# My thoughts about HDR photography: should it reflect reality or imagination?



## PeterN (May 29, 2013)

Actually I think that the answer to the question in the topic's title depends on many parameters like story, photographer's mood, scenery etc.. So, my answer is "it depends" , but what's about your opinion? Statistics may help to estimate the viewer's response .

I tested both approaches during my last travel to the Mosel valley, Germany.
I did not use a tripod, just high speed series of photos with typically +2, 0 and -2 exposure correction were enough for adequate overlap.
The choice for editing style below depends on my mood and impressions from the scenery mostly - sometimes I want to be closer to reality like in the 2nd and the 3rd images, sometimes I try to illustrate a tale like in the 4th one, sometimes I try to make a postcard  as on the 1st photo.

Also I tried a new approach for me: stitching panorama from HDR images (27 in total, as I remember), you may find this example below too (photo #5).

Your comments and critique to my photos are very welcome and appreciated.

1. Cochem castle from the bridge over Mosel


Link to the original image - http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_15_sm.jpg

2. Cochem castle from the streets of Cochem

http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_14_sm.jpg

3. In the middle of nowhere at Mosel 

http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_19_sm.jpg

4. Inside the castle

http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_9_sm.jpg

5. Panorama of Mosel from the bridge at Berncastel-Kues

Link to the original panorama -http://www.nikolsky.name/28/pan2_mosel_HD_sm.jpg

P.S. Sorry, I posted this topic initially in a wrong sub-forum, but already asked moderators to kill the 1st one.


----------



## cgipson1 (May 29, 2013)

I prefer reality myself... especially compared to the way overcooked, tonemapped images that many noobs call HDR.

Op.. some nice images, and not overdone!


----------



## Ilovemycam (May 29, 2013)

There are no photo police, we do as we like. (except on forums)


----------



## PeterN (May 29, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I prefer reality myself... especially compared to the way overcooked, tonemapped images that many noobs call HDR.
> 
> Op.. some nice images, and not overdone!


Thank you for the feedback .
Don't you think that overcooking HDR's sometimes could be used like B&W photo to put some accents on key details with "over-contrast"?
Does it work?

I tried this here:

http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_25_sm.jpg




Ilovemycam said:


> There are no photo police, we do as we like. (except on forums)


I'm glad to hear this. But why shouldn't we think about the viewer's opinion if we make our photos not for private use only?


----------



## cgipson1 (May 29, 2013)

PeterN said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer reality myself... especially compared to the way overcooked, tonemapped images that many noobs call HDR.
> ...


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 29, 2013)

I feel it depends on the application and the subject matter and the intent of the photographer. I'm not a fan of the overcooked photos, but that's my personal preference. I think if the photographer wants a way over the top look then that's what he should go for.  A lot of the problem I think with new people coming into HDR is they fall into the "well if a little is good, then a lot must be better"


----------



## KmH (May 29, 2013)

HDR originated to show the reality (dynamic range) cameras can't capture.

The viewer's opinion is a way the artist assesses validation of a work. The more positive viewer opinions there are, the more 'successful' the work is deemed to be.

But art has no rules, and an artist only has to satisfy them self.

However, take note that the visual arts do have guidelines, and that those guidelines developed gradually over several thousand years of visual art trial and error. Note too that many 'viewers' have no art training, and cannot articulate why they do, or don't, like any particular work.

It is not coincidental that most successful visual artists, including photographers, have a solid understanding of those visual art guidelines.


----------



## amolitor (May 29, 2013)

HDR and tonemapping are just tools, really. You can do whatever you want with them, and I think there are a variety of aesthetics that can be built around these tools -- some old, some new.

Some new aesthetics will succeed, some will not. I don't happen to like the super popped colors and weird tonal scales that people create, but I am distinctly a minority.

As a final note, what we accept as "looking real" changes over time. No photograph "looks real" in any meaningful or objective way, we simply accept them as such, or we do not, largely based on what we have been exposed to and how much.


----------



## PeterN (May 29, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> I feel it depends on the application and the subject matter and the intent of the photographer. I'm not a fan of the overcooked photos, but that's my personal preference. I think if the photographer wants a way over the top look then that's what he should go for.  A lot of the problem I think with new people coming into HDR is they fall into the "well if a little is good, then a lot must be better"


I agree with you .



KmH said:


> HDR originated to show the reality (dynamic range) cameras can't capture.
> 
> The viewer's opinion is a way the artist assesses validation of a work. The more positive viewer opinions there are, the more 'successful' the work is deemed to be.
> 
> ...


Well, there are no doubts that traditions exist . But they are gradually changing, we can use impressionism as the example. This is definitely not the reality of an average person. At least I hope so . And aggressive tone mapping may have a similar role in photography, IMHO.



amolitor said:


> HDR and tonemapping are just tools, really. You can do whatever you want with them, and I think there are a variety of aesthetics that can be built around these tools -- some old, some new.
> 
> Some new aesthetics will succeed, some will not. I don't happen to like the super popped colors and weird tonal scales that people create, but I am distinctly a minority.
> 
> As a final note, what we accept as "looking real" changes over time. No photograph "looks real" in any meaningful or objective way, we simply accept them as such, or we do not, largely based on what we have been exposed to and how much.


