HDR good or bad cnn article

[Frog]

I know its been talked to death already but here is a new article.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/IREPORT/03/0...ex.html?hpt=C2

[Anbesol]

Frog, you've been missed! Welcome back.

HDR suckS!

Seriously, it can be a useful technique, *given the specific scene* that could use it (extremely rarely), I saw some horizons in the article that looked pretty good HDR, but I thought the originals looked better in most cases (or both were junk). HDR just doesn't look natural! The only time it should ever be used is if it can be used convincingly, naturally!

[Grandpaw]

I'll take a look at the link but more importantly it is great to see you back on the forums my friend, Jeff

[draymorton]

Where have you been??

I was just about to send out a search party.

With a little skill and discretion, HDR can work wonders. With a sloppy hand, it can provide comic relief (which we all need, anyway). So, win-win.

[Greg McCary]

Well it's a tool like anything else. It can help you be a better photographer but it ain't going to make you a good photographer. I still to this day hate to be in the field with all the tools I need to get it right and have to think software is going to save it when I get home. But I have used software plenty of times to improve shots.
I can see it when shooting indoors with harsh lighting coming through windows. I haven't worked around that one yet in the field.

[Medley]

Frog's back! You are SO busted. Curfew expired like 2 1/2 months ago.....

Welcome back bud! :thumbsup:

- Joe U.

[OldClicker]

Frog!

As others have said, it's a tool and IMHO it's the image that counts, not the tools.

As for my personal taste: On one side, I'm not nearly as fond of the over tone mapped images as I was in the beginning. And on the other, I find that many who don't like it at all, simply don't like anything that doesn't look like film.

Terry

[Asmarlak]

I saw some nice stuff done with HDR but still they are labeled "HDR" as soon as I lay an eye on them, they loose their natural appeal and cross from "Photography" to "Art" similar to when we use plug-in filters, at least for me. Therefore I find very limited use for it with certain images, but it is not the kind of software that could replace Photoshop or Lighroom.

[freygr]

What happened !!! ?????

[armando_m]

Hello Frog! long time no see !

Thanks for the link

Last few times I have taken multiple exposures thinking HDR might help I ended up using one of the exposures and doging and burning as needed. I have used a tonemaped image to show me where I can get more detail

looking at the link the non hdr images look like SOOC Raw, and the HDR like some heavy hand post processing , many did not look like they merited multiple exposures

hey for good HDR we have vmlopes in the forum !!

[n8]

I was wondering where Frog has been too.
I didn't bother reading the article, but some of those photos were good examples...others were pretty horrid. I for one am a pretty big fan of hdr, both natural looking and clearly tone mapped. It's all in the eye of the beholder. It was those images that I would now consider overdone that got me interested in the technique in the first place, but I certainly avoid it to that extent now.

[spiraleyes]

Without reading the article and only viewing the before and after shots, I can only imagine it's a "pro" HDR article. The problem I have is that they show an out of the camera image (several being the underexposed image) against an HDR version. Of course the HDR version is more interesting.

I'd love to see what the properly exposed versions with some moderate post-processing looked like.

[OldClicker]

Without reading the article and only viewing the before and after shots, I can only imagine it's a "pro" HDR article. The problem I have is that they show an out of the camera image (several being the underexposed image) against an HDR version. Of course the HDR version is more interesting.

I'd love to see what the properly exposed versions with some moderate post-processing looked like.

I understand wanting to see an image with correct exposure, but why do you make the distinction between HDR and "post-processing"? - Terry

[spiraleyes]

I understand wanting to see an image with correct exposure, but why do you make the distinction between HDR and "post-processing"? - Terry

Because most photogs don't post images straight from their camera. Minor adjustments to things like white balance, color, and contrast make sense (at least to me).