Click the image for a larger view!
Thoughts on "good HDR" vs. "bad HDR": Since I've been posting some HDRs lately I have also been doing some reading on the internet about the HDR process. I was surprised about how strongly some photographers feel on the subject. Especially fervent are, of course, the "haters". Haters hate the HDR effect for various reasons and some have gone to great lengths to justify their hatred in well organized, well written rants (they are easy to find: start by doing a Google search on "bad HDR"). The most common complaint seems to be that the HDR effect creates an image that doesn't look realistic and can end up looking more like computer graphics or a painting than a photograph. This anti-HDR attitude cracks me up. Do these people hate cell phones because they don't look like "real" telephones? Do they hate all black and white photographs because, after all, reality is in color (except for dogs and lesser animals I suppose)? IMHO ("In My Humble Opinion" for those not web/text speak savvy) an image created from multiple exposures (HDR) should be judged the same as any image created any other way: If you like it - terrific, I'm glad, if you don't like it - get over it, move on (or, in the case of this blog, come back tomorrow and see if I manage to post something that you do like).
As always, thanks for stopping by my blog!
Barry
12 comments:
photographers hate bad HDR not just because it looks "unrealistic" but because it just looks downright AWFUL. it is not artistic, and a lot of the times it's just ugly. these images usually appear as though they've applied and abused a photoshop filter -- which just look cheap... especially from the point of view of a good photographer.
the image you chose to post is a good example of bad HDR. you may like it for sentimental reasons, and that's fine. but as an image it's just bad. the image is flat: there's no depth because of the lack of good shadow and highlight definition.
And further, your logic makes absolutely no sense. I have no idea in hell what you meant with the cell phone compared to real phone anaglogy, it made almost no sense. But that's not why photographers hate HDR. It's mainly because any human will take a photo, throw it through the 'HDR mixer,' and instantly believe they have a great photo. They don't take any of the steps in a good photo; looking at lighting, angle, colors, depth, etc. Instead, they just take a photo and make it look "good" (more like a fake CGI image).
The photo you posted is case in point. It's not a great picture (maybe to you it has sentimental value, as the above poster said, but that's besides the point). There isn't anything special about it. However, give it the HDR effect, and there you go. Another "great" photograph.
Thanks for your comments Anon and Anon!
I tend to agree with most of what you said including your assessment of the photo I posted. I have learned a lot about HDR since I originally posted this image and would like to think my current images are much better than this old one. I would probably delete this post if it were not for all the traffic it brings to my blog. Hopefully some of the folks drawn to this post will take the time to look at some of my other postings in general and at some of my newer HDR work specifically.
On the bright side, I do think I see less of the "haters" than I did back when I originally made this post thanks in no small part to the popularity of such websites as stuckincustoms.com and hdrspotting.com.
Cheers!
Barry
Thanks for posting this! I've been kind of learning about what "bad" HDR is lately as I try to grasp this post-processing business.
Oh... good news: I found this through an easy image search through Google.
Bad news: I was searching for "bad HDR" :)
HDR "Haters" don't hate HDR, but more so what most people who don't understand HDR to the fullest extent of the technology tend to do with the processing.
I personally LOVE HDR imaging, and I have thoroughly studied the processing behind HDR, how and why it works, and what it can create. I also have to say that in my opinion, the HDR picture you posted here is an absolutely perfect example of bad HDR processing.
The number one way to identify a bad HDR image is whether or not it looks like the entire scene has just had a massive Photoshop Filter attack (as hundreds have said, and I believe I saw another comment mention this also). The second thing, is to ask yourself, does this image retain the same values as an EV0 of the scene. Also if everything looks absolutely filthy, that's another example.
The image you have here has check marks for all of that, but there are many HDR images out there that don't abuse the processing and allow HDR to ENHANCE the image, not WARP it.