 +1 :thumbup:


----------



## nmoody (May 29, 2013)

I am also in the boat of people who like it more natural instead of pushed a lot. I voted reality as almost all of the time thats what I want. Of course like most creative arts there is always an exception (have not found one yet, but don't doubt it exists) where I may prefer something "overcooked". To each their own, I typically don't share my opinions on "overcooked" HDR as it sometimes wouldn't be constructive.

BTW OP very nice job on those.


----------



## jake337 (May 29, 2013)

I'm not voting.


It should reflect whatever the hell you want to create!


----------



## cptkid (May 29, 2013)

I normally only "overcook" my b&w HDR images. 

But each to their own. If you wanna overcook it, do it. 

But the point of HDR is just that, to get High Dynamic Range.


----------



## cwcaesar (May 29, 2013)

I really think it depends on what the customer wants.  If they want me to 'overcook' the image, then so be it.  Personally, I don't like it overcooked.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 29, 2013)

Stylistic choices. 
Done well, either style can be great.
 Done poorly, either style can suck.


----------



## hopdaddy (May 29, 2013)

I try to present MY vision , sure some won't like it ,some will like it , but in fear of the masses will keep quiet , and in some cases, the masses will love it and it will be crap with no solid artistic Merritt . Point is I think you should create the Art you like best ,present that style and hopefully gain some respect from the viewers . OR, you can follow the constantly changing popular style of the day ,and sometimes ,of the hour .

My answer to the question , Depends .  I really think, A good number of the "HDR"s don't even need to be "HDR" in the first place


----------



## PeterN (May 29, 2013)

nmoody said:


> I am also in the boat of people who like it more natural instead of pushed a lot. I voted reality as almost all of the time thats what I want. Of course like most creative arts there is always an exception (have not found one yet, but don't doubt it exists) where I may prefer something "overcooked". To each their own, I typically don't share my opinions on "overcooked" HDR as it sometimes wouldn't be constructive.
> 
> BTW OP very nice job on those.


Thanks .
Well, it looks like you are in one of the largest boats .
Regarding the constructive or destructive (?) opinions - I think that negative feedback (especially with explanations why) is better than no feedback and even better than "nice photo!" reply.



jake337 said:


> I'm not voting.
> 
> 
> It should reflect whatever the hell you want to create!


Do you mean that the photography is 100% subjective matter?



cptkid said:


> I normally only "overcook" my b&w HDR images.
> 
> But each to their own. If you wanna overcook it, do it.
> 
> But the point of HDR is just that, to get High Dynamic Range.


Overcooking B&W images only sounds like double impact on reality .



cwcaesar said:


> I really think it depends on what the customer wants.  If they want me to 'overcook' the image, then so be it.  Personally, I don't like it overcooked.


Your opinion looks completely opposite to the jake337's one. Interesting .



Rotanimod said:


> Stylistic choices.
> Done well, either style can be great.
> Done poorly, either style can suck.


+1 :thumbup:



hopdaddy said:


> I try to present MY vision , sure some won't like it ,some will like it , but in fear of the masses will keep quiet , and in some cases, the masses will love it and it will be crap with no solid artistic Merritt . Point is I think you should create the Art you like best ,present that style and hopefully gain some respect from the viewers . OR, you can follow the constantly changing popular style of the day ,and sometimes ,of the hour .
> 
> My answer to the question , Depends .  I really think, A good number of the "HDR"s don't even need to be "HDR" in the first place


Well, according your opinion it depends on everything even more than I thought...


----------



## vipgraphx (May 29, 2013)

I like all variations of photography. You can over process regular shots just as much as you can over process HDR.....so I am not sure the question is adequate. In any art form such as painting, drawing, sculpting, photography and so on..its all an expression of the artist. Some art (sculptures) sucks to me but its pure beauty to others, and the same with photography. HDR is just an avenue to produce a nice picture for people to enjoy such as , bugs, birds, black and whites, abstract photography and so on. 

If its good its good!

I do think that you do see a lot of heavy tonemapped HDR but that I believe is because the process to do when using a short cut program like photomatix it easily happens when playing with sliders....if you were to take your multiple exposures into photoshop and manually blend the layers your result would be very different and those sliders that make it look fake are not there so you are left with a realistic looking photo. 

It works on some images and others it sucks. But its not just the "over cooked" common looks its also the over sharp over over soft looks as well that helps make that over saturated hdr look even worse....After practicing for a bit I think most people find there nitch in the HDR world and can very great looking photos regardless if its "over cooked " or realistic...

if its good its good!!


----------



## EDL (May 29, 2013)

It's all good.  I choose "depends" because I've seen good and bad examples of both.  It's your photo, you process it how you like it.


----------



## Overread (May 29, 2013)

Eh its just a process - this is like asking if watercolours should mimic reality or work from imagination. 

