# Why do people dislike HDR?



## batmura (Jan 21, 2014)

I guess the most common reason people cite is that HDR looks unrealistic and/or cartoonish. It's understandable that the grungy, gritty look doesn't appeal to some, but what about the more realistic-looking images? Actually there are people who can't even tell if it something is HDR. They may even praise an image until you tell them. 

I'm by no means an expert on HDR, but I like the more realistic images and I feel a photo can benefit a great deal from it if done tastefully.

Any thoughts? Ay other reasons you can think of why so many people are eager to diss HDR?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 21, 2014)

batmura said:


> I guess the most common reason people cite is that HDR looks unrealistic and/or cartoonish. It's understandable that the grungy, gritty look doesn't appeal to some, but what about the more realistic-looking images? Actually there are people who can't even tell if it something is HDR. They may even praise an image until you tell them.
> 
> I'm by no means an expert on HDR, but I like the more realistic images and I feel a photo can benefit a great deal from it if done tastefully.
> 
> Any thoughts? Ay other reasons you can think of why so many people are eager to diss HDR?



I don't like the way it's spelled.  Hard to get on board with anything that doesn't include a vowel.


----------



## Designer (Jan 21, 2014)

There is a fine line between "realistic" and "overcooked", IMO.  If your intention is to produce an image with enhanced detail, don't overdo the HDR.   If on the other hand you want to produce a surreal image with almost no connection to reality, then don't hold back.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 21, 2014)

Because everyone has an opinion. Same reason as why some people dislike onions


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 21, 2014)

The way in which HDR photos are (seemingly) most often made, makes it very easy to 'go overboard' with the effect.  I think that most of what we typically see as HDR, is just that...the effect taken too far.  Often, the effect becomes the subject of the photo, rather than what is actually in the photo....and that gets old fast.  

I don't hate it, like many people seem to....but I can see why they do.  

Like many of the things we do in post processing, I think it's done best when the view isn't aware that it has been done.


----------



## batmura (Jan 21, 2014)

Maybe I should have worded the question differently. What do you dislike about HDR?

Also, my point was most people who diss HDR do so blindly. I have seen many a time HDR haters  praising an image without knowing it was HDR.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

Designer said:


> There is a fine line between "realistic" and "overcooked", IMO.  If your intention is to produce an image with enhanced detail, don't overdo the HDR.   If on the other hand you want to produce a surreal image with almost no connection to reality, then don't hold back.



I agree with this statement. For a long time, I didn't like the overcooked look that some people put on their HDR photos. But as I grow as a photographer and an artist, I see that sometimes, over the top is what you want to share, while other times it's the realistic look.

It's ART and not a one size fits all. Some people will love it, some won't. But you can't stop doing your thing because of the ones that don't like what you do. Do it for yourself and the ones that do like it.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 21, 2014)

HDR can look very false. Some pictures look like a cut and paste from an Xbox game. Sometimes it's nice, often not. A proper landscape hdr done to balance the exposure is far from what most peoples idea of hdr is


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 21, 2014)

ronlane said:


> It's ART and not a one size fits all. Some people will love it, some won't. But you can't stop doing your thing because of the ones that don't like what you do. Do it for yourself and the ones that do like it.



Agreed.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

Here are examples of what I mean.

1) This is from 7 exposures of a sunset on Saturday evening. I over did this a little bit but I knew it going in. Most people probably won't like it but that is my interpretation of the scene that night. (And since I was the only one there at the time, I'm the only one that knows for sure.)




Weekend in Velma-32_HDR by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

2) This one is 7 exposures at sunrise a few weekends ago. I couldn't get the realistic look that I wanted with just one shot. But I honestly don't think many people could tell that it is hdr if I didn't tell them.




Stockyards hdr by Ron_Lane, on Flickr


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 21, 2014)

jaomul said:


> Because everyone has an opinion. Same reason as why some people dislike onions



Because they have layers?  Hmm.. come to think of it you might just be onto something here.. lol


----------



## ratssass (Jan 21, 2014)

i like 'em both,ron.....that's the kind of hdr i enjoy.especially the 2nd one where i would've had to ask.


