# Why aren't there more posts here for HDR? Newbie question



## NancyMoranG

It seems HDR is growing to the masses, so why few photos here? Are people posting them in other areas as 'regular' photos? Curious. Just ordered HDRSoft program, but not looking to over cook anything. Just need help with (a lot) with shadows, and more..
my first attempt at will be at HDR when I get software soon. 
Some really wonderful photos have been posted here, look forward to more.
Nancy


----------



## The_Traveler

Why are there so few Instagam or Hipstamatic photos?

same answer for both.


----------



## cgipson1

Some HDR is wonderful... but most is way overprocessed. It can be nice... or it can be very, very ugly! We get too much of the latter, and not enough of the first.


----------



## manaheim

There was an uprising of HDR enthusiasts here some time back.  It bordered on a revolt.   They all left.


----------



## KmH

People don't stay in the *HDR Hole* _stage of a photographers life_ to long;
Stages of a Photographer?s Life as a Graph | Enticing the Light


----------



## Murray Bloom

In my opinion, the more obvious HDR treatments have mostly seen their day.  Sure, people can still churn out heavily tone mapped images, but not as many people appreciate them as before.  When that 'look' was newer, it had a certain amount of novelty.  Viewers have become more discerning, and now dismiss most of the obvious stuff.  I think that's as it should be, with HDR being a tool in the box rather than the main element.


----------



## manaheim

HDRs are very useful as a tool for the occasional picture, however...












Some people here will say "Oh, Chris is dragging THOSE out again."

Well, yes, and that's because I have about 3-4 HDRs... as in, in my ENTIRE life as a photographer, I've found it suitable to take maybe half a dozen HDRs, of which I find these two to be the prime examples of what you can do with them while not making them look like bizarro world.

The first most aptly demonstrates balancing serious light issues, where the windows would be blown out or the lobby pitch black without HDR. The second demonstrates how you can draw out the true richness and dynamic range of color of the scene - something you couldn't really have done with a standard shot. (well, and the light thing- but less so in this shot than in the prior)


----------



## NancyMoranG

Thank you. I am looking for the more natural look. I am looking forward to moving forward in my learning.
thanks all!
Nancy


----------



## cgipson1

I agree, HDR is indispensable for some types of shooting... Three different reasons to use HDR below...

this was a very dark room!



Antlers Lobby HDR by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

And this was a very dark and stormy night



Belize Resort Pool Nighttime Long Exposure by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

And this had a very bright background.... and a dark foreground. Even with ND's and GND's, HDR helped bring out the foreground better



Sunrise at Roberts Grove Beach Resort Long Exposure HDR by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## NancyMoranG

Charlie, those are 3 EXCELLENT images and reasons to have HDR. I was beginning to think I made a mistake ordering it.
Nancy


----------



## The Barbarian

> Viewers have become more  discerning, and now dismiss most of the obvious stuff.  I think that's  as it should be, with HDR being a tool in the box rather than the main  element.



Yep.   HDR has always been a way to increase dynamic range in order to make a shot look more natural.   I'm not disparaging the more extreme examples, but I don't care for them, myself.   I have had people tell me "that doesn't even look HDR!" and become nonplussed when I take it as a complement. 

The notion that extended dynamic range looks "unreal" comes from those who are accustomed to the more conventional unreality of LDR shots.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7446/9322839782_155e58306b_h.jpg
This was done to avoid a blown-out sky, as to emphasize texture in the water and rock.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

The HDR subforum is mostly dead nowadays. There was a number of us (myself included) but it's dropped off.


----------



## manaheim

It probably doesn't help that 90% of the threads turned into "you don't need HDR to get that shot" or "you can't make an HDR from one exposure" threads... which is totally accurate... but probably frustrating for people trying to shoot an HDR... of their cat... sitting in the grass... in the sun.


----------



## cgipson1

manaheim said:


> It probably doesn't help that 90% of the threads turned into "you don't need HDR to get that shot" or "you can't make an HDR from one exposure" threads... which is totally accurate... but probably frustrating for people trying to shoot an HDR... of their cat... sitting in the grass... in the sun.



Not to mention that an old regular (Bynx) was banned... and the WAY overprocessed HDR types that caused it, didn't stick around. Kind of took the fun out of that forum!


