# Please step away from the HDR with your arms in the air...



## manaheim (Aug 3, 2009)

The idea of an HDR is to give more dynamic range than would be possible with a normal exposure.  

The human eye can see something along the lines of "21 stops" of light, whereas a camera can only see around 7 in any single exposure.  HDR helps that and gives you an image closer to what your eye would see.

That being said, there are many cases where an HDR is unecessary because the camera sees enough or nearly enough of the scene to be able to give you a solid representation without the HDR funkiness.  An example would be a reasonably evenly lit scene.

Now can you do an HDR anyway?  Well, sure, I guess... but most of the time you spend a lot of effort and either wind up with something that looks bizarro, or frankly just kinda silly.

If you like it, you like it... whatever works for you.  I'm just suggesting that folks stop and think carefully about what it is they are trying to do and why.

Are you...

- Trying to get critical detail that would otherwise be lost? or...
- Trying to make a really WILD surreal shot of some kind? or...
- Trying to make an interesting photo out of what would otherwise be kinda a crappy one?

(or maybe something else)

Whatever it is, know about it before you take the shot and start HDRing your buns off.  The results will likely be far better.

For me, I am almost always doing the first one.  I get shots like this from that...







Not over the top, not wonky... just more detail in shadow and highlight.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 3, 2009)

I think there just needs to be a new name for the cartoon-like ones people call HDR these days.

I'm with you though (on the meaning, uses and reasoning behind HDR).


----------



## MBasile (Aug 3, 2009)

I agree with your dislike for what most people call HDR's. However, I think the topic has been beat to death on this forum, and further ranting will not reach/persuade the masses to discontinue the cartoonish images.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 3, 2009)

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what "high dynamic range" means...

Most of the "HDR" shots I see could have just as easily been done with a single exposure, with more careful metering.  Many, despite being "HDR", still have blown out skies or lack detail in the shadows.

I think what's really going on is that some people like '_that_' look, but don't know what to call it so it becomes "HDR" - even though it isn't.


EDIT


MBasile said:


> I agree with your dislike for what most people call HDR's. However, I think the topic has been beat to death on this forum, and further ranting will not reach/persuade the masses to discontinue the cartoonish images.


I personally don't care if people keep making those cartoonish images (sometimes it works pretty good), I just wish they would come up with a better name for it.


----------



## Big (Aug 3, 2009)

Damn Manaheim...my first definitely didn't come out like yours. Of course it was a practice test in my living room but it sucks compared to yours. It does seem to have that cartoon effect to it which I think sucks. Yours is amazing. :hail:


----------



## Battou (Aug 3, 2009)

MBasile said:


> I agree with your dislike for what most people call HDR's. However, I think the topic has been beat to death on this forum, and further ranting will not reach/persuade the masses to discontinue the cartoonish images.





It's realism VS. surrealism so to speak, there will never be a "Correct way" and we know this. We don't want to change the masses and make them discontinue what they are doing. This is not the intent here to be honest, the intent is merely to generate an acceptance of what has become the minority in HDR processing . I literally had a full out EDR processed film image get the responce "is this suppose to be a hdr?"...That is just not appropriate. We just want them to stop hatein and that just because it does not look like theirs do, does not make it any less than what they are doing, and keep the door open for the realism that's all.


----------



## liltimmy1313 (Aug 4, 2009)

Yeah, I have been on this forum for less than a week and I already see it being beatin' to death. ''O | | | | | | | | O'' is right sometimes it works, and those cartoony ones need a different name. 

Normally I go for a surreal shot but, hey that's my preference. Sometimes I go HDR just because it's an easy way of fixing metering and clipping and other problems.  

There is really no excuse to HDR a crappy shot into something good though.

So, now I think I drop the HDR topic on TPF.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 4, 2009)

Big said:


> Damn Manaheim...my first definitely didn't come out like yours. Of course it was a practice test in my living room but it sucks compared to yours. It does seem to have that cartoon effect to it which I think sucks. Yours is amazing. :hail:


 
hehe thanks.

And Battou... well... I want to change the masses.    I'm a control freak like that.