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR.  I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

wyogirl said:


> I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR.  I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.



That's okay Amanda, you can say that mine are bad hdr. It won't hurt my feelings, because I don't profess to be a pro at it.


----------



## skieur (Jan 21, 2014)

What is unrealistic about an "overcooked" HDR is the lack of shadows, where shadows should be in the image according to the lighting.


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 21, 2014)

ronlane said:


> wyogirl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR.  I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.
> ...


Hey Ron!  Don't be putting words in my mouth .  I was actually thinking of an HDR that I tried and failed to make.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

wyogirl said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > wyogirl said:
> ...



lol, I'm sure that it wasn't that bad. I'm still learning how to process them to look decent. Having the Nik suite helps because of all the presets that they have.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> What is unrealistic about an "overcooked" HDR is the lack of shadows, where shadows should be in the image according to the lighting.



THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ x 10.

A good portion of the bad HDR is done by people who use "the method" in the hopes of creating something out of a mundane scene...as if by bridging a wide dynamic range, they are somehow showing jus "something worth looking at". Bad HDR is mostly an exercise of technical mastery and artistic ineptitude. A badly-shot, wide-DR rendering of a garbage can at sunset is for example, not much of a subject, but far too many practitioners of extreme HDR seem enamored of the technique,the technique,the technique, and they often shoot rubbish scenes and then process the chit out of them, thinking that by doing that, they are "creating".


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 21, 2014)

I'm not a big fan of the poorly done cartoon style, but was playing around with it in a church in England last month and really like the results, it just wasn't overdone, but subtle. I won't spend a lot of time doing it, but will try it from time to time.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> I'm not a big fan of the poorly done cartoon style, but was playing around with it in a church in England last month and really like the results, it just wasn't overdone, but subtle. I won't spend a lot of time doing it, but will try it from time to time.



I usually don't think about hdr until I take a photo and chimp it and realize that I'm not getting what I want out of it. Then I try it.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2014)

I saw some HDR shots done by a master level photographer in the tropics somewhere, maybe Jamaica or someplace like that. He had a small portfolio of about 15 shots, all exquisite scenes, in every way. He kind of threw it out there at the end that the shots were all HDR, and yet the scenes looked as natural and amazing as if you were there in person; he actually MAINTAINED some shadow density, as appropriate, to convey the feeling of "the light" that was there. The technique was used to enhance the rendering of the scene, rather than a simple coat of clown makeup slathered on top of some snappy-snaps.

I think skieur's comment says it best; bad HDR practitioners tend to eliminate ALL shadow, and they show us scenes that have absolutely zero connection with real world lighting, no regard for the sun as a source of light and shadow...they often take shadows and lighten them up so there are large masses of "shadow" that read as mid-tones, and that simply looks like crap. As amolitor mentioned maybe a year ago, there's a strong tendency these days to create HDR type photos where the source of the light appears to be "from EVERYWHERE"...which is simply ridiculous. Light from everywhere = light from nowhere, as in no definable source of light...


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 21, 2014)

It's all about how you use it.  I've uploaded a fair amount of HDR photo's on here without mentioning that they are, and people have not noticed.  It's a tool, like many others, that is often misused.  

For example, this is an HDR photo.  Doesn't really look like it, as there are plenty of proper shadows and highlights.  But without HDR you wouldn't be able to see the underglow, and I also had to add a fourth shot for the TV screen.




Dorm Life by f_one_eight, on Flickr


Best,
Jake


----------



## cynicaster (Jan 21, 2014)

> Often, the effect becomes the subject of the photo, rather than what is actually in the photo....and that gets old fast.


 
^^ Well said.

I&#8217;m not opposed to the technique perse, but it gets done to death on an internet seemingly obsessed with software hocus-pocus, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 

When I first learned what it was, I was all excited to give it a try some day, but by the time I was actually in a position to give it a try, I had already become so sick and tired of seeing it that I never bothered.  It's true--I've never even attempted the technique in my life, and have little interest in doing so.  