----------



## mishele

A group of big meanies ran the HDR people away.


----------



## The Barbarian

> but probably frustrating for people trying to shoot an HDR... of their cat... sitting in the grass... in the sun.



Unless, of course, it's a black cat that's backlighted in the sun.   Instead of making rules about it, just use it when it makes your picture better.   Might be less fun for the rules people, but it will lead to better photographs.   Don't let it bother you.   The people making "the rules" for HDR don't seem to post a lot of photographs, for reasons we can all guess.

If you're a photographer, HDR should be in your toolkit, along with cropping, contrast, and other adjustments.


----------



## NancyMoranG

Thank you all. I just got PSE 11 yesterday on disk ( ok, I'm old.....school yea that's it)
my 1st pp product ever, and Photomatix is on back order, so hopefully soon, I will be in the mix of things with my 'tool kit' a little more appropriate .
Nancy


----------



## manaheim

The Barbarian said:


> but probably frustrating for people trying to shoot an HDR... of their cat... sitting in the grass... in the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, it's a black cat that's backlighted in the sun. Instead of making rules about it, just use it when it makes your picture better. Might be less fun for the rules people, but it will lead to better photographs. Don't let it bother you. The people making "the rules" for HDR don't seem to post a lot of photographs, for reasons we can all guess.
> 
> If you're a photographer, HDR should be in your toolkit, along with cropping, contrast, and other adjustments.
Click to expand...


I honestly never saw anyone claiming there were rules to it.  People would say they like it this way or that. It just so happens that some people seem to think that this tool you're speaking of was the only one in the tool chest, and anyone who might suggest that another tool might be more appropriate in that case would be jumped upon like some sort of raving heathen.


----------



## The Barbarian

> I honestly never saw anyone claiming there were rules to it.  People  would say they like it this way or that. It just so happens that some  people seem to think that this tool you're speaking of was the only one  in the tool chest, and anyone who might suggest that another tool might  be more appropriate in that case would be jumped upon like some sort of  raving heathen.



I honestly never saw anyone making a claim like that.   Having arrived toward the end of the dust-up, it was my impression that a lot of people got emotionally invested in their position, and couldn't admit that anyone with a different opinion was in any way correct about any of it.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure no one here would assume that black cats in sunlit grass should never be HDR'ed.  (Barbarian checks)  Never done one of those myself; how about a whitish dog?



Sorry about the small size; didn't have time to find the original.


----------



## cgipson1

The Barbarian said:


> I honestly never saw anyone claiming there were rules to it.  People  would say they like it this way or that. It just so happens that some  people seem to think that this tool you're speaking of was the only one  in the tool chest, and anyone who might suggest that another tool might  be more appropriate in that case would be jumped upon like some sort of  raving heathen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly never saw anyone making a claim like that.   Having arrived toward the end of the dust-up, it was my impression that a lot of people got emotionally invested in their position, and couldn't admit that anyone with a different opinion was in any way correct about any of it.
> 
> Anyway, I'm pretty sure no one here would assume that black cats in sunlit grass should never be HDR'ed.  (Barbarian checks)  Never done one of those myself; how about a whitish dog?
> 
> View attachment 57051
Click to expand...


Assuming that is a single image? Which is not True HDR... more tonemapping and exposure adjusting with that single image. I see a dark shadow, and blown highlights on the tail... both of which true HDR would correct.


----------



## The Barbarian

> Assuming that is a single image?



Yep.  Tough to get multiple shots of a running dog to line up.  The rules.... "multiple images of a single raw image do not make an HDR."   I don't really care, so long as it increases the dynamic range.  In fact, the "dark shadow" now has clear detail, and the "blown tail" has spots and hairs visible, neither of which was true in the original image.  And that's the other issue.  

If I make the grass brighter in the shadow, or increase the detail in the tail, would it be a more arresting image in any way?   Don't think so.   At least when I looked at the alternatives, it didn't.   An HDR doesn't have to necessarily scream "HDR."


----------



## manaheim

And there you have it. The entire spiral in a nutshell.

Repeat 1000x.


----------



## The Barbarian

The eternal battle between purity and pragmatism.   The nice thing about photography is, the pragmatists can go on making better images, and the purists can have their rules, without either of them imposing on the other.