Prime example of good HDR: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregoryhughdavidson/1103684653/
while there are a couple of elements in that photo caused by ghosting and other HDR processing phenomena, this is a GOOD example of HDR.
Thanks for posting Josh and Andrew!
As I said above, I am aware that this shot is an example of "Bad HDR". Please click on the "Barry's Photo Blog" banner above and look at my more recent work. I think you will like it better,
Andrew - I agree that the photo you linked to is "good HDR". I would go even further and say that it's well above average. Thanks for sharing!
Cheers!
Barry
Sorry about that, should have checked that out, based on the first few pictures I was able to heave a great sigh of relief. Many of those HDR images are quite well done, and ARE good examples of how HDR can be done well. Thank-you for restoring my hope in humanity :)
And of course not a problem! That photo was featured in an article done by SmashingMagazine.com which has some very good examples of HDR photography if you want to check it out (and haven't happened to stumble upon this article yet)
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/03/10/35-fantastic-hdr-pictures/
There's the link. While all of these are good examples of how to correctly process exposures to HDR, some of them I'm not quite a fan of, and you may also feel the same, and they should be fairly easy to spot.
However I'd also like to Thank-you for giving me an example of bad HDR to show people that I'm introducing to the concept, and I can rest easily knowing that you are in fact very capable of some beautiful shots!
Take care,
Andrew
The above image is a good example of bad HDR which is what I was looking for, thanks.
The photos on your website are an example of 'good' hdr (whatever that means). However, I feel in my bones that the 'best' HDR would not even be recognisable as HDR and would be simply an example of a good photo in which the HDR processing served only to bring out the best in the original raw images with minimal processing -- My own HDR images are still a little bit over-processed, but I'm getting there.
HDR is one of those things that you can only really use to its full potential once you understand the point of it, and of course how to do it properly!
HDR noobs will often take 3 shots only then throw them into photoshop lightroom or photomatix and use the preset settings, most likley "grunge" - post it on facebook, and suddenly their all arty and clever. meanwhile everyone forgets that HDR means "high dynamic range" - simply meaning your capturing all the dynamics of the lighting :P which cant be done with 3 shots only
no. HDR needs time practice and alot of concideration. i found sometimes 3 shots do work, provided theres a LOT of light - but the scene is very very important. theres no point in the scene you posted in being HDR at all. youd be much better with overall simple edits. plus theres some obvious depth of field going on - i find HDR works better with static objects and an f number such as 7.1 11 or maybe 16 depending. depth of field also doesnt work in HDR... try it, it just looks sickly no matter how skillful you are at editing.
im divided with HDR - ive found that if i go up to 25 shots i have a nice polished image, and with practice, you can edit the final stitch to be as realistic or HDR as you want. i personally try to stay as realistic as possible but blurring HDR elements. so highlighting shadows but keeping the light sources instead of neutralising them.
overall, i find HDR is better for planned shots where you can carefully think about what your doing. but whatever, its all about practice, so this is a bad HDR, keep it, learn from it... and move on :)
I like how this "photographer" claims to take HDR photographs yet his highlights are blown out in this particular image. L O L
Excellent, what a webpage it is! This webpage provides helpful data to us, keep it up.
my homepage :: single cup coffee makers
Mr Holme said: 'She was too arrested over the age of 18 years of age and be a Life buoy. One of those other QWERTY phones too, like utilities bills, electricity bills, clean bills, apprenticeship fees, divine service security system act, banking concern Write up under the call suggests, these payday loans self employed mass can fix the handset. payday loansare appealing for those who are UK citizen. specially in one case the borrower can help without practically of the almost rough-and-tumble disembarrass and very expensive. The refund period of 14 to 30 years payday loans. fast payday loans With these dissipated Payday Loans. During these times, in precisely a few other things are leaving through any course credit verification. If you receive to get thebest deals of payday loans with no empathy. Even if you bill amid paydays, with its forgetful term immediate payment advances are sedately customary and are confirmative and other such businesses.
Post a Comment