HDR.. is it just hype?

[dwight200]

<p>As noted above, HDR can be great or it can be horrible. Or anything in between. My personal preference is for more realistic photos, not the wild colors and contrasts, but some people like them.</p>

<p>Georges and Lex mentioned Active D-Lighting. It's a feature that can expand the dynamic range of the camera. But it is limited, and true HDR using several stops of bracketing can expand the dynamic range more.</p>

<p>If you plan to try Active D-Lighting, you might check out an interesting thread on flickr's Nikon Digital group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigital/discuss/72157623298578772. For one thing it points out that Active D-Lighting does modify the RAW file by changing the exposure.</p>

<p>Extracted from Thom Hogan's ebook on the D3:<br>

(1) Active D-Lighting reduces the exposure;<br>

(2) ADL is designed to work with Matrix Metering so if you use something else you might not get the results you want;<br>

(3) It's designed to be used for scenes with a dynamic range that (slightly) exceeds the camera's capability<br>

(4) Only CaptureNX will reproduce the appropriate curve on the RAW file to get what the camera was designed to get. (It might be an advantage here to shoot RAW+jpg if you use another raw converter since the jpg from the camera has the appropriate curve already applied).<br>

(5) It's not a "leave-it-on-all-the-time" feature. For that reason it's probably something you want to put into one of your banks that you can switch to quickly when the need arises.</p>

 

[thomas_k.]

<h1>HDR.. is it just hype?</h1>

<p>Yes it is - it will not automatically make your images better and very likely it will make them look worst. </p>

[bill_brooks]

<p>This discussion highlights why photo.net is so wonderful in the generous sharing of information... as an artist, I now realize thanks to posts by Georges and others, that HDR is another logical tool option for the photographer.<br>

The eye perception range Georges talks about and the similar dynamic of layering in film that Steven notes made me clearly realize that HDR may be a useful tool. I can control the amount of HDR just like any other any technique, and now I know why it's worth exploring.<br>

Liana, sounds like you picked up on that too. As a fellow artist.. we're always curious, and there is no such thing as too many brushes or paint colors, and so on, if we know where we want to take them and how much to use them.<br>

The pros and serious amateurs on this site amaze me with their knowledge... many thanks.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>You can accomplish HDR with your D7000 automatically with the bracket function -- I do with mine.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>You may want to learn more about the HDR technique, this is one of the websites with a lot of information and photos and a how to instruction <a href="http://www.stuckincustoms.com/">http://www.stuckincustoms.com/</a> It can be useful and sometime fun. a hint don't do HDR photos of your mother-in-law and let her or your wife see it.<br>

Jim</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Our eye can see a greater range of brightness than any current camera can capture.</p>

<p>A HDR (high dynamic range) image is created by taking two or more different exposures of the same scene and merging them together. This is the only way we can get an image that has a greater brightness range than current technology can capture.</p>

<p>The problem is that a HDR image have a greater brightness range than any current monitor or printer can output.</p>

<p>So we need to compress this large range into a smaller range (a regular image) that we could actually see - aka an LDR (low dynamic range) image. This process is called tonemapping and this can be done in several ways using different algorithms and settings. It is here we can go for any kind of look from natural to surrealistic but it is up to the photographer.</p>

<p>I recommend the HDRI Handbook for anyone who really want to know what HDR imaging is all about. http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/index.html</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Can I take a whole different take on it? Because I see a much nicer "lesson" in your story:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was kinda disappointed after already ordering my D7000 that it didn't have HDR. I didn't really know what HDR was, I just knew it was something that newer cameras had.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As it turned out, there was disappointment for something you did not really need or want. Goes to show that a spec-sheet does not make a camera; it's the qualities you need in a camera that make a good camera. And I'm quite sure the D7000 serves many very well in that sense.<br>

So, maybe there is something really useful for those looking for a camera: check what you want it to do. Too many reviews compare cameras head to head, and put in a minus for something some model does not do. And then, that seems the lesser camera - but it might not be.</p>

<p>That, and yeah, properly done HDR can add something, though I see simpler less dramatic techniques like exposure blending or a graduated ND filter yielding -to me- nicer results. To each his own probably, but HDR is a solution to a problem I do not see.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Couple things -</p>

<p>If you make different exposures from your raw file and HDR them, you haven't gained anything more than you would have by working on the original raw.</p>