This is not a new issue, BTW.    My first formal photographic training was in the zone system, which the purists considered to be "not real photography."

*I deliberately omitted discussing the so-called Zone System of film  exposure determination in this book because in my opinion it makes  mountains out of molehills, complicates matters out of all proportions,  does not produce any results that cannot be accomplished more easily  with methods discussed in this text, and is a ritual if not a form of  cult rather than a practical technical procedure.*
Feininger, Andreas, _Light and Lighting in Photography,_ Prentice-Hall, 1976

Deja vu, all over again.   History often gives a sense of perspective, for those willing to listen to it.


----------



## manaheim

I'm not a rule follower.  I do what makes sense to get the image I want.  It's the EXACT same thing you are doing.

The reason why this HDR forum fell apart is because people took sides and made it personal, just as you are doing now.  For some reason some individuals cannot discuss the methods of HDR photography intelligently without taking it as a personal insult and lashing out.

In the fish tank world it's the equivalent of this:

"Oh I see you're using canister system. I use only live rock for filtration."
"You know, you only have about five animals in that 55 gallon tank.  The canister may be overkill for you."
"Oh yeah?! WELL... your fish are UGLY!"

It's pretty ridiculous.


----------



## runnah

manaheim said:


> In the fish tank world it's the equivalent of this:
> 
> "Oh I see you're using canister system. I use only live rock for filtration."
> "You know, you only have about five animals in that 55 gallon tank.  The canister may be overkill for you."
> "Oh yeah?! WELL... your fish are UGLY!"
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous.



Fresh water tanks are for HDR users!!


----------



## The Barbarian

> I'm not a rule follower.  I do what makes sense to get the image I want.  It's the EXACT same thing you are doing.



I believe that you are doing what I do.   Specifically, we do what makes sense to *us*, to get the images *we* want.   This is about the uses of HDR, not Rabbit and Barbarian.



> The reason why this HDR forum fell apart is because people took sides  and made it personal, just as you are doing now.



I don't see how.  It's quite possible to disagree firmly without making it personal.   Hereabouts, I like to use "you" only when giving a compliment.   I think the way to make this subforum work, is to post interesting and quality images in it.   I'm doing what I can to that end.



> For some reason some  individuals cannot discuss the methods of HDR photography intelligently  without taking it as a personal insult and lashing out.



I think there's a difference between strong disagreement and "lashing out."   My point was that often there's a reaction every time the technology of imaging improves.   The zone system had the same sort of criticism leveled against it, when it was first out, and people were starting to do what Ansel Adams was doing to get great images.   



> In the fish tank world it's the equivalent of this:
> 
> "Oh I see you're using canister system. I use only live rock for filtration."
> "You know, you only have about five animals in that 55 gallon tank.  The canister may be overkill for you."
> "Oh yeah?! WELL... your fish are UGLY!"



If some HDR proponent is arguing that way, then a pox on him.   As you see, I'm arguing the opposite.   If someone wants to do overcooked HDRs, and can control the process sufficiently to say what he or she wants, then it's fine with me, even if I don't always see the point.   If someone never wants to do anything remotely like HDR, that's fine, too.   Everyone should quit worrying about rules and do what works.   Remember, there was a time when older techniques were disparaged as the cultural equivalent of velvet Elvis paintings, too.



> It's pretty ridiculous.



But it doesn't have to be.    Let's move on.


----------



## The Barbarian

View attachment 57074


----------



## runnah

Everyone has a right to do what ever these please artistically. I also have to right to hate every single bit of it. I also have the right to say "i think your art sucks" and you have the right to say "go **** yourself". People need to realize that its ok to be offended by someone else's opinion. 

Isn't america great!


----------



## manaheim

I'm offended by your avatar.


----------



## runnah

manaheim said:


> I'm offended by your avatar.



Good! And I think Star Wars is highly overrated!

*hums "America the Beautiful"*


----------



## Braineack

I'm offended by HDR.


let's keep this on topic folks.


----------



## runnah

Braineack said:


> I'm offended by HDR.
> 
> 
> let's keep this on topic folks.



What is the topic? HDR sucking?


----------



## NancyMoranG

Braineack said:


> I'm offended by HDR..