I&#8217;m sure there have been HDR photos I have seen and loved where the technique was really strengthening the impact of the result, yet I had no idea it was even being used.  In that case, kudos to the artist for using the right combination of knowledge, skill, and restraint to create something great. 

Generally speaking, I think of such things as being analogous to salt on food: just the right amount enhances the result, but as soon as you clearly identify its presence, it does more to detract than enhance.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 21, 2014)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/350178-desert-scene-tone-mapped.html


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 21, 2014)

It just dawned on me, I actually have an HDR photo/Canvas hanging on the wall in our den. The wife bought it for me back in September at an Art show


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 21, 2014)

wyogirl said:


> I don't mind HDR but there are a lot of people who don't know how to make a good HDR.  I'm not going to define what is good, but I think everyone has seen a bad HDR somewhere and those taint the reputation of HDR overall.



So would it be safe to say you can't give us a definition of art but you know what sucks? lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Jan 21, 2014)

I think we all dislike the stuff that's poorly done, or done just for its own sake and not for the sake of the image.

Personally, I don't like a lot of HDR, even if it's well done, because it is just too...shiny. I know it's supposed to bring out detail, to increase dynamic range...these are good things and I don't want to disparage anyone who uses HDR to do achieve these things. For me, however, the image ends up feeling flat, without texture. Even when it's well done, it _always_ feels false to me because it just seems strange to see _that_ much detail in _that_ much sharpness. I prefer more realism in photography. And before anyone tells me that there are different purposes/styles/philosophies that allow for less realism...yes, I know and I was not suggesting that there weren't. This is NOT a statement on how I feel all photography should be, but only what kinds of pictures I personally like to look at. Just a little pre-emptive strike 

Ultimately, HDR feels to me kinda like diet soda: it has its place and some people consume it reasonably while others are addicted to it to their detriment. And I never drink it myself because it just leaves a chemical taste in my mouth that I simply don't enjoy.


----------



## CycleDog (Jan 21, 2014)

HDR is only a tool. What matters is the skill and subtlety of the person using it. And in some cases, the cartoonish quality can be used to good effect, as in "Nachos of the Living Dead."

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## timor (Jan 21, 2014)

Designer said:


> There is a fine line between "realistic" and "overcooked", IMO.  If your intention is to produce an image with enhanced detail, don't overdo the HDR.   If on the other hand you want to produce a surreal image with almost no connection to reality, then don't hold back.


I agree with that very much. Because WHO said, that photography has to look realistic ? Especially now, in the age of digital manipulation all sorts of pictorial methods are so flexible, so at hand and so simple. Wall calenders are waiting for fantastic pictures to take every office worker for a moment of dreaming, when the work becomes to boring. . That's one of a mayor function of photography: entertainment.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 21, 2014)

limr said:


> I think we all dislike the stuff that's poorly done, or done just for its own sake and not for the sake of the image.
> 
> Personally, I don't like a lot of HDR, even if it's well done, because it is just too...shiny.



So we've gone from I know what sucks to it all sucks?  Lol  Ok, I'm preparing to be horribly offended in 3.. 2.. 



> This is NOT a statement on how I feel all photography should be, but only what kinds of pictures I personally like to look at. Just a little pre-emptive strike



Ahh crap.  Request to be horribly offended denied.  Drats.  Foiled again.. lol



> Ultimately, HDR feels to me kinda like diet soda: it has its place and some people consume it reasonably while others are addicted to it to their detriment. And I never drink it myself because it just leaves a chemical taste in my mouth that I simply don't enjoy.



I've seen a couple of shots that have benefited from it but most of what I've seen, like you, just really isn't in my wheelhouse.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 21, 2014)

A little goes a long way, and it seems like people don't use it sparingly enough. Even in yours Ron, it would be a beautiful photo but I felt like all I saw was that bright egg yolk orange schmear all the way across the horizon, just for me overpowers the scene.


----------



## scotts2014se (Jan 23, 2014)

jaomul said:


> Because everyone has an opinion. Same reason as why some people dislike onions


Now wait a minute! Thats not an opinion, That's a fact!