----------



## Bee Bee (Aug 4, 2009)

here here Manaheim - and fantastic shot xxx


----------



## KmH (Aug 5, 2009)

The human eye cannot see anywhere near 21 stops of light. Not in the same scene anyway. Give the eye time to adjust and it can eventually approach that dynamic range. No doubt, it does better than a camera image sensor does.

Art is totally in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## NickRummy (Aug 5, 2009)

I've been reading up quite a bit about the HDR stuff since it's new to me. I do agree with this to an extent. 

The extreme ones to me seem more like something a graphics designer would do and not a photographer. It's kind of like taking a photo to use as an outline to make a painting or something. I've seen a good amount that really impress me and they definitely capture my attention but the photography elements seem to be less apparent since so much is changed in PP?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 5, 2009)

KmH said:


> The human eye cannot see anywhere near 21 stops of light. Not in the same scene anyway. Give the eye time to adjust and it can eventually approach that dynamic range. No doubt, it does better than a camera image sensor does.
> 
> Art is totally in the eye of the beholder.


 
The 21 stops thing is a relative approximation I've seen in a number of places.  I've also seen it explained that really the human eye doesnt see that much anyway.. the brain just does some nasty tricks to make it appear as such.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 5, 2009)

KmH said:


> Art is totally in the eye of the *beholder*.



I keep seeing/reading 'Art is totally in the eye of the beer holder'.


----------



## UUilliam (Aug 5, 2009)

I personally like "HDR" But what i dont like is "HDR Surrealism to the maximum with halos everywhere"

"hdr" to me is Basically allowing the viewer to see the whole scene like you did instead of seeing a foreground but the sky being Over exposed
or vice versa (the foreground being under exposed)

Sometimes the "HDR Surrealism" works but only if you are trying to make a 3D cartoon...
Is this how they made Beowolf ? :S
would be allot easier if it was instead of being Computer Generated Images.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 5, 2009)

NickRummy said:


> I've been reading up quite a bit about the HDR stuff since it's new to me. I do agree with this to an extent.
> 
> The extreme ones to me seem more like something a graphics designer would do and not a photographer. It's kind of like taking a photo to use as an outline to make a painting or something. I've seen a good amount that really impress me and they definitely capture my attention but the photography elements seem to be less apparent since so much is changed in PP?





I am a photographer who's done both commercial and art. They are approached quite differently. In commercial you please your client. In art you only have to please yourself and therefore anything goes. Compared to some of my work, HDR is nothing but I'll still call myself a photographer whether you like it or not. When this work hung in galleries a lot of people seeing it only accepted it as photo work because it was hanging in Photo galleries. 

If you do not like my work, that's fine. I will not hold a gun to anyone's head to force them to like my work. To be honest, I couldn't care less. I'm weird and so is my work. I know from the get go that most of it is not going to appeal to the vast majority, so what?

What bothers me is people trying to impose their narrow view of things on others.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 5, 2009)

But I LIKE my narrow views, damnit.



narrow views aside...

I swear I can't tell you how many "HDRs" I've seen on the forum this week that just look like slightly oddly corrected standard exposures.  I think a big part of the problem here is people SERIOUSLY have no idea what an HDR is or why you do it.

I would have just as much issue with this as I would with someone using a spatula as a hammer.  It's just silly.  Understand the tool and understand the use for the tool.  If you wanna be a BIT creative and use your hammer to bang in screws, that's one thing, but...


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 5, 2009)

*puts down his spatula* Hey! I'm a student. You do what ya gotta do. *keeps hammering nails with his spatula*


----------



## manaheim (Aug 5, 2009)

That's it, you're dead to me!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 6, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> *puts down his spatula* Hey! I'm a student. You do what ya gotta do. *keeps hammering nails with his spatula*



Alright, that's it. I'm taking a collection so we can send a hammer to musicaleCA. Along with a six-pack of Ramen noodles, of course.

:lmao:


----------



## Perniciouspoof (Aug 6, 2009)

There is an immense amount of complaining about HDR from every possible side of the argument on this forum. I have no idea why so many people care in the slightest. 