Why? As a person still waiting to receive it I am not looking for 'political' type jargon just some info. I see many overlooked, which will not be for me. Have seen many fine results including some posted in this post. So isn't there a time for it?
Nancy


----------



## cgipson1

HDR is hypothetically used to Extend Dynamic Range... 

If you take a single image (RAW)... of a scene that has a 20 stop Dynamic range... and that RAW image only captures 12 stops of that range (current sensor limitations basically)... no matter what you do to that RAW... you still only have the original 12 stops of dynamic range that it captured... no matter how many copies of it you make, and change the exposure on... and then merge in a HDR program.

Agreed?

Yes.. the image may look better than the original single image... because you actually are increasing the visible dynamic range to the full 12 stops in the original RAW (at least, if done properly! Lightening shadows, and darkening overexposed areas... but if the detail in these areas was not captured in that single image due to the dynamic range limitations... then there is no detail that can be shown no matter how much the image is manipulated!) 

So you are still not going to get the full 20 stop range that the original scene had, unless you take multiple images at different exposures to cover the entire 20 stop range, and merge those (aka HDR)

Agreed?

Anytime you have blown out highlights... or total solid blacks with no detail... you are not utilizing HDR to it's full potential! 

Agreed?

Don't get me started on Tone- Mapping.. which has NOTHING to do with HDR.....lol!


----------



## runnah

Most of the HDR images are all frosting and no cake. Taking a ****ty image and blowing it out results in a ****ty images that is over processed. I like HDR, its a great idea to get much closer to what the human eye sees. I just haven't seen many HDR images that combined a great photo and just the right amount of tone mapping and HDR.


----------



## Braineack

NancyMoranG said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm offended by HDR..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? As a person still waiting to receive it I am not looking for 'political' type jargon just some info. I see many overlooked, which will not be for me. Have seen many fine results including some posted in this post. So isn't there a time for it?
> Nancy
Click to expand...



I don't really hate HDR.  I just hate when people _tonemap_ the crap out of images to try to make them pass as good.  There's plenty of examples of good HDR out there (it really impresses me when someone can actually post a good HDR image), but there's so many poorly composed, executed, overcooked, tonemapped images that people try to pass off as HDR or "good" that I hate to look at and hate that it's a "thing".


----------



## cgipson1

Braineack said:


> NancyMoranG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm offended by HDR..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? As a person still waiting to receive it I am not looking for 'political' type jargon just some info. I see many overlooked, which will not be for me. Have seen many fine results including some posted in this post. So isn't there a time for it?
> Nancy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really hate HDR.  I just hate when people _tonemap_ the crap out of images to try to make them pass as good.  There's plenty of examples of good HDR out there (it really impresses me when someone can actually post a good HDR image), but there's so many poorly composed, executed, overcooked, tonemapped images that people try to pass off as HDR or "good" that I hate to look at and hate that it's a "thing".
Click to expand...


^THIS!! X1000


----------



## amolitor

I posted a thing a while back about how HDR techniques could be used to create a new aesthetic, but it didn't get a whole heck of a lot of traction.

HDR's problems are largely who uses it, rather than what it is. People who fool with HDR tend to be tinkerers who are collecting techniques, or people who like popped looks, or whatever. I haven't run across anyone trying to specifically use HDR methods to make an artistic statement, to say something new. And they could, which is really too bad.


----------



## The Barbarian

> If you take a single image (RAW)... of a scene that has a 20 stop  Dynamic range... and that RAW image only captures 12 stops of that range  (current sensor limitations basically)... no matter what you do to that  RAW... you still only have the original 12 stops of dynamic range that  it captured...



And increased the dynamic range, possibly to the level that you want.   If not, then multiple exposures are indicated.  But if it works, then it's fine.    Agreed?



> Yes.. the image may look better than the original single image...  because you actually are increasing the visible dynamic range to the  full 12 stops in the original RAW (at least, if done properly!



Yep.  You don't have to go over the top when increasing dynamic range any more than you need to use unsharp mask to the point that it's obvious.



> So you are still not going to get the full 20 stop range that the  original scene had, unless you take multiple images at different  exposures to cover the entire 20 stop range, and merge those (aka HDR) Anytime you have blown out highlights... or total solid blacks with no  detail... you are not utilizing HDR to it's full potential!



And breaking the HDR RULES again.   Darn.



> Agreed?



I can hear the sirens now.  HDR police are on the way.