----------



## bc_steve (Jan 23, 2014)

skieur said:


> What is unrealistic about an "overcooked" HDR is the lack of shadows, where shadows should be in the image according to the lighting.



I think you just articulated what I don't like about HDR.  The dark areas just don't look right.  This is especially noticeable when you look at the trees, I supposed because of all the branches and the shadows they would create.

I have seen some HDR that I like.  Most of which you really have to look carefully to tell that it is HDR but on occasion I like some tastefully overcooked HDR.  I can't stand the stuff that is overcooked to a crisp.  It just looks like someone cranked every slider to 11 and called it a day.


----------



## krbimaging (Jan 29, 2014)

My Camera has a HDR setting and I use it allot. However I use it to get varity in shots if I am in a hurry. I'll set the camera to take 3 I use a realistic setting and get 3 exposures of the same area. Sometimes the Internal processor of the camera produces a nice shot. Other times not so much..
Two Shots both using my camera's automatic HDR settings. The one on the right is a little over done but the chrome on the car really pops. Over all I have allot of fun with the HDR settings. They are fun to play with in camera and post production.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 29, 2014)

batmura said:


> I guess the most common reason people cite is that HDR looks unrealistic and/or cartoonish. It's understandable that the grungy, gritty look doesn't appeal to some, but what about the more realistic-looking images? Actually there are people who can't even tell if it something is HDR. They may even praise an image until you tell them.
> 
> I'm by no means an expert on HDR, but I like the more realistic images and I feel a photo can benefit a great deal from it if done tastefully.
> 
> Any thoughts? Ay other reasons you can think of why so many people are eager to diss HDR?





HDR is just one more artistic expression. You may like it or not, just like any other way of art expression, but it is still one more tool to master available to any interested photographer and/or artist.

I personally like it, specially those HDR compositions that deal well with light and keep the natural/realistic look in it. I use it from time to time for interior and landscape shots, depending on the light condition. I never used it for portraiture, though, although I would never say never...


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 31, 2014)

Different strokes.

One thing about HDR: You're only shooting what's there. You're using the information collected by the camera and creating an image. What I hate are those programs; many of them advertise in the margins here, where with a few simple keystrokes you can transform an average looking woman into some gorgeous creature. Blemishes are gone, splotchy skin is gone. Hell, maybe even the shape of the eyes changes a bit. _

That's_ what I call "unrealistic"...


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 31, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Different strokes.
> 
> One thing about HDR: You're only shooting what's there. You're using the information collected by the camera and creating an image. What I hate are those programs; many of them advertise in the margins here, where with a few simple keystrokes you can transform an average looking woman into some gorgeous creature. Blemishes are gone, splotchy skin is gone. Hell, maybe even the shape of the eyes changes a bit. _
> 
> That's_ what I call "unrealistic"...



before computers, it was called "beer"


----------



## Dao (Jan 31, 2014)

At the end, that is just an art created by someone.  Personally I do not like rap music, but it does not mean that is bad music.  Just a different taste.  If the final HDR image is present as a art, the sky can even be yellow.  But course, if the purpose of the photo is more or less for information/education etc, it better to look realistic.   Imagine a interior photos of the house for sell are all over cooked HDR or a photo of a frog for a text book looks like a cartoon.

One thing I do like about HDR is it allow me to make more contrast of the photo which I like sometimes.

i.e.  3 exposures combined and tone mapped


----------



## MGRPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know. They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.


----------



## limr (Jan 31, 2014)

MGRPhoto said:


> People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. *The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know.* They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.



And you can prove this?


----------



## andrewochs615 (Jan 31, 2014)

batmura said:


> Maybe I should have worded the question differently. What do you dislike about HDR?
> 
> Also, my point was most people who diss HDR do so blindly. I have seen many a time HDR haters  praising an image without knowing it was HDR.




Don't go on Reddit, they are full of crap for the most part


----------



## Dao (Jan 31, 2014)

MGRPhoto said:


> So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.



I thought all HDR images we see in our monitor are tone mapped because of the viewing devices do not support the entire dynamic range.