<p>And unless Nikon has changed something in the D7000, "active d-lighting" causes underexposure and increases noise in your shot. It does that because it makes it easier to pull down the highlights. The next step is not magic - it just brings in shadows and highlights. You're better off shooting raw without active d-lighting, then doing the shadows and highlights yourself.</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>I cannot accept HDR as True photography...It is a lie.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I cannot accept HDR as True photography...It is a lie."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The cake is a lie. HDR is a construct.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I don't get why HDR imaging would be something strange. It's just a way to overcome problems with our current technology. In this case the limited dynamic range of cameras and noise in shadows.</p>

<p>Current cameras is simply not up to par with our own eyes. With HDR you can capture all the tones that where in the scene so it's actually closer to reality.</p>

<p>Same thing for instance with focus stacking to get more depth of field when shooting macros.</p>

<p>Or doing panorama shots to get a wider view than the lens could capture.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>HDR means High Dynamic Range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And what it actually does is reduce the dynamic range (and occasionally create images which make your ears hurt).</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot accept HDR as True photography...It is a lie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it's basically a digital equivalent of what Ansel did with every single image. He just didn't make it look awful.</p>

<p>All photography is a lie. It's a mere image of reality, not reality itself.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>Simple solution, if you don't like it don't do it.<br>

Jim</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>"Our eye can see a greater range of brightness than any current camera can capture."</p>

<p>That's because it's dynamic. If you focus on dark objects, the pupil dilates, bright objects the pupil constricts.</p>

<p>Isn't that what you are simulating when you use HDR?</p>

<p>I remember a story from college. Pablo Picasso is having drinks with a sailor. The sailor says to Picasso, "I don't like your paintings, they don't look real". Picasso asks, "Do you have a photo of your girlfriend, can I see it?" The sailor says, "Yes", and obliges. Pulls out his wallet, then pulls out the photo of the girlfriend, and hands it to Picasso. Picasso looks at it and asks, "Is your girlfriend <em>really</em> this small?"</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>My edit timed out, here is the rest of that post...</p>

<p>"I mean it's not what was actually there when the person took the photo."<br /> -<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5581676">Liana Seda</a></p>

<p>Like Peter Hamm said, Adams altered his prints immensely, read The Print. He tells you and shows you how, and shows you why. Explicitly writing that photography for the artist is to present the artist's (pre)visualization of a scene, not produce a documentary replication of a scene. Even in the intro he explains how people state that his photos looks 'so real', and states that if these people saw the original scene or negative they might be startled as to the amount of difference.</p>

<p>"Many consider my photographs to be in the "realistic" category. Actually what reality they have is in the optical-image accuracy; their values are definitely "departures from reality." The viewer may accept them as realistic because the visual effect may be plausible, but if it were possible to make direct visual comparison with the subjects, the differences would be startling."<br /> -Adams, The Negative, 1981</p>

<p>It is also interesting to note the second to last paragraph in that same introduction. About his predictions of what digital photography would hold, and require. I suggest you buy it, and read it.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>For about 100 years, the argument of whether photography was an art has raged on. Every artist uses the brush differently. This is the beauty of what we do. It's called diversity. Painters at the turn of the last century thought that photographers were cheating the art process.<br>

Most artist (painters, sculptors, etc.) took days, weeks, even months to complete their art. It was no wonder that they felt slighted by just anyone taking a little box and creating an image in 1/30th of a second. Most artist are self-absorbed, and find it difficult to understand why others do things differently.<br>

After years of shooting film, I found it very difficult to embrace the digital world. What I came to realize, was that even after I started using a digital camera, the real art was what I could do with the computer. I believe that art is art, and photography has made a big leap from pre-production to post-production. Over saturation, under saturation comes down to what you see, what you like, and what you can sell. </p>

[dan_south]

>> Current cameras is simply not up to par with our own eyes.

 

Cameras do plenty of things better than our eyes do. Cameras can see color in the dark. Cameras can capture more

detail than we can see from where we are standing. Cameras can freeze action at ridiculously high speeds. Ask

anyone who has ever gone to a horse race.

 

Our eyes are pretty amazing at capturing live dynamic range, but some of the medium format digital systems are close,

as are some types of black and white print film.

[dan_south]

[Wouter W]: Properly done HDR can add something, though I see simpler less dramatic techniques like exposure

blending or a graduated ND filter yielding -to me- nicer results.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.