----------



## The Barbarian




----------



## cgipson1

The Barbarian said:


> If you take a single image (RAW)... of a scene that has a 20 stop  Dynamic range... and that RAW image only captures 12 stops of that range  (current sensor limitations basically)... no matter what you do to that  RAW... you still only have the original 12 stops of dynamic range that  it captured...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And increased the dynamic range, possibly to the level that you want.   If not, then multiple exposures are indicated.  But if it works, then it's fine.    Agreed?
Click to expand...


No.. because you still lack the detail that a full range would give you. And if anything is blownout due to overexposure... or dead black due to underexposure... *it did not work!*


----------



## Murray Bloom

I disagree with Charlie.  While I'm pretty much an HDR purist, not every image has to be HDR.  If, whether tone mapping is used or not, if the image achieves what its creator had in his/her mind's eye, that's fine.  Whether others like it is another story entirely.


----------



## cgipson1

Murray Bloom said:


> I disagree with Charlie.  While I'm pretty much an HDR purist, not every image has to be HDR.  If, whether tone mapping is used or not, if the image achieves what its creator had in his/her mind's eye, that's fine.  *Whether others like it is another story entirely.*



I agree with the last part!    (and I can't imagine anyone really WANTING a blown out fried tail on a pet picture! But hey, maybe that is just me!)  lol!

I do think that the "That is the way I envisioned it" is often used to excuse / justify poor technique / composition!


----------



## amolitor

NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!

The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.


----------



## Braineack

Well I use HDR techniques to make the image look more like what the eye sees, so of course I post an image of a completely unrealitic looking scene with colors that burn the retinas.


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!
> 
> The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.



IS Zuul dark, colorless and sometimes OOF?  I am assuming so, since you brought it up!


----------



## amolitor

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!
> 
> The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IS Zuul dark, colorless and sometimes OOF?  I am assuming so, since you brought it up!
Click to expand...


I assume that this is an insult, but since it is incomprehensible, I am able to shrug it off easily.


----------



## Derrel

runnah said:


> Most of the HDR images are all frosting and no cake. Taking a ****ty image and blowing it out results in a ****ty images that is over processed. I like HDR, its a great idea to get much closer to what the human eye sees. I just haven't seen many HDR images that combined a great photo and just the right amount of tone mapping and HDR.



You know what *I* find so annoying??? The way the above type of attitude toward a style, a working method, a way of showing images, is so frequently expressed here on TPF. The HDR method is dismissed and ridiculed by so,so many people here on TPF. And yet, at the same time, basic compositional strategies, fundamentals of design, and just sound, pleasing compositional strategies, are pooh-poohed. God-awful composition is regularly elevated and defended here, and sound, BASIC ideas underlying visual communication are quite often ridiculed. By those with no training or study (study either formal, or informal, or taught-by-others, or even self-directed) in anything photographic except _how to operate a camera's controls and "the exposure triangle"_.


----------



## Underdeveloped

as an amateur and very uneducated picture taker, I love the concept of HDR when taking shots that look like they need some exposure help (ie. can't get the highlights and darks together enough for the pic I see in my mind).  However, in post I find that these punchy, over cooked photos are all I can come out with.  What HDR needs is more people willing to teach HOW TO PROCESS IT properly.


----------



## amolitor

The thing is, there is no "proper" for HDR. It's a basket of techniques. Many many different looks are possible.

It sounds like you have a pretty specific result in mind, and it's unfortunate that you can't find a good clear tutorial on how to achieve that. Good luck!


----------



## The Barbarian

> (and I can't imagine anyone really WANTING a blown out fried tail on a pet picture! But hey, maybe that is just me!)



"Blown out" normally means "so overexposed, no detail is captured."  We're obviously using a different vocabulary here.   Perhaps it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and step back a bit.   I just noted my own drift into sarcasm there, so I'm guilty as well.   

Let's not forget the point: how much dynamic range you use, depends on what you are trying to do.   In the case of Bagel (my basset/beagle mix), I wanted to get her goofy run (eyes closed, ears flapping), and the very fine and shiny hair on her head and ears.   It worked well, because I knew what I was looking for, before I started processing.   I suspect a lot of people do HDR to see what turns up and then work with that.

No smarter than those who did zone system processing without first deciding what they wanted completely white and what they wanted completely black.





 lol!