----------



## MGRPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

limr said:


> MGRPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > People dislike HDR because they don't know what a HDR photograph looks like. *The majority of the people who replied in this thread don't even know.* They are referring to the cartoonish images as "overdone" when that cartoonish effect has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR. So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.
> ...



Prove what? Tone mapping and HDR are two completely different things. If you use the standard HDR tools within Photoshop and choose to not use any tone mapping then it will just look like any other photograph with no cartoonish effect.

Here is an article about HDR and Tone Mapping.



Dao said:


> MGRPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > So to go back to the original question... people dislike tone mapping... they don't dislike HDR.
> ...



This is partially true but hasn't really applied in the last 15 or so years... modern monitors support very high dynamic range (whether it's native or not is irrelevant) and display images just fine without needing to decrease the range through tone mapping. A printer may have more of an issue though. That being said tone mapping CAN be done without causing the image to look like a cartoon. If tone mapped correctly it will look exactly like it did prior to tone mapping with maybe just some detail lost. Most likely negligible.


-----------


And here's another article about tone mapping properly... http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...ick-guide-to-realistic-hdr-in-photomatix-pro/
There are much more in-depth articles out there but this was the first one I found.


Just look at ronlane's post #10... especially the 2nd image. If he used any tone mapping it was done "properly" and looks natural. I put properly in quotes because you can certainly blow out the colors and make an image look cartoonish if you prefer that look and that would then be proper for you.


----------



## JG_Coleman (Jan 31, 2014)

MGRPhoto said:


> Post processed HDR images don't have any cartoonish effect whatsoever. That effect is the result of tone mapping and it's applied after the HDR shots are layered or blended or can be applied to just a single shot. Completely outside of HDR.



I get the distinction you're trying to draw here, but HDRs processed in Photoshop or Photomatix, the two software applications for HDR that I've used occasionally, _absolutely can_ produce images which lay anywhere on  the the spectrum that eventually goes to the cartoonish end of things.  Whether or not they do that through a combination of tone-mapping and HDR is really irrelevant... they are the "HDR softwares" that people use, thus what people typically call "HDRs" are the photos produced by such software applications.

Also, you are making this entirely about "cartoonish" images, but that's only part of aesthetic issues that some people have with poor HDR images as they are produced (poorly) by Photomatix or Photoshop.  These include things like white clouds becoming gray, haloing on mountains and trees, ghosting on clouds and trees, etc, etc.

To clarify, very good HDR images can be produced with either application.  Neither application produces these artifacts by default, but they both can in the hands of somebody that either doesn't know how to use them or lacks to the eye to see when they've gone into territory nobody ought to go when processing their photos.


----------



## limr (Jan 31, 2014)

MGRPhoto said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > MGRPhoto said:
> ...



Note the bolded part in the quote.


----------



## krbimaging (Jan 31, 2014)

The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well. Even overbaked shots sell well. So before you generalize "people" understand that the common person on the street is really who you need to part with thier money. HDR's are unique and look like Art. Not just some picture...I think the common man will part more easily with thier money when they think they are buying art. No I know it's not always the case but the shows I have been to in the last two years that's what I have observed. Also you see it at the Galleries in Scottsdale, AZ.. So go figure


----------



## runnah (Jan 31, 2014)

What I dislike is that people take a **** photo, HDR it to within an inch of it's life and call it great. 

HDR is like cayenne pepper, it adds a little spice to an already good dish, but add too much and you'll ruin the meal.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 31, 2014)

krbimaging said:


> The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well.



I don't understand why someone would hate HDR because it sells. Could you expound on that?


----------



## JG_Coleman (Jan 31, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> krbimaging said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is, several "pros" don't like HDR because it does sell better in some places than a standard shot. When I go to the art shows HDR is everywhere and it sells well.
> ...



Also, do you have any reason to believe that the HDRs you see in galleries aren't by *pros*?


----------



## krbimaging (Jan 31, 2014)

JG_Coleman said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > krbimaging said:
> ...



