HDR dead?

[RalphLambrecht]

it seems to me that HDR has run its course. We see less and less of them on the web or social media and I personally don't miss them.HDR was new and unique when it came out but quickly turned into a fad.Don't get me wrong, increasing the density range of a digital capture is useful and often very powerful but simple manual exposure blending does a very good job in PS without the surreal look and additional software required(I compared them)In my comparison exposure blending did a better job and gave more flexibility than Photomatix or PS's HDRPo.

 

[dasBlute]

I think the technique is powerful, the naive application of it can be obvious. Not that I'm an expert,
but I've seen a few incredible, subtle results that could not be achieved -to my knowledge- any other way.
The trick, again to my mind is knowing how to artfully blend the layers region by region, as needed, with
some human input. [hybrid alert:] I've done the equivalent by hand with layers and masks with some scans
of 4x5 TMY that had a more dynamic range than I could easily print in the darkroom.

 

[nmp]

When I heard the term HDR - High Dynamic Range, I was excited. Then I saw some people's work they said was HDR. I said WTH. Never got the urge to use it. Then I figured out my own simple method how to do what I thought first it was supposed to be for in Photoshop, without third party so-called HDR plug-ins. Now I use it regularly, but you would never know it from my pictures.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't think it's dead. I think folks aren't pushing the highlights and shadows to extremes like when it was new. I think HDR got pretty gross for a while. HRD is like good burning and dodging. It's subtle and use to enhance the image.

 

[Eric Rose]

I have used HDR on quite a few images and you would never know I did. I feel the cartoon HDR treatments have run their course. Thank God!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have used HDR on quite a few images and you would never know I did. I feel the cartoon HDR treatments have run their course. Thank God!

HDR done well can be a beautiful thing. Subtlety is key. It's just another tool. With some shots, it beats goboing hot lights and filling in empty shadows.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Nahh, people have just backed off from the early excesses and are using it in a more sophisticated way.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think the technique is powerful, the naive application of it can be obvious. Not that I'm an expert,
but I've seen a few incredible, subtle results that could not be achieved -to my knowledge- any other way.
The trick, again to my mind is knowing how to artfully blend the layers region by region, as needed, with
some human input. [hybrid alert:] I've done the equivalent by hand with layers and masks with some scans
of 4x5 TMY that had a more dynamic range than I could easily print in the darkroom.

Film is the first HDR But seriously, if you over-expose highlights with a digital shot, it's gone. But if you over-expose neg film, you can sometimes recover some detail through another scan or in the darkroom, do some burning in.

 

[nmp]

Film is the first HDR

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights was nothing but optical/chemical HDR.

 

[Chan Tran]

Film is the first HDR But seriously, if you over-expose highlights with a digital shot, it's gone. But if you over-expose neg film, you can sometimes recover some detail through another scan or in the darkroom, do some burning in.

I did some HDR with color negative film. I exposed for the shadow then when I do the scanning I made a scan for the shadow and one for the highlight then I combined them to make HDR.

 

[ozphoto]

Definitely, *not* dead - it just isn't being used with those unrealistic colours that were so prevalent when it first appeared on the scene. I still use it quite often in my work shooting architecture, when I am unable to light a scene for a myriad of reasons.

Rule number one (from day one) to my digital tech was that the image had to look realistic when we shot this way - the "overworked" stuff that was being handed up as HDR was not acceptable. She got it; we were shooting real spaces for clients that expected these spaces to look real, not something from a B-grade, CGI enhanced movie.

I have never liked the overworked stuff - fake and 9/10 woeful execution. I did, however, see one photographer who used it beautifully and I wanted to get a print from him, sadly never had a reply from the enquiry. It was truly outstanding stuff and put the rest of the images that were floating around at the same time to shame.

HDR certainly has its place - I just feel that it just needs to be executed correctly to see its full potential, well away from the stuff that looks like the photographer couldn't really decide what the final image should look like.

PS: There are a few IG users who seem to have discovered the "surreal" HDR experience - still don't like it.

 

[Cholentpot]

Does the Brenizer method count? I use it from time to time.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Does the Brenizer method count? I use it from time to time.

please explain what that method is

 

[Luckless]

Brenizer is really just using a panorama stitch tool to merge a number of shots into a single to simulate a wider lens with very low f/stop for depth of field. It can be used with HDR, but I've rarely seen examples done as such.

 

[Cholentpot]

please explain what that method is

Like Luckless said.

It turns a small format into a monster format. Lots of great tricks and fun can be had.

 

[DannL-USA]

HDR seems to be used a lot in realty these days. We recently purchased a new home and in the process we viewed hundreds of property listings via web sites such as Realty.com, Zillow, Trulia etc. Sadly some of these real estate agents don't seem to grasp the downside of advertising so-so properties, making them appear nicer than they really are. As a potential home buyer I prefer to be shown the true nature of a property, a close facsimile of the property, when viewing it in advertising.

 

[Bob Carnie]

When HDR is used wisely and is not visible its great. When you know its HDR it sucks.

 

[nmp]

Like Luckless said.

It turns a small format into a monster format. Lots of great tricks and fun can be had.

Lot of fun, yes. But not related to extending the dynamic range of the camera sensor.

 

[dasBlute]

Brenizer is really just using a panorama stitch tool to merge a number of shots into a single to simulate a wider lens with very low f/stop for depth of field. It can be used with HDR, but I've rarely seen examples done as such.

Brenizer seems orthogonal to HDR, which is about the dynamic range, not the DOF or focal length.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Does the Brenizer method count? I use it from time to time.

I don't see what that has to do with HDR.

 

[Daft Vader]

Why do HDR when there are GND filters?

 

[Cholentpot]

I don't see what that has to do with HDR.

Extending the range of your sensor by manipulation, panorama and stacking.

By shooting with this method I can shoot at a low quality JPEG and still have a very high quality image.

 

[nmp]

Why do HDR when there are GND filters?

GND's will take care of certain situations when the highlights and shadows are nicely separated, like by the horizon. It does not work in all situations. For example if you have a tree back-lit by a bright sky. If you want to show the details on the bark of the tree and not blow out the sky or the clouds, GND filter won't do the job. But mixing two or more exposures in Photoshop will.

 

[Daft Vader]

You do know that the Cokin filter system allows you to sandwich two GNDs and adjust to taste. No?

GND's will take care of certain situations when the highlights and shadows are nicely separated, like by the horizon. It does not work in all situations. For example if you have a tree back-lit by a bright sky. If you want to show the details on the bark of the tree and not blow out the sky or the clouds, GND filter won't do the job. But mixing two or more exposures in Photoshop will.

do

 

[Luckless]

You do know that the Cokin filter system allows you to sandwich two GNDs and adjust to taste. No?


do

Which is still not remotely accurate to the lighting of many real life situations. Try using graduated filters to light the back lit branches of a tree in winter while maintaining clean and clear detail on the clouds behind it? Or try using grad filters to photograph a dim room while not blowing out something in full sun outside the windows?