----------



## cgipson1

Underdeveloped said:


> as an amateur and very uneducated picture taker, I love the concept of HDR when taking shots that look like they need some exposure help (ie. can't get the highlights and darks together enough for the pic I see in my mind).  However, in post I find that these punchy, over cooked photos are all I can come out with.  What HDR needs is more people willing to teach HOW TO PROCESS IT properly.



We had a really good one that was willing to teach! But he got banned fighting with the Overprocessed HDR types! I am willing to help with exposure fusion techniques... and that is all!


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. You must capture all of the information, every bit of it. And then show it to me. In the picture. In garish color!
> 
> The intent of the photographer is meaningless, there is only Zuul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IS Zuul dark, colorless and sometimes OOF?  I am assuming so, since you brought it up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that this is an insult, but since it is incomprehensible, I am able to shrug it off easily.
Click to expand...


Zuul?? ZUUL! That is who you remind me of.. Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters!!


----------



## The Barbarian

gg


----------



## The Barbarian

> as an amateur and very uneducated picture taker, I love the concept of  HDR when taking shots that look like they need some exposure help (ie.  can't get the highlights and darks together enough for the pic I see in  my mind).  However, in post I find that these punchy, over cooked photos  are all I can come out with.  What HDR needs is more people willing to  teach HOW TO PROCESS IT properly.



The trick is knowing how to use a light touch.  I can share with you what I've found.   What software do you use?


----------



## manaheim

^^^ most of the folks in this section did NOT use a light touch in hdr. 

That last one was beautiful, btw... but it looks like you put more than one exposure behind it.  Did you?

If I'm seeing right your cloud one was not more than one exposure. Am I right?

There's often a certain dead/flat look to the images that are one exposure turned HDR.  Not sure why.


----------



## The Barbarian

Both of those were one exposure, but the old kitchen was a beast to get right.   I wanted the view outside the window to look the way it would to someone whose eyes were adjusted to the darker kitchen.   I ended up making several different pseudo HDRs, and then layering them.  Maybe that's why it looks different.


----------



## manaheim

Nice trick.  It worked well.  Why didn't you just do multiple exposures?  Have you ever tried it?


----------



## The Barbarian

> Nice trick.  It worked well.  Why didn't you just do multiple exposures?  Have you ever tried it?



I've done it, when I have a tripod handy.   Even pretty good fitting programs don't do as well as I like.   Mostly I do that for really dark conditions, at high ISO, to reduce noise.   Sometimes stacking different jpegs of a single raw works, too.  This time, it wasn't successful at getting the window light just the way I wanted it to go.   But I do like the way stacking exposures makes the middle tones look rich.   The eggs and the chair look better for that.

Here's what I usually get when I try to do multiple exposures, hand-held:


Not very sharp, at least without unsharp mask.   Here, I was trying to get a pastel, postcardy look, so the lack of sharpness doesn't bother me.    

When I do multiple exposures on a tripod, I get things like this:



But you've given me a couple of ideas; I'll try some different things, next time.


----------



## manaheim

Most of the ones I do 5 total exposures. Sometimes I'll take 7 and cherry pick. Works very well. That one you have above looks a little washed out... you definitely nailed the painting/postcard look though.

Is your monitor calibrated?


----------



## The Barbarian

Wasn't calibrated when I did the courthouse square shot.   But my intention was to make the colors more muted.  Would I do it differently today?   Maybe so.   I look back five years and cringe at how bad I was then.   Looking back 30 years, I don't want to talk about it.


----------



## JTPhotography

In general, I think you will find that the "good" HDR is done by people who are good, well rounded photographers, ones who know their sh#t, and use it, as others have said, to extend dynamic range when necessary. The "bad" HDR is done by beginners who are too lazy to spend time learning the craft and/or who are looking for a quick way to make their crappy photos look good and get a bunch of "likes" on facebook.

PS: Until I began using Facebook as a marketing tool, I never realized there was such a huge disconnect between good photos and bad photos and the people who recogninze the two. But that is another topic for another day.


----------



## Murray Bloom

Barbarian's night shot reminded me of this one. It was strictly a spur of the moment image, taken as I walked back to my room. No tripod, but I put the camera on a nearby rock. I wanted to see if I could hold detail in the sign (the main light source) while not giving up too much of the shadows (it was, after all, night). Four shots.