In the end all that matters is that the process is used correctly to display the final work that the photographer intended to present with the given scene and light. Sometimes that is going to be attempting to overcome the cameras limitations and display a scene more "naturally" - other times its going to swing all the way to the extreme and aim to create a cartoon like appearance.

Yeah there is lots of bad HDR - there are lots of BAD photos in general. I've never fully understood what makes HDR so deserving of such special attention or criticisms over bad focusing, selective focus application, selective colouring etc....


----------



## EDL (May 29, 2013)

We could also delve into "technical" discussions on it.  I mean, it seems HDR really does have a few staunch camps within its boundaries.

For example, some think a single photo tonemapped counts, some say it requires at least three separate images captured at different EV.  Some think cooked is the point, some say natural.

I dunno why HDR as a subject seems to be so controversial.  

Personally, my opinion is that it is because photographers (indeed, artists) in general tend to be very opinionated, strong willed and perfectionists to some degree.  Throw in a dash of ego and voila!  Controversy!

I'm generally oriented toward technical details, so for me, I buy into the "requires at least three shots" camp since that makes technical sense to me about what HDR is and why.  

But, what I know for sure is that I like HDR, over cooked, natural, B&W, color, it's all good.  Just like any photo, there are good ones and bad ones.

I'll admit that I like selective color too.  Seems those who've been around the photography scene for a while scoff and dismiss it as fad, but well...again, it's art, all art is subjective.   I like it.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (May 30, 2013)

This is how I've been doing HDR lately. Not crazy with colors but shows detail. 

I know I didn't start the thread but I was curious if this was considered too much?


----------



## PeterN (May 30, 2013)

vipgraphx said:


> I like all variations of photography. You can over process regular shots just as much as you can over process HDR.....so I am not sure the question is adequate. In any art form such as painting, drawing, sculpting, photography and so on..its all an expression of the artist. Some art (sculptures) sucks to me but its pure beauty to others, and the same with photography. HDR is just an avenue to produce a nice picture for people to enjoy such as , bugs, birds, black and whites, abstract photography and so on.
> 
> If its good its good!
> 
> ...


Well, I agree with your opinion. But the poll shows now 1/3 votes for realistic HDRs only, so there are enough people with the different ideas.



EDL said:


> It's all good.  I choose "depends" because I've seen good and bad examples of both.  It's your photo, you process it how you like it.


+1 :thumbup:



Overread said:


> Eh its just a process - this is like asking if watercolours should mimic reality or work from imagination.
> 
> In the end all that matters is that the process is used correctly to display the final work that the photographer intended to present with the given scene and light. Sometimes that is going to be attempting to overcome the cameras limitations and display a scene more "naturally" - other times its going to swing all the way to the extreme and aim to create a cartoon like appearance.
> 
> Yeah there is lots of bad HDR - there are lots of BAD photos in general. I've never fully understood what makes HDR so deserving of such special attention or criticisms over bad focusing, selective focus application, selective colouring etc....


Yes, it is just a process. But people have their preferences for process too...



EDL said:


> We could also delve into "technical" discussions on it.  I mean, it seems HDR really does have a few staunch camps within its boundaries.
> 
> For example, some think a single photo tonemapped counts, some say it requires at least three separate images captured at different EV.  Some think cooked is the point, some say natural.
> 
> ...


> I dunno why HDR as a subject seems to be so controversial.
Maybe because it is relatively new?



Devinhullphoto said:


> This is how I've been doing HDR lately. Not crazy with colors but shows detail.
> 
> I know I didn't start the thread but I was curious if this was considered too much?


This is definitely "realistic HDR", IMHO. 
Don't you think that contrast could be slightly increased for the left and middle photos? And I like the static composition of the left image, it correlates with the RV's parked position, but does it work for the central photo?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (May 30, 2013)

PeterN said:


> This is definitely "realistic HDR", IMHO.
> Don't you think that contrast could be slightly increased for the left and middle photos? And I like the static composition of the left image, it correlates with the RV's parked position, but does it work for the central photo?



I see what you mean with the contrast. I'm relatively new to HDR so I still need to toy around and see what I like best and how to achieve that. Also I usually don't edit my photos too much in post. I really like them to look pretty close to how they do straight from the camera, so again I still have to find my way in general in terms of editing. 

Thanks for the input!


----------



## PeterN (May 31, 2013)

You are welcome 

One more example of "HDR with purpose"  - I don't think that image without HDR could catch the rainy shadows behind the illuminated spot on the building:


http://www.nikolsky.name/28/mosel_hd_7_1_sm.jpg


----------



## molested_cow (May 31, 2013)

Reality or imagination?

Reality is relative and imagination is a part of the reality.

Everything you think you are seeing is what your mind is telling you. Your eyes are just information input device, like the lens, whereas to form an image it needs to be processed by the brain. To me photography, HDR or not, is what I use to portray what I want my audience to see. HDR is just a form of tool that helps me get there. Some of my photos are HDR, and can only be achieved using HDR, but most people who look at it focus on its content as opposed to technical aspects. Therefore to me, it's more important to categorize my own photos according to content type as opposed to the technique.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 31, 2013)

It's to reflect whatever you want!!!


----------

