# Is HDR a trendy gimmick?  Do you care?



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

I'm a sucker for trendy stuff.  Often, it seems cool now, but looks embarrassingly dated later.

Is HDR the latest fad, or a legit think that will stick around?

Do you use it regardless of whether it's trendy or not?

Just wonderin.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 9, 2015)

Peeb said:


> I'm a sucker for trendy stuff.  Often, it seems cool now, but looks embarrassingly dated later.
> 
> Is HDR the latest fad, or a legit think that will stick around?
> 
> ...



I think HDR as a concept and as a tool is here to stay.  I think massively oversaturated, cartoonish renditions that are often made using HDR are a fad.  Just my 2 cents worth of course.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

BTW, I don't do tons of HDR, but it's quite fun in certain contexts.

I guess like many things, the less 'obvious' it is, the safer you probably will be.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 9, 2015)




----------



## dennybeall (Aug 9, 2015)

HDR is a tool that has a place when used correctly. Like any tool it can be used and it can be abused. Personal opinion usually determines whether it's used or abused in each case.
My personal thought is if it looks like a plastic model - it's abused!


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

Braineack said:


>


Oh noes!

The dreaded HDR hole!!!


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a sucker for trendy stuff.  Often, it seems cool now, but looks embarrassingly dated later.
> ...



My feelings the same.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 9, 2015)

Given that photographers have been dealing with the limitations of the technology of the craft since, oh, the 1850s, and have constantly created various methods to deal with excessive dynamic range, no..... I would not call it a trend.


Unless your definition of a trend means it lasts for centuries.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Given that photographers have been dealing with the limitations of the technology of the craft since, oh, the 1850s, and have constantly created various methods to deal with excessive dynamic range, no..... I would not call it a trend.
> 
> 
> Unless your definition of a trend means it lasts for centuries.


Cliche, then:  Are You Still Making These 10 Photography Clich s Expert Photography


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2015)

Hey, I loved that article about the 10 Expert Photo tips!!! I think I am gonna try some of those expert techniques, to try to help my photo skillz become more skillz-y! Some of those ideas sound awesome, like :
*Fake Lens Flare*
*Vintage iPhone Apps
Naff Borders and Garish Watermarks
Heavy Vignetting
*
I particularly like the idea of enhancing my photography through the expert use of Naff Borders and Garish Watermarks! That just sounds,like, totally,totally super-awesome!

*
*


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

Remember when selective colorizing was just oh-so-cool?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 9, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Remember when selective colorizing was just oh-so-cool?


No, not really.  For me at least it's always been the photographic equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard.  

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2015)

I think every photographer should try SC at least once.

Like HDR.

And broccoli.  

How are you going to know for sure until you've tried it?


----------



## Overread (Aug 9, 2015)

I like cartoons and animation in general - heck I'm always rather sad that animation took a huge nosedive in the west and even now is mostly seen as a "childish" thing.


As for HDR - eh anything and everything is a FAD at some point or another. A FAD is just when something gets popularized and that happens all the time. They come and go - nostalgia preserves some in years to come and othertimes they might fall totally out of popularity for generations. I would say learn to do something; learn to do it in different ways - gain a breadth of knowledge and the element of choice it brings and just do your thing. Do what you like doing = whilst at the same time taking opportunities to experiment along the way.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 9, 2015)

HDR is not a problem in the least.

Bad photography is.

It's when people try to save poorly planned images, don't want to be bothered by exposure (yes, you still need to meter, people!) is a problem.

HDR is just a tool. Like any other tool, it can be used well. Nobody blames Photoshop for bad composites. Nobody blames Canon for bad photographs.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 9, 2015)

Also, there are techniques that look just as natural as anything else.

90% of what we think of, and become so annoyed with, is tone mapping. Which in itself isn't HDR but a processing technique.

If you're into HDR, for fricks sake, PLEASE LOOK HERE and throw away Reinhardt!

LR Enfuse - Blend Multiple Exposures Together in Adobe Lightroom


----------



## snowbear (Aug 9, 2015)

Trend?  No.  It is a process used to overcome a camera's limitations.  The over-cooked tone-mapped monstrosities I tend to see in some places will eventually go away when the next "flavor of the month" technique (probably something to do with drones/r.c. hovercraft) comes along.

Do I care?  Not really.  I do what I like.



Peeb said:


> Remember when selective colorizing was just oh-so-cool?


It still is among some of the "YANAP" targets.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 9, 2015)

Designer said:


> I think every photographer should try SC at least once.
> 
> Like HDR.
> 
> ...



See, that's exactly the sort of crap your mom would say to trick you into eating broccoli - when you knew good and well anything that looked like that and smelled like that was just not going to taste good.  But you'd go and do it anyway.. and bam.  Yup, you were right.  Lousy.


----------



## snowbear (Aug 9, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > I think every photographer should try SC at least once.
> ...



Actually, I _like_ broccoli.
And spinach.