The original HDR image has a lot more shadow detail. The deepest darks were a victim of the JPG conversion.


----------



## The Barbarian

Not bad at all.   In a screen-filling version of it, I get a strong feeling of separation and loneliness.    I used to have a job that put me on the road a lot.   This brings me back to those little country towns and those cabin motel "tourist courts."


----------



## The Barbarian

> The "bad" HDR is done by beginners who are too lazy to spend time  learning the craft and/or who are looking for a quick way to make their  crappy photos look good and get a bunch of "likes" on facebook.



Sadly true for many.   But a lot of beginners are just feeling their way through the process, and may very well become proficient in using the processing a restrained and useful way.   Encourage them in that journey.


----------



## weags77

Speaking as a beginner I used to be all too reliant on HDR, but I was learning. And I'm still learning and not using it so much, pretty much hardly at all. However I feel most of the so called "pros" or "experts" are guilty of the same thing beginner photographers are. They focus too much on the fact that its HDR as opposed to basic fundamentals of a good photo. Instead of commenting about composition, lighting etc as soon as these experts see that HDR processing was used, they discredit the entire photograph. Often times searching for anything to say negatively about it. 

And yes many HDR photos suck, I'm guilty plenty. But it does nothing for those of us just getting our feet wet to hear "oh HDR sucks" or "it wasn't needed there", when actual constructive criticism would be more say, constructive. From a personal standpoint, i cant stand the know it alls who want to just bash photos based on style while not offering any actual help. And it happens just as often as bad HDR photos are made. 

IMHO the people who do this are just as bad for photography as the people who abuse HDR. I mean many of you guys speak as though you were creating masterpieces the minute you picked up your camera. And you forgot what it was like to learn and experiment. 

Many of you guys do help out a lot and I'm very grateful for it so I don't want this to sound like a "pro" hating rant. Meant more for the guys who forgot where they came from and are too busy superficially tearing apart a photo because of the style it was processed in, than adding anything of value.


----------



## Murray Bloom

Good post, Weags. However, one distinction that's seldom made is the difference between how HDR is approached by already accomplished photographers and those just learning the craft.

Experienced photogs were often shooting for extended dynamic range for years, sometimes decades. The advent of digital HDR just made it easier, more automatic and repeatable. It became a useful tool, but far from the only one.

It's a different story for those just starting out in photography. Newbies, in general, would like to produce distinctive photographs. The Internet, and forums like TPF in particular, bombard said newbies with many beautiful and distinctive images, giving them a lot to aspire to. So, what often happens is at a stage when they still haven't mastered composition, lighting and the technical elements of 'straight' photography, and once they've learned about this thing called HDR, many latch onto it because they think it gives their photos the distinctiveness that they covet.

Often, it's not even HDR that's being used, but simply tonemapping. Unfortunately, those beginning photographers don't yet realize that grungy and overprocessed images have pretty much seen their day, which is why they often encounter so much resistance to their images; and often blame the critic, imagining a host of sinister motives. The truth is that the "HDR look" is no longer distinctive. With rare exceptions, their images become more about the process than the picture. In truth, the best HDR images are those where its use is virtually invisible, having no real 'look' at all beyond getting a bit closer to visual perfection.

This is why the "HDR Hole" is so aptly named. It's so easy to become addicted to making images that look distinctive, but only to learn later that they're just one of the crowd; blaming those who criticize their work for what it often is, a shortcut to making what they think are 'artsy' images. Eventually, everyone climbs out of the 'hole' after a few months or years, and they have hopefully learned something about photography while down there.


----------



## EIngerson

Here's one of my oversaturated 3 stop HDR's. It's way over done and I still like it. lol.




Fukushen-3 by Ingerson Photo, on Flickr

And.....