I used the "quotes" to imply that there are pro's that are anti photo modification. But I guess that only worked in my head LOL...I know and have talked to some that are very much against retouching a photo so a HDR is taboo. I even know a guy that shoots large format film and is so anti digital he doesn't own a digital camera at all. While his photos sell in a gallery in Sedona they don't get the appreciation he thinks they deserve since his medium is "a dying art" (his words and proper use of quotes) LOL. Anyway I consider him a Pro who is against it and at festivals he just spins off into a tissy when people are looking at HDRs.


----------



## HolgerHarmsen (Jan 31, 2014)

I too, think that it's a bit too easy to take a good shot with HDR. It's a bit like photoshop before even getting the photo to the computer...

Harmsen Photo


----------



## charlie76 (Jan 31, 2014)

HDR vs. standard photos = steroid using baseball players vs. standard human   Two totally different things if you ask me


----------



## MGRPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

JG_Coleman said:


> I get the distinction you're trying to draw here, but HDRs processed in Photoshop or Photomatix, the two software applications for HDR that I've used occasionally, _absolutely can_ produce images which lay anywhere on  the the spectrum that eventually goes to the cartoonish end of things.  Whether or not they do that through a combination of tone-mapping and HDR is really irrelevant... they are the "HDR softwares" that people use, thus what people typically call "HDRs" are the photos produced by such software applications.



It's absolutely NOT irrelevant. Photomatix is gimmicky garbage intended to take a crappy shot and turn it into a fabulous cartoon. Photoshop doesn't apply any tone mapping unless you explicitly tell it to. At least the CS4 version I'm using doesn't. The issue here is the bastardized term HDR that people have come to relate to the cartoonish images. The end result of a HDR photo in Photoshop will give you something that no one will know was done with any HDR techniques. 



JG_Coleman said:


> Also, you are making this entirely about "cartoonish" images, but that's only part of aesthetic issues that some people have with poor HDR images as they are produced (poorly) by Photomatix or Photoshop.  These include things like white clouds becoming gray, haloing on mountains and trees, ghosting on clouds and trees, etc, etc.



I'm not making it about the cartoonish images that is what the thread is about. When you look at a HDR shot that is done with a natural look you aren't going to know it was HDR without the photographer telling you so how would people know they are hating HDR at that point? If done properly you don't get any of those negative things you mention and one of the articles I posted explains how to do that.



JG_Coleman said:


> To clarify, very good HDR images can be produced with either application.  Neither application produces these artifacts by default, but they both can in the hands of somebody that either doesn't know how to use them or lacks to the eye to see when they've gone into territory nobody ought to go when processing their photos.



The previous sections I quoted from your post seem like you were arguing my points but then here you seem to agree with me....


----------



## runnah (Jan 31, 2014)

I would also like to add that cameras these days are getting very good with the dynamic ranges of the sensors. So much so that I think HDR doesn't need to be used as much. I uses to take lots of interior shots that is do bracketing on, with my new camera I find that I don't need to do that as much. 

Also I highly agree with using photoshop rather than a photomatix type program. Photoshop tends to do HDR right.


----------



## MGRPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

A year (or more) ago when I was just lurking the forum I came across a HDR post by someone who used layering in Photoshop with their own technique they shared and it had stunning yet very natural results. Some of the best I've ever seen. I wish I could find the post... I'll update if I do find it.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 31, 2014)

Not sure if that was me ^^^^ as I did have a post about photoshop layering with realistic results. 


People dislike  HDR because people dislike what they don't understand how to do.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> I would also like to add that cameras these days are getting very good with the dynamic ranges of the sensors. So much so that I think HDR doesn't need to be used as much. I uses to take lots of interior shots that is do bracketing on, with my new camera I find that I don't need to do that as much.



I actually will have to agree with this..with the Dynamic range that these new cameras can get and Lightroom combined can yield very HDR like results&#8230;however there certain limitations where a single file just can not capture the whole range. and multiple exposures are needed.





runnah said:


> Also I highly agree with using photoshop rather than a photomatix type program. Photoshop tends to do HDR right.



Ummm this is relative what is right to you may not be right to me.

I can do HDR with photoshop and get great results but sometimes the tone mapping part adds that HDR look many people like.

I can also use photomatix and get realistic photos out of it that do not look tone mapped but are.


