Get An Extra 20% Off Regatta New Season Arrivals

To HDR or not to HDR. That is the question.


Kot 12 7 1 Poland
14 Feb 2010 4:52PM
I've just found pretty bizarre comment under one of the pictures in the gallery:
"Tonal range is full & saturated colours look lovely. Composition leads eye into frame. Only suggestion might be to cut a very small amount of floor out.
I hope this want an HDR shot cos if it is, I take everything I just said right back. HDR is a poor & mischevious substitute for photographic light control & management.
Im keeping my vote til you promise its not an HDR shot."

Well, I'm amazed. I always thought the final artistic effect is the most important. Technical issues or workshop are only the way to achieve such effect. There are pros and cons of using HDR software, there are pros and cons of switching to digital imaging (we surely can shoot photos using film cameras or even pinhole cameras) but finally we end up with image. The viewer is to judge if our image works and if we did good job. And in my opinion it has nothing to do with gear and software used (if it was used properly of course).
Wondering what you think. Is "HDR poor & mischievous substitute"?
Coleslaw 16 13.4k 28 Wales
14 Feb 2010 4:56PM
That is just silly.
If he/she can't even spot whether the shot is HDR or not, then how could he/she says those things about HDR?
Simply stupid.
User_Removed 17 17.9k 8 Norway
14 Feb 2010 5:10PM
A link would be good...
sherlob Plus
15 3.2k 131 United Kingdom
14 Feb 2010 5:39PM
HDR is a tool. Like any tool thought is needed before it is used, and its use has a specific function (or range of functions). I agree with Cole here. Its like a new version of the argument that photoshop is cheating...

Nonsense.

A.
justin c 17 5.1k 36 England
14 Feb 2010 5:47PM
With a daft comment like that I wouldn't pay too much attention to the views of whoever left it.
HDR can work very well in the right circumstances, when used properly. On the other hand, the results can look, a little odd (to put it politely), it's the poor quality results that tend to put a lot of people off and taint their views on the 'tool'
User_Removed 17 17.9k 8 Norway
14 Feb 2010 5:56PM
( I agree - it's just that in my case - 'Trunky' wants a doughnut! )

Wink

Grin
Kot 12 7 1 Poland
14 Feb 2010 6:49PM
Kot 12 7 1 Poland
14 Feb 2010 7:05PM
HDR is cheating and Photoshop is cheating - no doubt. But such an argument is based upon belief that "raw" photography says always truth about the world. Which is wrong assumption! You've got shutter button under your finger and you choose right moment to press it. You decide what should be placed within the frame. And you always make decisions purposely.
Moreover using camera we are prisoners of central perspective. Parallel lines never meet in reality they always meet on the picture.
Actually photography is based on cheating.
Coleslaw 16 13.4k 28 Wales
14 Feb 2010 7:11PM
Not only he couldn't spot the HDR shot, he couldn't read the tags as well. So, best ignore.Smile
rossd 18 1.1k England
14 Feb 2010 7:25PM
This is the image (Lichfield cathedral)

link

Whether you agree or not I suppose everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
JJGEE 16 7.9k 18 England
14 Feb 2010 7:25PM
Perhaps the comment was not put across in the correct way for you, but they do have a point in as much as balancing the exposure etc. yourself is much more satisfying than taking taking a series of shots at different exposures and letting the software sort it out.

Quote:I always thought the final artistic effect is the most important.

Others, including me, may take a different view.
Coleslaw 16 13.4k 28 Wales
14 Feb 2010 7:29PM
We are not saying what he says about HDR is not correct. As with anything else, if done badly, it is really bad.
But to say HDR is bad, yet he can't tell if that image is HDR or not, proves that he has no idea what he is talking about.
Fishnet 17 5.0k 5 United Kingdom
14 Feb 2010 7:34PM
As I have said a million times in this argument, what exactly is being cheated?? How can you use the word 'cheat' when discussing digital post processing, it is complete nonsense, just like that comment.
The word cheat cannot be used in a discussion about processing as nothing is being cheated.

Kot, you say HDR and Photoshop are cheating- no doubt. In what way are they cheating and what are they cheating? To me it makes no sense at all.

As for that comment, I have never read anything so ridiculous in my life.
According to him it's a great image but if it was processed a certain way it is no longer a great image.

Loon.
rossd 18 1.1k England
14 Feb 2010 7:41PM

Quote:We are not saying what he says about HDR is not correct.


Double negative - which means that what we says about HDR IS correct ?? Therefore you agree with him.


Quote:yet he can't tell if that image is HDR or not, proves that he has no idea what he is talking about.


Actually it doesn't say anyhwere that it is an HDR image (although it looks like one). Unfortunately there is no accompanying info.

As I said, everybody is entitled to there opinion.
Coleslaw 16 13.4k 28 Wales
14 Feb 2010 7:47PM
As I said, HDR badly done is bad, which I agree with him. But that's the same as with anything else.

You can't see the fundamental flaw in his statement, can't you? Then, I am not wasting my breathe.

And yes, the info is in the tag.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.