It's like you all have a personal stake in all photography mimicking reality perfectly. If someone else takes a bad photograph (in your eyes) why do you care? It's even in a segregated forum, so you wouldn't even have to see it unless you came out of your way to complain about it.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 6, 2009)

Perniciouspoof said:


> There is an immense amount of complaining about HDR from every possible side of the argument on this forum. I have no idea why so many people care in the slightest.
> 
> It's like you all have a personal stake in all photography mimicking reality perfectly. If someone else takes a bad photograph (in your eyes) why do you care? It's even in a segregated forum, so you wouldn't even have to see it unless you came out of your way to complain about it.


 
Ever read anything about philosophy?  People debate the nature and actions of other people.   It's been gong on for a while now. 

Not that I would hearken the members of TPF to Socrates, but it is human nature to question ourselves and our behaviors... strive for whatever any one of us individually thinks is the better way to do things.

It's really a survival instinct... we want people to bow down to our way of doing things because then we expend less resources in being "right" than we would have to if we changed...

... however, a simpler-minded view on this would be "Most people think they're right and it pisses them off when others are wrong."

<grin>


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 6, 2009)

manaheim said:


> That's it, you're dead to me!





c.cloudwalker said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > *puts down his spatula* Hey! I'm a student. You do what ya gotta do. *keeps hammering nails with his spatula*
> ...



Mmm...noodles. :lmao:


----------



## bmrust (Aug 6, 2009)

personal opinion here... but if people post "bad" hdr's, and get critiqued (actual critique, not hand holding) then they can get better... but if you say "stop trying" then how can anyone actually get better or, hell for that matter, even start in the first place?

seeing things like this really upset me... especially in a place where people come to get critiques and suggestions from others.  i have yet to see someone post on this forum saying "this is it, i've beaten photography, i am awesome, no one can critique me!!!"

EVERYONE wants suggestions on how to get better... even the newbies.  i say, let the newbies take the photos, post the photos, and get ripped to shreds (myself included).  At least we will know what NOT to do next time.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 6, 2009)

bmrust said:


> but if you say "stop trying" then how can anyone actually get better



I don't think anyone is saying "stop trying", we're just saying "call it what it is" (not "HDR").


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 6, 2009)

Josh, Josh, Josh... we can barely speak everyday english correctly anymore. Do you really expect us to know the exact definition of HDR?
:lmao:


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 6, 2009)

wut you talkin bout?


----------



## mishele (Aug 6, 2009)

lets get ready to rummmble..lol


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 6, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> wut you talkin bout?



Exactly


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 6, 2009)

mishele said:


> lets get ready to rummmble..lol



rumble? did you say rumble?

I'm ready to rumble the Stray Cats' way anytime.


----------



## bmrust (Aug 7, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> bmrust said:
> 
> 
> > but if you say "stop trying" then how can anyone actually get better
> ...




Maybe its just me, but when I read something like "Please step away from the HDR" it sounds like "stop doing what you are doing"... aka... stop trying

I have no problems with either of the two styles of HDR, and I personally think they both have merit.  I really don't see why they aren't both acceptable.  That being said, a "good" HDR should be easily identifiable as either realistic or surrealistic... but they are both "good" ways of doing HDR.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 7, 2009)

I think the thread title was just manaheim's sense of humour coming through.


----------



## Wyjid (Aug 8, 2009)

the idea is to capture a great image. if someone uses HDR techniques fine, but i say, don't lable them as such. i've put up shot's that were done as HDR but not said as much and no one asked, so i didn't say. i like manheims use of it. we rarely explain all the processing we do to an image with none HDR shots, so why bother putting it out there tagged as HDR? post your image, however you came to it, and people can critique or comment as they like. if they ask... tell. if not, the image stands on it's own merits instead of having preconceptions attatched to it.


----------



## Perniciouspoof (Aug 8, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Perniciouspoof said:
> 
> 
> > There is an immense amount of complaining about HDR from every possible side of the argument on this forum. I have no idea why so many people care in the slightest.
> ...



haha

I think we both know that there is a world of difference between any kind of intellectual debate and complaining about an image processing technique on an internet forum. 

Also, I would hesitate on making assumptions about other people's education based on a 5 sentence post. It tends to make you look like an ass. 