----------



## runnah (Jan 31, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> I actually will have to agree with this..with the Dynamic range that these new cameras can get and Lightroom combined can yield very HDR like results&hellip;however there certain limitations where a single file just can not capture the whole range. and multiple exposures are needed.  Ummm this is relative what is right to you may not be right to me.  I can do HDR with photoshop and get great results but sometimes the tone mapping part adds that HDR look many people like.  I can also use photomatix and get realistic photos out of it that do not look tone mapped but are.



Yeah it's subjective. I would say it's not as easy to make the blown out HDR in PS.


----------



## MGRPhoto (Jan 31, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> Not sure if that was me ^^^^ as I did have a post about photoshop layering with realistic results.
> 
> 
> People dislike  HDR because people dislike what they don't understand how to do.



I'm not sure if it was you or not as I don't remember the username... but it certainly could have been based on some of your work. I found this thread of yours http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/290591-true-hdr-photo.html and this is a fantastic example of properly processed HDR.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 31, 2014)

MGRPhoto said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if that was me ^^^^ as I did have a post about photoshop layering with realistic results.
> ...




Oh yes I remember this. I was in an argument with a guy named BYNX&#8230;I actually got many complements from that photo I did. I started taking interior shots for local realtors and this how I would 
process/make my HDR's for them.


My thoughts is there is more than one way to cook an egg&#8230;why know all the ways. Same with HDR more than one way to cook it and its good to know how to do it all.

here was another posting of how to HDR realistic&#8230;.given its just an example and the actual photo is not really that great..

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-hdr-tutorial-realistic-not-so-realistic.html


----------



## unpopular (Jan 31, 2014)

I thought this topic was banned?

I don't mind HDR. I do think there are more natural methods than tone mapping. I don't like bad photos that are HDR. But i don't like bad photos. Except my own bad photos, they're just brilliant.

I do think that good HDR techniques require a solid understanding of exposure to get the best results, and that exposure ought to be deliberate, even in HDR. Simply shooting over/under some arbitrary amount, hoping that the detail you intend to capture is there with enough data that it's not all noise is important.

I think people don't like HDR because the methods aren't established yet, it sometimes comes across as a way to avoid exposure entirely.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 31, 2014)

batmura said:


> I guess the most common reason people cite is that HDR looks unrealistic and/or cartoonish. It's understandable that the grungy, gritty look doesn't appeal to some, but what about the more realistic-looking images? Actually there are people who can't even tell if it something is HDR. They may even praise an image until you tell them.
> 
> I'm by no means an expert on HDR, but I like the more realistic images and I feel a photo can benefit a great deal from it if done tastefully.
> 
> Any thoughts? Ay other reasons you can think of why so many people are eager to diss HDR?



Well, you list out all the reasons why you like HDR, you will have answered your own question.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 31, 2014)

unpopular said:


> I thought this topic was banned?
> 
> I don't mind HDR. I do think there are more natural methods than tone mapping. I don't like bad photos that are HDR. But i don't like bad photos. Except my own bad photos, they're just brilliant.



Well sure, because in that case you obviously chose them to be bad for artistic reasons.  It's just the rest of the philistines are too dimwitted to get it.. lol



> I do think that good HDR techniques require a solid understanding of exposure to get the best results, and that exposure ought to be deliberate, even in HDR. Simply shooting over/under some arbitrary amount, hoping that the detail you intend to capture is there with enough data that it's not all noise is important.
> 
> I think people don't like HDR because the methods aren't established yet, it sometimes comes across as a way to avoid exposure entirely.



Well I think it gets kind of a bad rap because a lot of the stuff that is HDR is so massively over the top that it's just icky.  I've seen some well done HDR, but it seems to be a lot harder to find, whereas you can't swing a dead cat without slapping it against some really horrid HDR.   I had a guy ask me once, well what do you consider good HDR?  I replied, stuff I can look at and not say to myself immediately - ugh.. yup, that's HDR, no doubt about it.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 1, 2014)

I think good HDR is HDR that is only apparent to people who know what "latitude" is.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 1, 2014)

> I've seen some well done HDR, but it seems to be a lot harder to find,  whereas you can't swing a dead cat without slapping it against some  really horrid HDR.



