I'd like to start a bit of a debate/sharing of opinions in two separate forums regarding the use of HDR and B&W on Caedes. I want to keep the ideas separate, so check out the discussion on B&W here...

HDR is a great technique. It helps create images that would have been impossible using one single exposure...but, in my opinion, there is one major caveat: you must know when to say when. It's like color saturation and sharpness...a razor-sharp image bursting with color will knock you out of your chair. But (and nobody will argue this with me) there's a point at which an image is too saturated or too sharp.

But, it seems like HDR is being handled differently (not only on Caedes, but on many other sites I've visited). HDR can create a surreal image that just takes your breathe away. But, when used incorrectly, too much, or in the wrong situation, it creates an image where you just have to say...whoa, toooo much!! Those are the cases (mostly when there's a large area of uninterrupted color like the sky) where it's just a noisy mess, strewn about with weird looking artifacts. There's also that strange halo effect that pops up a lot of the time. There may be 1 time out of 100 that this effect is intentional...but, for the most part, it's an unwanted side-effect.

My thoughts are this: decide what your intentions are for your shot before applying the technique. I know most people are not Photoshop masters and HDR is an easy technique that can drastically change an images appearance. But, there's a problem with that...instead of taking the time to plan for your image you can just click a button or two and presto-chango, you got yourself a winner!!

Here's an example of when not to use HDR: It's early in the morning and the sun's just starting to come up. You've got a majestic mountain in front of you just soaked with beautiful sunlight. Only problem is the foreground hasn't seen the sun yet. Instead of taking a few exposures and combining them to control the areas of light and shadow...pull out your trusty graduated neutral density filter and control the difference in lighting before the image ever reaches the computer. Now, instead of having this unnatural HDR shot filled with noise and artifacts, you've got a perfectly exposed representation of what you saw with your own two eyes.

I hope that didn't come off as a rant, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject. Do you agree? When are some good situations to use the technique? Maybe you disagree...share your thoughts. Looking forward to a heated debate!!!

I'd have to agree with you - HDR like many other creative procedures in photography suits very specific criteria and can’t be applied as a blanket to any image. By its definition it creates a larger range of colour and contrast that should be enough in itself to add to the drama of the picture. Sadly though most uders of it often produce very over processed images that dont look anything like and HDR image should and destroy lots of detail - again the complete opposie of what HDR is supposed to do.


here is a blog site with some examples which are, for the most part, fine examples of what HDR can do although even here there are some that have tripped over the line into being overprocessed also.

You are absolutely correct Stephen. It seems to take a skilled operator and a delicate touch to get the best with HDR. I have seen a few fabulous HDR images and a lot of horrible ones.

Personally I will grab the graduated filters because I'd rather take photos than play with software.

Your point is absolutely correct. However, the point is mute in a discussion such as this. YOU NEED TO TELL THE ARTIST!

Software (some) was made for those that are less handy with the camera. But don't tell anyone, you may hurt some feelings;-0

Yeah..I was afraid it was more of a rant than a debate on this subject. I was hoping to have some really opinionated advocates of HDR throw their hats into the discussion, but that's probably not going to happen.

I agree it's probably best to address the issue and leave critiques at the images themselves.

@mayne OK, so I see a bad image with 20 comments all saying how wonderful it is. Am I going to say I feel it is over post processed, knowing the amount of votes that the people who think it is good carry, and possibly upset them and risk even lower scores than I get now? Why bother. Why risk upsetting someone. Let them post rubbish. I know that it probably wont get to the perm galleries anyway.

Of course if it is someone I know, or is not in the gang and therefore has few comments then I will say.

For my own part I purchased HDR software, only to find it needed OS-X 1.5, and I only have 1.4, so it sits languishing in my apps area, and I have to think about how I take pictures very carefully in some lighting conditions. I think this makes me a better photographer. Comments.

What is the gang and how do we join?

Perhaps an HDR Gallery would give more of an opportunity to compare images.

for that we would need at least a dozen permed HDR images and i'm not convinced that there are that amount of well executed 'true' HDR images in the perms at the moment.

Is the amount of True HDR images in the perms due to the lack of TRUE multi image HDR, or the lack or quality using the HDR Technique?

The same reasons for not separating a B&W gallery would apply equally to HDR. Else we should perhaps have an Orton Gallery too. The point is that HDR should enhance a picture of something, not be a picture in its own right.

indeed

Ok point taken - I was just so impressed by the link provided above with the selection of HDR images. There were some not to my taste - just too muchbut the majority I thought were stunning.

Yes Chris, your right, why bother?

I agree with the separately gallery idea and yes, nice link. There's a bunch on there that are over-processed or really shouldn't have had the treatment altogether. But, the ones that work are the ones that have the ultra-surreal look to them. An example in that link of what, in my opinion, is the wrong way to use HDR...the 12th shot down. It's a shot of cloud formations during a nice blue sky...could be an ok shot normally, but to me its not meant to be "surreal" (maybe if it was stormy and dramatic) Even in the small thumbnail you can see tons of grain and noise and there's that all too familiar halo effect. Ewww!! I think the 17th image down (the one of the rocks in the foreground with a dramatic purple sky) is a great example of good HDR.

****edit****
I originally linked examples from the new images gallery that I thought were examples of how other methods would have been better than HDR. However, as Lyn pointed out below and another member nailed it on the head that it was the wrong way to go about it...I should have posted a positive critique on the images I was talking about.
****edit****

Just to show that I'm not trying to single anyone out...here is a shot in my gallery, "Gibbon River", that is too over-processed and probably shouldn't have even been done in HDR in the first place. Sure, the treatment brought out dramatic lighting...but that dramatic lighting was already there. A bit of dodging and burning and playing with levels and layers would have achieved the same thing. Plus, there's noise everywhere, the river is an out-of-focus mess now, and that blue color in the sky is completely unnatural. It was good to play around with the technique and I'm not advocating phasing it out of your repertoire 100%, but I'm just saying use it wisely.

Stephen - the 3 images you selected that you do not think work - why not leave comments on the image saying so and suggesting improvements ?
You said further back "I agree it's probably best to address the issue and leave critiques at the images themselves."

:) :) :)

A good article on the subject...Aesthetics Of XDR:
Using Extended Dynamic Range techniques judiciously will keep you from taking a good thing too far

Thank you Stephen - that is an excellent article and even for me quite easy to follow. I have bookmarked it for future reference.

Offensive item #2 disposed of.

Never meant to be offensive...apologies all around if it came off that way...

I have been a keen photographer for over 30yrs and it seems to me what with HDR,Photoshop and all these other programs to manipulate your pics. All the skill and practice and learning to use light etc the art of photography has gone. Anyone can take the most basic pic and with a computer hey presto a master piece in the eyes of many.

I have been a keen photographer for over 30yrs and it seems to me what with HDR,Photoshop and all these other programs to manipulate your pics. All the skill and practice and learning to use light etc the art of photography has gone. Anyone can take the most basic pic and with a computer hey presto a master piece in the eyes of many.

gratuitous filtering and over processing does not make a masterpiece except in the eyes of its creator and his/her fans I guess.

I've seen some lovely effects but sadly more that are very overdone and imo ruining the image.
Sometimes it just needs to be left..an image is beautiful in itself, especially if one has taken the time to learn about photography and produce some lovely clear images.