Apocalypse by Ingerson Photo, on Flickr


----------



## weags77

Murray Bloom said:


> Good post, Weags. However, one distinction that's seldom made is the difference between how HDR is approached by already accomplished photographers and those just learning the craft.
> 
> Experienced photogs were often shooting for extended dynamic range for years, sometimes decades. The advent of digital HDR just made it easier, more automatic and repeatable. It became a useful tool, but far from the only one.
> 
> It's a different story for those just starting out in photography. Newbies, in general, would like to produce distinctive photographs. The Internet, and forums like TPF in particular, bombard said newbies with many beautiful and distinctive images, giving them a lot to aspire to. So, what often happens is at a stage when they still haven't mastered composition, lighting and the technical elements of 'straight' photography, and once they've learned about this thing called HDR, many latch onto it because they think it gives their photos the distinctiveness that they covet.
> 
> Often, it's not even HDR that's being used, but simply tonemapping. Unfortunately, those beginning photographers don't yet realize that grungy and overprocessed images have pretty much seen their day, which is why they often encounter so much resistance to their images; and often blame the critic, imagining a host of sinister motives. The truth is that the "HDR look" is no longer distinctive. With rare exceptions, their images become more about the process than the picture. In truth, the best HDR images are those where its use is virtually invisible, having no real 'look' at all beyond getting a bit closer to visual perfection.
> 
> This is why the "HDR Hole" is so aptly named. It's so easy to become addicted to making images that look distinctive, but only to learn later that they're just one of the crowd; blaming those who criticize their work for what it often is, a shortcut to making what they think are 'artsy' images. Eventually, everyone climbs out of the 'hole' after a few months or years, and they have hopefully learned something about photography while down there.



I agree Murray. In my own personal case I feel HDR and its ability to somewhat easily produce what a newbie thinks is a distinctive photograph, can actually give someone the confidence and the drive to learn more about the actual craft. Not everyone has the time or the willingness to study for hours, days and years only to churn out crappy photo after crappy photo. Everyone's lives are different, how everyone learns is different. Who are we to criticize taking a shortcut if we don't know how long the journey is gonna be ? 

We are often our own toughest critics, while some here are their own biggest fans. So being able to create something that pleases our untrained eyes in a fairly short amount of time and with fairly little technical education, can mean the difference between igniting the passion needed to pursue the photographic art or crawling back into that hole of not being good enough or not wanting to make the commitment. 

For me personally HDR ignited my passion. And while I look back at some of my early "art" And think "what the hell was I thinking ?" I can't help but be thankful for it. I know my place, I have a LOT to still learn, but if it wasn't for HDR and those eye catching early photos, those Facebook "likes", and some very honest yet helpful criticism, I may never have been willing to put in the time to discover and learn about something I am now so passionate about.  

Some of these "anti-HDR" guys or anti-"artsy" guys really need to step back and quit taking things so personally. No one shooting HDR or whatever else you wanna call it, is out there shooting to piss them off. So what if a few people say "WOW great photograph" to a marginally decent yet way "overcooked" image. If these guys are that good and successful and confident enough in their knowledge and abilities they shouldn't be the least bit concerned with someone they see as an OBVIOUSLY less skilled photographer. 

I guess my thing is if you don't like it, but can't teach someone how to make it better or what they did wrong, besides the type of processing they used, it's really no more helpful than telling me I'm using the wrong camera.


----------



## The Barbarian




----------



## NancyMoranG

Barbarian, where do I sign up for lessons? Great shot/pp
Nancy


----------



## The Barbarian

I'm self-taught on HDR.   So I do it "wrong" by most measures.  But here's what I did on  this one;

A single raw image, low ISO. 

In Raw Therapee, I took five different jpegs, one "correct" exposure, and two stops each way.   I then denoised them in Neat Image.  Then I used Luminance to combine them into one image.    I moved the contrast slider until it didn't look gritty to me.   I set the saturation to 1.0, and the gamma back to 0.7.

Final tweaking in GIMP, with unsharp mask set to the level where I can just barely notice a difference, and (I forget) a slight adjustment in curve.

There's a reason I use those.   When I "retired", I became a school teacher, and I have an informal club of students who want to learn photography.   Some of them are quite poor.   For some of them, their camera is their telephone.  Many have only the school computers for processing.   So, they are limited to using whatever is free.  

So I became proficient in that software set because it could be obtained for nothing.    UFRaw is pretty good, but it's troublesome with Windows 7.


----------



## Patrice

The Barbarian said:


> View attachment 57074View attachment 57087




Regardless of how the photo of the stream was done I'd like to drift a #22 size midge on it using a 2 wt fly rod. Might be a nice little rainbow under the bushes on the right.


----------