And I did try SC once. Well, actually twice but it was the same photo and I was trying to see if I got a better result with watercolor or oil paint.  Oil paint won so I trash canned the watercolor version.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

snowbear said:


> Trend?  No.  It is a process used to overcome a camera's limitations.  The over-cooked tone-mapped monstrosities I tend to see in some places will eventually go away when the next "flavor of the month" technique (probably something to do with drones/r.c. hovercraft) comes along.
> 
> Do I care?  Not really.  I do what I like.
> 
> ...


OK- you forced me to google that- and I got this:
You Are Not a Photographer Exposing fauxtographers since 2011


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 9, 2015)

snowbear said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



Wow.. your mom just loved you to pieces didn't she?  Lol


----------



## snowbear (Aug 9, 2015)

Peeb said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > Trend?  No.  It is a process used to overcome a camera's limitations.  The over-cooked tone-mapped monstrosities I tend to see in some places will eventually go away when the next "flavor of the month" technique (probably something to do with drones/r.c. hovercraft) comes along.
> ...



That is correct.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

Peeb said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > Trend?  No.  It is a process used to overcome a camera's limitations.  The over-cooked tone-mapped monstrosities I tend to see in some places will eventually go away when the next "flavor of the month" technique (probably something to do with drones/r.c. hovercraft) comes along.
> ...


Awesome stuff!
EDIT: just perused a few more pages- some funny, and some genuinely disturbing.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 9, 2015)

Schindler's List was the one and only good excuse for selective coloring in the history of photography.

I'm not saying it can't be done well, I mean, there is Schindler's List. But ...

Ok yeah. Unless you're Stephen Speilberg and setting out to make a masterpiece... It sucks.


----------



## snowbear (Aug 9, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Schindler's List was the one and only good excuse for selective coloring in the history of photography.
> 
> I'm not saying it can't be done well, I mean, there is Schindler's List. But ...
> 
> Ok yeah. Unless you're Stephen Speilberg and setting out to make a masterpiece... It sucks.



I remember an ad for some kind of OTC - maybe a yellow pill.  It was effective - put your attention right where the ad company wanted it.

I seem to recall someone here did a very nice SC image that worked; a leaf, I believe.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 9, 2015)

Nope! Schindler's List. That's all.


----------



## wfooshee (Aug 9, 2015)

HDR can produce an image that overcomes the dynamic range limitations of the camera. When used for that, it's a very useful tool indeed.

When you can look at an image and you immediately know it's HDR because of the halos on the edges and the over-saturated metallic colors, then it's not a good use of the tool.

Like CGI in movies, you shouldn't be able to tell it was used if it's used correctly.


----------



## TCampbell (Aug 9, 2015)

There are two versions of HDR... 

There's the surrealistic, very obviously fake, over-saturated, looks someone someone is trying to pass of a "paint-by-numbers" painting as a masterpiece version of photography.

And then there are well-done HDR images that are simply as a way to keep the darks from being clipped and the brights from being blown out -- but if someone didn't tell you it was an HDR you might never have guessed.

The former seems to be a passing fad (and you'll always have people who still hang on to passing fads and just refuse to let it go).

The later is likely here to stay... at least here to stay until sensors become so good nobody needs the technique anymore.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2015)

Dogs Playing Poker originated around 1903, and even today, in 2015, is STILL available new, from Target stores, and other retailers. Art.com - Dogs Playing Poker Framed Poster Target

Dogs Playing Poker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

People LOVE schlock....


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Dogs Playing Poker originated around 1903, and even today, in 2015, is STILL available new, from Target stores, and other retailers. Art.com - Dogs Playing Poker Framed Poster Target
> 
> Dogs Playing Poker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> People LOVE schlock....


I think I still have a necktie with that image on it.  I had it for when I attended some kind of "arty" thing.  I used to try to match my neckwear to the occasion.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 9, 2015)

Just the oversaturated tone mapping, which tends to look terrible. Blending exposures using luminosity masks > tone mapping


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

Would HDR be a good technique for shots of the moon?  I'm thinking maybe.... don't have glass long enough to get a usable shot without cropping like crazy.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 9, 2015)

No.  But stacking multiple images would be.


----------



## PaulWog (Aug 9, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Would HDR be a good technique for shots of the moon?  I'm thinking maybe.... don't have glass long enough to get a usable shot without cropping like crazy.



I haven't fully looked into the concept, but possibly yes. When I was reading up on focus stacking, part of the process includes collecting different exposures. You're not going to end up getting an insanely sharper image if you already need to crop in a ton, but it's used to get a better exposed and more detailed image of the moon.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 9, 2015)

I think I've done an HDR of the moon... It works, though my optics weren't up for the job.


----------



## dcbear78 (Aug 9, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Would HDR be a good technique for shots of the moon?  I'm thinking maybe.... don't have glass long enough to get a usable shot without cropping like crazy.


Not at all.... There is white and darker white with a few greys. 

