most of the time those are just simply snapshots and not photos :bsmilie:

I also prefer manual blending, because I have full control over my workflow.
Anyway, TS, what you mean by "audience"? You shoot to get likes on the Internet???

 

[kandinsky]

Other than enhancing the highlights and shadows, do you all find it too fake too unreal, like cartoon drawings?

At first I quite like and impressed by HDR, but some people overcook it like cartoon until I find it disgusting.

Like any other tool, it can be used well, or not. Once anything becomes more mainstream, the floodgates are open. Most of the time, if the effect lends itself to the subject, don't really even care if it's HDR or not. Like how we choose certain images to process in B/W. At the end of the day, it's personal preference and taste, which can change. I used to like high contrast/saturation, but I'm now at a stage where I like flatter/darker images. If people really love HDR (Trey Ratcliff's stuckincustoms.com comes to mind. Very popular!), there's nothing wrong with that. The photography pie is large enough.

 

[sammy888]

Other than enhancing the highlights and shadows, do you all find it too fake too unreal, like cartoon drawings?

At first I quite like and impressed by HDR, but some people overcook it like cartoon until I find it disgusting.

I would relate HDR closely to singing. If you notice like American Idols initiate selection of entries you can see how some will sing with such control of their voice it just comes out so smooth and nice sounding but then you have another who over does it to try to make the song unique and over do the ending parts of each note or too little of it ..etc. Know what I mean?

So there is a balance and artistic approach to using your voice or HDR. heheh not sure if you get what I mean. So to me, HDR is like that and also another creative tool or expression as i would call it. My D4 has a HDR mode but it is not as good always as it is about hit and miss due to your adjustment to whatever lighting you are shooting of the subject matter. I see HDR not as a pure photographic thing but more a means to an end result which people may like it for what it is.

For example I am a follower of this photographer who I feel are one of the few people I see who does some great looking HDR photo finishing and he teaches classs on the subject. His name is Trey Ratcliff. a New Zealander. His site: https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/105237212888595777019/albums/5824120005827446993 and his main page : https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TreyRatcliff/photos

This guy don't even use DSLR much now but like the Sony A7R or A6000 link to his gear and HDR : http://www.stuckincustoms.com/camera-equipment/ Not promoting him or anything but someone I do follow online for ideas and techniques since I am into digital graphic designing and photo finishing.

It took people a long time to accept digital photos over film and I am one of those who step from the old camera (Nikon FG) to the new digitals and have seen many so call "Purist" who online even in Clubsnap defend film or against digital photo manipulation to the end but ....in the end, you have to move on (or die off) once film is no longer available, digital film result gets better and now with so many s/w like Lightroom/Photoshop to tweak the finish further. Nowadays, new fresh creative minds are comes out with new ways to make photos. HDR functions like my camera gear, at the end of the day, is another tool in my 'bag of tricks'. When I first take a shot it is always to take the shot right out of the camera and use it but sometime I would use a software or HDR to tweak the shot or save it or just trying something different to turn it on it's head for some other effect. The choice is yours. No right or wrong.

 

[Shizuma]

nope nope nope

 

[tecnica]

i lean towards manual blending than HDR, although i may at times use the latter when i feel it produces better result.

even for panoramas, i will manually blend each frame before stitching them up.

and no, i will never use my in-cam HDR function.

 

[Mythmaker]

Which Sony model are you using?

Nex5R. It's the more realistic kind of HDR, just a little boost to the dynamic range.

 

[swifty]

HDR as a tool is great for increasing the dynamic range in a scene. But it comes down to the photographer's interpretation of that expanded tonal range and how it translates to in the final image.
So I have no problems with the technique per say but I seldom like the results I see. But that's probably because the easily spotted HDR shots are overdone IMO and the well executed ones I don't even realise are HDRs.

 

[UncleFai]

This is a shot I took of a Hooded Pitta in Thailand some time ago. It is a HDR of 3 shots, I think 1EV apart (can't remember). The bird itself had a wide dynamic range due to the black of its head and the iridescent blue on the wing (a small part of the blue still burnt). Do I use it a lot? No. This is my only successful application. But just wanted to point out that HDR can go beyond landscapes.

 

[nitewalk]

I prefer to take single shots. but in all seriousness, as mentioned, it is a tool. There are followings for HDR photos. You can spot some on facebook getting incredible number of likes. But what is your principle? Do you agree with what you see? Probably you can formulate your beliefs from there. Our opinion is our opinion, just like asking any HDR fans they will swear by it.

 

[lewissac]

I use HDR mode from my D7100 when I can't get good exposure shot