Is HDR ruining photography?

Hi all,

 

I ask the question, Is HDR ruining photography? Not as a gripe or any dislike of HDR, in fact I am quite sold on HDR,

if not fully addicted to it, and that is the problem.

 

Where once I took images in sinlge shots, now I always take three, just so I have the option of HDR processing

them if I want to.

 

Why not combine the two methods I hear you say, but what if I get a single shot that I am pleased with, but yet at

the back of my mind I know it would have been so much better with HDR. Where once I was happy, now I am not so

happy.

 

Make three shots from one RAW then, but again, not as good as the full dynamic range available from three shots,

so again, less happy.

 

So now I go on holiday and instead rattling off a couple of thousand shots over a two week period, I take six

thousand shots. More kit, more storage, more expense, more effort. Again less happy.

 

I used to hand hold prety much all the images I took, what with L lenses and IS, I could do this very well, HDR now

means I have to lug a tripod around all the time, with angle viewfinder and cable release etc etc.. More expense,

more kit, less happy.

 

Every picture I take now has good light distributed all the way through it thanks to HDR and I love it, but all my

previous pictures that I had taken on expensive holidays abroad and that I was once felt proud of and will never get

the chance to visit again, now don't seem as good as I once thought they did, and have been consigned to the back

of the hard disk. Less happy.

 

Oh and this goes without saying about the blooming, or cartoony effects over processing images can produce, or the

RSI I get from selecting and aligning images into HDR pictures, or the wife berating me and saying why don't I marry

that damn computer, you spend so much time hunched over in front of it. Less happy.

 

But every now and then, an HDR image appears on my screen that blows me away and I think, wow! I took that.

 

So yes I am totally addicted to HDR, and wish it had never been invented.

 

Dave

I don't think the day would be complete anymore without an HDR good\bad thread. It's neither, and both. Depends on how it's used and what you like. It's just another dimension to the awesome field of photography.

if hdr makes you happy it seems like an easy decision. if your marriage however seems to be in trouble because of

it, well, only you know if to continue on the path of hdr or not...

<br><br>

 

personally i don't think hdr is ruining anything. just that the vast majority of "hdr photos" are plain ugly - to

my eyes. but then, i probably see a bunch of hdr photos that don't scream hdr, where the technique truly adds

something to the image instead of being used just for its own sake. and that's where its strengt lies imo.

Perhaps you need to start a new organization: HAA ("HDR Addicts Anonymous")

 

"Hello, my name is Dave and I'm addicted to HDR."

"Hello Dave!"

 

Seriously, I think you make some good points. HDR can make some spectacular photos, but it's a real PIA to do. Perhaps the next step in your development is to work past the "HDR for everything" phase and start being more selective about choosing when to use it?

Treating every shot as an HDR image would seem to me to take the pleasure out of photography. Not every image should be sensationalistic, as if you are working out-in-the-field for an advertising job. Take advantage of the classical restraints of photography as a medium while they are still standard. It sounds to me like you don't trust your capabilities.

To answer your question: yes. It's become a fad applied mostly in bad taste. Contrast between clearly visible details and details hidden in the shadows is mostly lost with HDR, not good for an image that leaves something to the imagination. HDR should be used in rare cases only and then with the greatest possible care. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

It's not ruining photography for me. I don't shoot, or particularly care about, the style of photography that lends itself to HDR.

<p>

For me, photography is about "moments" rather than "scenes". You can't make the same "moment" happen 3 times.

<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1645943-lg.jpg" height="450">

Look up high speed HDR on Outback Photo- no tripod needed.

 

Or shoot color negative film and you'll get all the DR you ever need.

The outbackphoto stuff still requires three frames. If you can make three of the exact same moments in time exist, I'll point you towards the pope and introduce you as the second coming of christ.

If your photography is making you unhappy, change your photography. If HDR makes you happy, decide when you care enough to use it and when you prefer not to.

 

Obviously, HDR isn't ruining photography, marriages are. (Do I even need to insert the smiley?)

If photography can survive Cross processing, the Canon D30, then HDR is no threat. I tend to wonder as sensors get better

with less noise and greater exposure latitude will there even be a need for HDR. HDR is just another technique, nothing

more.

HDR is definitely not ruining photography, but it does seem to ruin a lot of photographs.

passing fad

"The outbackphoto stuff still requires three frames"

Right- it's not for action photography. I'm sorry it wasn't clear I was not responding to your post but rather the original one which talked about lugging the tripod around.

 

Anyway, I guess "HDR is ruining photography" is the latest evolution of the "Velvia is ruining photography" or "Photoshop is runing photography" train of thought.

"HDR now means I have to lug a tripod around all the time, with angle viewfinder and cable release etc etc.. More expense, more kit, less happy." Why? The same way you can use a stitcher to stitch a panorama, you can use it to align frames of the same field. As long as the subject hasn't moved, the movement of the camera is no problem. Of course you have to stay within traditional no-shake-limits.

I don't see HDR in advertising or editorial photography. I don't think many pros are using it, and I don't think many photo editors are buying it. It's something for geeks to play with and display on websites where amateurs post their photos.

I don't think HDR is ruining photography but it sure is another process that's being abused heavily judging by the sheer amount of freaky HDR images I see.

<Where once I took images in sinlge shots, now I always take three, just so I have the option of HDR processing

them if I want to.>

Not me, I just shoot 1 RAW image. If I decide to produce an HDR image, I output up to 5 tiff images of different

exposures from the single RAW file and process them together in xFuse ( a Mac freeware app).

Bracket all you want, but I'm shooting 1 good image and moving along.

You don't always need HDR. I don't like it because lots of my photos are action shots or moments when HDR wouldn't make sense. I'd rather take three photos at different angles than three photos with exactly the same composition.

 

http://www,onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/better-than-hdr-local-exposure-editing/

I have a friend who shot 4,000 bracketed shots on a short vacation (in case he wanted to use HDR). He didn't use a tripod

but said they worked out OK. I think his camera lets him bracket 6-7 shots.

 

I tried it recently on a trip but could only bracket three at a time. I have yet to process them. I did try the one shot Raw

some time back with mixed results.

Sorry that link should be:

 

http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/better-than-hdr-local-exposure-editing/

 

Also see the post we have going on here:

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00QT2d

"So now I go on holiday and instead rattling off a couple of thousand shots over a two week period, I take six thousand shots. More kit, more storage, more expense, more effort. Again less happy."

 

jmho...If you're cranking out six thousand images during a two week period, you may as well be using a camcorder! I would consider that living through your viewfinder, rather than experiencing the holiday...If that makes you happy..go for it, but how do you evaluate and process that many images???

 

My suggestion would be to make fewer (alot fewer, say 50 or 60 max.) images and spend more time taking in the scene and considering your exposures.

 

jmho ;o)

Hey guys, I agree with Josh about "moments", photography has many different aspects, catching 3 shots when there are fast moving subjects is not possible. I don't know about everyone else but when I saw my first HDR photo I thought it was really cool, but now when I am looking at the ctitique forum I find myself thinking 'ah, another HDR photo...' for some reason now I am finding the lack of shadows and contrast in HDR photos not so appealing. I must admit though that clouds in HDR photos are pretty cool. I guess its once again a case of being diverse and not simply relying on HDRing (have I just created a new verb?) every subject you shoot after all, no amount of special software can make a poorly framed photo look brilliant :)

Boy, am I glad I shoot film! This is one less thing to worry about.

Um I hate to ask a noobie question but can somebody explain to me how to do an HDR image. I take it this is a

bit more then simply bracketing the shot and cutting photo shopping in the best exposed sky..