But on the off chance that you were making a genuine inquiry pertaining to my interest in philosophy, My favorite would probably be Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Objectivism is a bit bleak, but it definitly is a lot less dry of a read than most philosophy books. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are also near and dear to my heart. 

Thank you though, for simplifying your post in the end there, so that the rest of us knuckle draggers could follow along.


----------



## Wyjid (Aug 8, 2009)

Perniciouspoof said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Perniciouspoof said:
> ...


 

Philosophy is a farce... and really is not any higher than what happens here. you're correct on one count, there is a world of difference between intellectual debate and complaining about image processing techniques. primarily on the score that true intellectual debate is purely for exercise, and lacking ego (something obviously not lacking around these here parts). that is a far cry from philosophy which is having a warm fuzzy affection for knowledge that gives it's author a feeling of either; A, a sense of superiority over those of more practical mind, or B, a sense of cynical detatched existence, which is in itself a method of setting one's self apart from the "normal folk". philosophy is all about the ego. it's about how one feels about their accumulated knowledge and how that shapes one's wolrd view and actions. that is exactly what is going on here in our rather quaint discussion on the merits of processing techniques; an expounding on our feelings about our accumulated knowledge pertaining to HDR processing, and how those feelings effect our perception of images appearing to have used said process, and as a result how we choose to use that knowledge in our own work.

This post is light on intellectual debate, yet positively pregnant with philosophy.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> I think the thread title was just manaheim's sense of humour coming through.


 
Oh hey... look... SOMEONE on this thread gets it.  



Perniciouspoof said:


> haha
> 
> I think we both know that there is a world of difference between any kind of intellectual debate and complaining about an image processing technique on an internet forum.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, 1... thanks for calling me an ass.

2... I wasn't making any assumptions about your level of education. 

3... who was the one making assumptions in this thread, exactly?  

Jesus.  Get over youself.  I was seriously making a light-hearted reference to  philosophy because it's kind of funny when you think about it in that way.  Is that chip on your shoulder nearly as heavy as it looks?  Christ.



Wyjid said:


> Philosophy is a farce... and really is not any higher than what happens here. you're correct on one count, there is a world of difference between intellectual debate and complaining about image processing techniques. primarily on the score that true intellectual debate is purely for exercise, and lacking ego (something obviously not lacking around these here parts). that is a far cry from philosophy which is having a warm fuzzy affection for knowledge that gives it's author a feeling of either; A, a sense of superiority over those of more practical mind, or B, a sense of cynical detatched existence, which is in itself a method of setting one's self apart from the "normal folk". philosophy is all about the ego. it's about how one feels about their accumulated knowledge and how that shapes one's wolrd view and actions. that is exactly what is going on here in our rather quaint discussion on the merits of processing techniques; an expounding on our feelings about our accumulated knowledge pertaining to HDR processing, and how those feelings effect our perception of images appearing to have used said process, and as a result how we choose to use that knowledge in our own work.
> 
> This post is light on intellectual debate, yet positively pregnant with philosophy.


 
That was positively awesome to read.  I really enjoyed it.


You all seriously need to calm the frig down, though.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 9, 2009)

Bringing this back to where I started... 

READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU PITCH A FIT...

I would again like to point out that what I was MOSTLY JOKINGLY poking fun at was people creating HDRs that look like no more than the same image you could have gotten with a perfectly normal exposure off the camera.

This is NOT...

1. Saying you cannot do HDRs.
2. Saying people who do HDRs are tard-monkeys.
3. Saying that you can't do crazy-ass weird colors and crap with your HDRs.

If people would READ, they would see that my original post CLEARLY stated...

_Now can you do an HDR anyway? Well, sure, I guess... but most of the time you spend a lot of effort and either wind up with something that looks bizarro, or frankly just kinda silly.

If you like it, you like it... whatever works for you. I'm just suggesting that folks stop and think carefully about what it is they are trying to do and why.

Are you...

- Trying to get critical detail that would otherwise be lost? or...
- Trying to make a really WILD surreal shot of some kind? or...
- Trying to make an interesting photo out of what would otherwise be kinda a crappy one?

