# The Whole "What is HDR" Debate



## manaheim (Jul 17, 2012)

In that earlier train wreck of a thread one reasonably important and interesting point came up and was sort of buried, so I felt like reviving.

What is HDR?

I saw several people point to various images and say "That's not HDR".  These ranged from everything from a single tone-mapped exposure, to someone who used less than X shots, to someone who USED X shots, but the end result wasn't to the reader's standard of "What is an HDR".

I'd like to make a point for some of these folks...

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.

They key word in that is the word "high".

High is a _subjective and relative _term.  I'm 5' 8" tall.  To me a basketball hoop is high.  To a 7' person, it's not quite so high.  To a person sitting in a cherry picker, it's quite low.

At _best_, you could argue that an image isn't "high" dynamic range unless the image represents a _higher_ dynamic range than you could get using more traditional methods such as a single exposure JPEG... but that's really a pretty weak argument.  I think those who complain about single-exposure tone-maps probably are on the firmest footing, but even that seems a bit weak.

I do think it's reasonable to encourage people to use more exposures to create their HDRs... after all, they will get an even higher dynamic range, right?  But saying to someone "that isn't an HDR" seems kinda silly, IMO.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2012)

I consider HDR to be an exposure fusion (several images exposed differently and combined)... that looks like a REAL photograph. Just with a higher dynamic range than you normally would have.

What I DO NOT consider HDR.. is any photo with MASSIVE Tone mapping.... (whether it is an exposure fusion also or not.. often you can't even tell if it has a higher dynamic range)   I also do not consider a single photograph that is tone mapped, to be HDR.. it is merely a tone mapped photo. 

Some people seem to think if an image comes out of Photomatix or a similar app... it is automatically HDR. Not IMO!


After all, what does the Acronym HDR mean? HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE... not TONE MAPPED to Cartoon status!  lol!


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 17, 2012)

This is like arguing religion and politics. In the end nobody is going to be right. It's just gonna turn into a massive "are you retarded?" fight.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2012)

*'Scuse me while I go get my armor-plated mod suit of the closet....
*


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 17, 2012)

I think anything that uses multiple exposures and fuses them is HDR.  If you want to then state 'heavily tonemapped' images are 'overcooked HDR' that's fine too, I guess.  But I don't see how you can deny they're HDR.  

It's like how a square is also rectangle.  Just because it's a certain type of rectangle doesn't make it not a rectangle.  If it fulfills the meaning of the term, it's there.

Also, my point is how would you draw the arbitrary line between 'HDR' and 'not HDR'?  First, it'd be completely arbitrary and second, what would the standard be?


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Who cares what one thinks of is considered HDR...its all opinions and everyone has one. Not one person here can honestly say they are the last word in what is and not photography. IF the image has alot of range
and you can see it and its nice to look at why not just call it a nice photo/image? Once you put HDR in front of it to many opinions come in it just gets messy.

Just like HDR you have sepia, black and white, crossed processed...there are many many areas of photography that takes away from its natural look.. If you convert your colored image to black and white its not a
true black and white. Slapping some black and white filters in photoshop, silver effex does not make it a real black and white. Unless you shot the image in black and white film or in camera,... eeehh... its the same argument that
crimson1 has about photographs coming out of photomatix....its pointless and nothing is going to get solved in this thead. Just a lot of peoples take on the subject and the end most of us are believe what we want and won't change our minds  on what is and what is not HDR.


I will label mine as HDR regardless of how tone mapped and digitally altered, cartoony one thinks and I could care less what anyone says it is or is not.....In reality the folks on here are just a handfull of people and opinions out there in the huge world so eeehhhh call me an A$$ but,,,, thats the facts.


----------



## TwoTwoLeft (Jul 17, 2012)

Seems pretty cut & dry to me... I just think people see a tone-mapped image and assume it's gotta be HDR because of all the heavily tone-mapped HDR images out there. 

What pisses me off is that a lot of photographers are writing HDR off as a noob "phase", acting like they're above it and treating it like selective color... HDR is just another technique to use to capture the image you want to portray. ANY photographic technique can be abused... It's just that few techniques when done badly make you want to gouge your eyes out of their sockets with a spork.... I think that's why HDR gets such a bad rap...


----------



## mishele (Jul 17, 2012)




----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 17, 2012)

mishele said:


>



ooooohhhhhhh.. love the avatar! :hug:: Yep.. easily distracted by a lady with a whip!


----------



## mishele (Jul 17, 2012)

Hmmmm.......my "likes" are gone.......:thumbdown:

Oh hey sorry......continue the fight over the lords of HDR!!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 17, 2012)

The Zone System ??


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 17, 2012)




----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



That image of a woman with a whip in your avatar Mishele...do you hold copyright to that image???

Is that Mister BanHammer I hear approaching? I hear heavy footsteps approaching,slowly...there's a knock at the door...OMG...run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mishele (Jul 17, 2012)

^^^^^^^lol LIKE


----------



## unpopular (Jul 17, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> The Zone System ??




While some people would consider the Adams' system high dynamic range, I do not. I believe that High Dynamic Range involves any method which extends the dynamic range beyond the intrinsic abilities of the recording medium. The Zone System simply permits the whole of the latent image to be developed in a way which has meaning.

This is analogous to a single exposure being tone mapped, all the detail is present in the raw file that is present within the finished result, but it is manipulated (developed) in a way which renders it as informative data about the scene.

HDR on the other had makes use of additional data not present in any one recording, ideally within a pipeline of at least twice the bit depth of the recording while utilizing a more dynamic range possible within the recording medium (digital).


----------



## COLTSFANATIC1 (Jul 17, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> Who cares what one thinks of is considered HDR...its all opinions and everyone has one. Not one person here can honestly say they are the last word in what is and not photography. IF the image has alot of range
> and you can see it and its nice to look at why not just call it a nice photo/image? Once you put HDR in front of it to many opinions come in it just gets messy.
> 
> Just like HDR you have sepia, black and white, crossed processed...there are many many areas of photography that takes away from its natural look.. If you convert your colored image to black and white its not a
> ...



perfectly said..


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2012)

*Closing this thread.  Please read the newly pinned thread at the top of the HDR Forum.
*


----------