...very eloquently stated.And I couldn't agree more....


----------



## PBlais (Feb 4, 2014)

HDR needs everything any photo needs and being HDR won't fix a crappy shot. HDR magnifies the shot. I'm not one to want over the top HDR but if you push it as far as possible you still need composition, contrast,  color, and even a subject. If you looked at an HDR shot you thought was bad it would have been a bad shot not done in HDR. I like HDR a lot. I really like it when it is very realistic but then at second look it's got something extra. 

There are people that hate black and white.


----------



## enzodm (Feb 6, 2014)

batmura said:


> Also, my point was most people who diss HDR do so blindly. I have seen many a time HDR haters  praising an image without knowing it was HDR.



Actually, I feel this as an honor for HDR "haters": they are still able to appreciate, if HDR is well done


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 6, 2014)

timor said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > There is a fine line between "realistic" and "overcooked", IMO.  If your intention is to produce an image with enhanced detail, don't overdo the HDR.   If on the other hand you want to produce a surreal image with almost no connection to reality, then don't hold back.
> ...



Nobody said, but the problem is that if the focus of your image is a technique, not a subject, then there ends up being very little creative variety between that and the NEXT shot where you use the exact same technique and it is also the focus of the shot.

If HDR is done for the sake of HDR, it's the same as shooting the exact same model or bowl of fruit 300 times.  If it is done as an enchancing background tool only, then each photo stays fresh. And this is the main way that photographers have used HDR since the beginning of photography (in film, dodging and burning is essentially the exact same thing done manually instead of by algorithm)


----------



## BenjaminJ (Feb 8, 2014)

krbimaging said:


> My Camera has a HDR setting and I use it allot. However I use it to get varity in shots if I am in a hurry. I'll set the camera to take 3 I use a realistic setting and get 3 exposures of the same area. Sometimes the Internal processor of the camera produces a nice shot. Other times not so much..
> Two Shots both using my camera's automatic HDR settings. The one on the right is a little over done but the chrome on the car really pops. Over all I have allot of fun with the HDR settings. They are fun to play with in camera and post production.
> 
> View attachment 65562View attachment 65563



Automatic HDR done in camera and not post processing is not true HDR. 

Sent from my galaxy note 3


----------



## Overread (Feb 8, 2014)

I'm thinking on starting a church for HDR - actually two churches. One will be really strict and only accept one form of HDR produced in a very specific and certain way and used only in the most correct of situations.

The other will be more lax and mostly more a social club with a few rough ground rules like don't abuse it. 

Then I'll pitch the two together in an epic battle to the death.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 8, 2014)

Overread said:


> I'm thinking on starting a church for HDR - actually two churches. One will be really strict and only accept one form of HDR produced in a very specific and certain way and used only in the most correct of situations.
> 
> The other will be more lax and mostly more a social club with a few rough ground rules like don't abuse it.
> 
> Then I'll pitch the two together in an epic battle to the death.



Cool.  It's like braveheart.. for camera geeks.   I like it.


----------



## photograpix (Feb 8, 2014)

ronlane said:


> It's ART and not a one size fits all. Some people will love it, some won't. But you can't stop doing your thing because of the ones that don't like what you do. Do it for yourself and the ones that do like it.


  I couldn't agree more it same goes which camera is better Nikon or canon etc.


----------



## vipgraphx (Feb 8, 2014)

photograpix said:


> I couldn't agree more it same goes which camera is better Nikon or canon etc.




Yup I agree 100%


By the way Nikons are better 8)


----------



## photograpix (Feb 8, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> Yup I agree 100%  By the way Nikons are better 8)



Lol! yes Nikon rules coz I don't have canon


----------



## unpopular (Feb 8, 2014)

Contax ... 'cuz Leica can SUCKIT!

Oh wait.......


----------



## slackercruster (Feb 8, 2014)

OP...just scared of new things. 

 Now, some of my pix get hyper real and some invisible HDR...but I love it all!!


----------