I'm constantly amazed when you see people proudly state that they've just completed a HDR and my only thought is, "why?" A photo that could quite have easily have been taken in a single image..... But then I realised that they used a Canon and didn't have the dynamic range available. [emoji12] 

I actually thought someone had revived a 5 year old thread when I saw the title.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 9, 2015)

dcbear78 said:


> Not at all.... There is white and darker white with a few greys.
> 
> I'm constantly amazed when you see people proudly state that they've just completed a HDR and my only thought is, "why?" A photo that could quite have easily have been taken in a single image..... But then I realised that they used a Canon and didn't have the dynamic range available. [emoji12]
> 
> I actually thought someone had revived a 5 year old thread when I saw the title.


I've seen some really interesting shots of the moon with 'earthly' foreground containing more than you describe. Perhaps that's odd.


----------



## CanonFob (Aug 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Hey, I loved that article about the 10 Expert Photo tips!!! I think I am gonna try some of those expert techniques, to try to help my photo skillz become more skillz-y! Some of those ideas sound awesome, like :
> *Fake Lens Flare*
> *Vintage iPhone Apps
> Naff Borders and Garish Watermarks
> ...


Where is this article you mentioned? I'm interested in reading it. Thank you


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2015)

Waseca, Minnesota! Oh myyyy gosh!!! I remember the *Herter's* mail-order company out of Waseca, MN!! Wow, what a fantastric catalog Herter's used to maintain.

This is the article I mentioned. And for the record, I was kidding about using those hackneyed techniques...    

Are You Still Making These 10 Photography Clich s Expert Photography


----------



## unpopular (Aug 11, 2015)

Dude. I saw a whole book like that.


----------



## JoeW (Aug 12, 2015)

Peeb said:


> I'm a sucker for trendy stuff.  Often, it seems cool now, but looks embarrassingly dated later.
> 
> Is HDR the latest fad, or a legit think that will stick around?
> 
> ...


It will stick around.  But it's just a tool.

Do you use your hammer for everything....like when you need to loosen the radiator belt on your car or to change a tire or to clean the lens on your camera?  I hope not.  You use it when it's appropriate.  

But when you first got a hammer and had never used it, you went overboard with it.  And then at some point, if you were smart, you realized "okay, it's a tool, but it's not the only tool out there."  And so you used it when it fit.  Or you discovered (maybe b/c of a weak wrist or the type of projects you took on) you didn't like using that tool or rarely had a need for it.

I've got a lens baby.  Cool and fun lens.  I rarely use it.  But I keep it.  B/c at some point I will have a need where I'll want to pull it out and shoot with it again.


----------



## kdthomas (Aug 14, 2015)

Peeb said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > Trend?  No.  It is a process used to overcome a camera's limitations.  The over-cooked tone-mapped monstrosities I tend to see in some places will eventually go away when the next "flavor of the month" technique (probably something to do with drones/r.c. hovercraft) comes along.
> ...



OMFG ... this reminds me of a few from my wall of shame ...


----------



## nerwin (Aug 15, 2015)

I use to be really into HDR, I even used Photomatix HDR Pro. I'm just not Trey Ratcliff. If I do any kind of HDRing, its just with in Lightroom using some sweet HDR presets I got and modified for my liking. They work quite well actually and look more realistic then some of the stuff Photoshop and Photomatix does.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 15, 2015)

If you want the technical advantages of HDR without all the tone mapping ickiness, use Enfuse.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 16, 2015)

Kitchen window: OOC-






Same view, bracketed and combined under photomerge in Elements 13:





and now over the top with photomatrix painterly3:





Can we agree that this is a bit much?


----------



## unpopular (Aug 17, 2015)

it almost looks like the stack is unaligned in the Photocrapix version. Post the stack and I'll run it through Enfuse.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 19, 2015)

Every trick (gimmick) has its usefulness. And then, every trick gets abused. Just like alcohol I guess.

Can't believe I just said that...

But I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that HDR has been around since the 1930's or 40's. I have not been following digital photography in a while but, a few years back, I had not seen a single gimmick that didn't exist in the time of dinosaurs.

Although there may be some, most software writers are not artists and, when it comes to photography, processing softwares like PS have done nothing more than recreate what was done in the darkroom or at the time of the shoot. But only to some extent.

The polarizing filter has never been recreated that I know of, for example.

As for trends, they come and go. Why some come back is beyond me.

But HDR (the non-comic book version) can be a great tool and used in that way is neither a gimmick nor a trend.


----------



## wanderer86 (Aug 19, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




LOL! That is an AWESOME explanation. I agree that I think HDR has its purpose and I've seen some amazing HDR shots. I experimented with it a little when I was still shooting digital, but haven't done it with film.

This was my attempt at HDR 




chevrolethdredit by Aimee  Lower, on Flickr

Plus, the benefits with HDR include alot of really breath taking nighttime shots that we see around lately. A friend of mine does HDR merges of dozens upon dozens of shots of the same scene at different exposure rates to create stunning nighttime photos. Sometimes shots like that would not really be economical with film (at least in my case)


----------