(or maybe something else)

Whatever it is, know about it before you take the shot and start HDRing your buns off. The results will likely be far better._
​See, the idea here was to express a bit of an opinion on some things for people to consider before they go into HDR land.  Don't like it?  Don't listen to me.  I'd say it's based off a reasonable amount of experience and at least 1/2 a clue, but hey... I'm just some idiot on the 'net, right?  Ignore me for all I care.  

I'll just laugh as you take 20 exposures and use a $120 software package to create an HDR of a pair of sneakers, that I could have created with a single exposure and about 10 seconds of my time.

:lmao:


----------



## Perniciouspoof (Aug 9, 2009)

Wyjid said:


> Philosophy is a farce... and really is not any higher than what happens here. you're correct on one count, there is a world of difference between intellectual debate and complaining about image processing techniques. primarily on the score that true intellectual debate is purely for exercise, and lacking ego (something obviously not lacking around these here parts). that is a far cry from philosophy which is having a warm fuzzy affection for knowledge that gives it's author a feeling of either; A, a sense of superiority over those of more practical mind, or B, a sense of cynical detatched existence, which is in itself a method of setting one's self apart from the "normal folk". philosophy is all about the ego. it's about how one feels about their accumulated knowledge and how that shapes one's wolrd view and actions. that is exactly what is going on here in our rather quaint discussion on the merits of processing techniques; an expounding on our feelings about our accumulated knowledge pertaining to HDR processing, and how those feelings effect our perception of images appearing to have used said process, and as a result how we choose to use that knowledge in our own work.
> 
> This post is light on intellectual debate, yet positively pregnant with philosophy.



Ok. :thumbup:



manaheim said:


> Ok, 1... thanks for calling me an ass.
> 
> 2... I wasn't making any assumptions about your level of education.
> 
> 3... who was the one making assumptions in this thread, exactly?



Well in regards to 1 and 2, I took this as an insult and an assumption about my education, as to me it seemed positively oozing with condescension.



manaheim said:


> Ever read anything about philosophy? People debate the nature and actions of other people. It's been gong on for a while now.






manaheim said:


> Jesus. Get over youself. I was seriously making a light-hearted reference to philosophy because it's kind of funny when you think about it in that way. Is that chip on your shoulder nearly as heavy as it looks? Christ.



Well, I suppose the chip on my shoulder is as heavy as it looks. I took your post as something that was meant to be insulting. If that was not the case, then I apologize. I have no intention of creating some kind of flame war, or discussing the merits of philosophy on a thread about an overused photographic trend. To my defense however, I did come here from 4chan's Photography board so I'm used to seeing the majority of replies being motivated by vehement hostility.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 9, 2009)

Perniciouspoof said:


> Well, I suppose the chip on my shoulder is as heavy as it looks. I took your post as something that was meant to be insulting. If that was not the case, then I apologize. I have no intention of creating some kind of flame war, or discussing the merits of philosophy on a thread about an overused photographic trend. To my defense however, I did come here from 4chan's Photography board so I'm used to seeing the majority of replies being motivated by vehement hostility.


 
It wasn't even REMOTELY intended to be hostile.  Sorry you took it that way.  Since you are newer to these forums, you obviously don't know me... but generally I'm not one to pick fights or put people down.  More often than not I'm just acting silly.  (I do have the occasional bad day, of course)

Actually, I think you'll find MOST people here on TPF pretty peaceful... I would _respectfully and with a big smile and a bouquet of lovely flowers _suggest making the assumption that folks here aren't out to get you.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 9, 2009)

Except for me, of course. I'm out to get you. *grabs 580s and sets them to full power* Bwahahahahaha!!!


----------



## epp_b (Aug 9, 2009)

> I think there just needs to be a new name for the cartoon-like ones people call HDR these days.


I call it "cancer".

I mostly agree with manaheim.  Most HDR photos fit into the third category of "crappy lighting, crappy composition, crappy everything, but z0mG!1! way-oversaturated colors!!11!"


----------



## Sachphotography (Aug 12, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > I think there just needs to be a new name for the cartoon-like ones people call HDR these days.
> 
> 
> I call it "cancer".
> ...



HAHA yes it is. And just as Cancer grows and chokes the life out of all the good. 
so will this!!!!


----------

