# What do you think of HDR Photography?



## spirit

I've been experimenting with HDR photography for the past few hours (downloaded a trial of Photomatix Pro). What do you guys think of HDR photography? I think it's good for some things such as landscapes but I've found it's very easy to overdo and can result in weird looking images. Just been on Google and found some great examples of overdone HDR images, lol. 

What do you lot think and do you ever use HDR?

Edit: I should state that 'yes' in the poll means 'it's good for everything' and 'no' in the poll means 'it's good for nothing'.


----------



## Geoff

It definitely has it's place, it works great for increasing the dynamic range of a photograph.  I think it's best used for situations such where there is a bright light such as when you are taking landscape photos and don't want the sky blown out.


----------



## Punk

I like HDR when it stays natural. Like astrophotagraphy:

http://www.deepskycolors.com/archivo/2011/01/16/hdr-Composition-for-astronomical-image.html

HDR such as the ones you posted in the Post Where you live thread I don't though, they look more like a painting than a photo


----------



## spirit

Yeah those were my first attempts, I'm trying to keep them a bit more natural now.


----------



## Punk

spirit said:


> Yeah those were my first attempts, I'm trying to keep them a bit more natural now.



It's all up to you, if you like it, keep it that way.


----------



## Geoff

I love this kind of HDR:






Just kidding


----------



## spirit

Yeah that's the sort of stuff I was looking at on Google. Very overdone.  

Stuff like this too http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7637372.jpg

Here is my first real attempt at HDR... http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/8578516612/


----------



## tremmor

Like the pictures but my question is what is HDR? 
I have a Cannon S3IS. does this have the feature?


----------



## mr.doom

tremmor said:


> Like the pictures but my question is what is HDR?
> I have a Cannon S3IS. does this have the feature?



HDR means High Dynamic Range. That means that you need to take several photos of the same subject, without moving the camera - all in different exposures. From underexposed, through normal to overexposed. When you merge them, the software will take the details in highlights (like the sky) from the underexposed photo, details in shadows (like ground, or the room) from the overexposed one. The rest is taken from normal exposures and so on. 

Some cameras do have that option, to spare you merging on a computer, but sadly your camera does not. Not all is lost though. Basically, put the camera on the tripod (or something flat and hard), put it in Aperture Priority Mode (AV), set the Aperture to 8 or 11. Shoot normal photo. Use exposure compensation, change the value to -1. Shoot. Make sure the camera doesn't move when you change values. Do another shot for +1. Merge in Photoshop or Photomatix (there are other options too).

To answer the original question, I like HDR. It gives you creative possibilities beyond normal photography. It was never meant to look extremely photoelectrically. Still, with some practice, you can make it as close as possible. Or be artistic and experiment. I think either one is good. Just do not overdo it.

Here is the link to an artistic version I've done: http://500px.com/photo/10865099

Here is the link to natural looking landscape: http://500px.com/photo/10865019

I guess it's about what do you want to achieve.


----------



## voyagerfan99

HDR has it's place. Some are good, some are bad.

Okay:





Ick





Good





Not bad


----------



## vroom_skies

As with everything it has it's place. I personally like very few photos that are blatantly over the top, but there are some that do look pretty nice.

I personally use it to fill a need; such as when you have no other option to get the result you desire.
These are two that hdr fit need:


----------



## Punk

vroom_skies said:


> As with everything it has it's place. I personally like very few photos that are blatantly over the top, but there are some that do look pretty nice.
> 
> I personally use it to fill a need; such as when you have no other option to get the result you desire.
> These are two that hdr fit need:



These are perfect example of what I feel is good HDR


----------



## Spesh

It's good for creating dramatic skies. I took this photo out the back of my house last year. It's very overdone, but I like the rolling clouds (HDR and tonemapped)...





paddock tonemapped by Speshalist, on Flickr


----------



## spirit

Yeah it looks good. I like the clouds too. I did a similarly 'overdone' shot with the same sort of clouds:




St Peter Mancroft Colour HDR by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr

A bit more natural:




Railway Line To?? by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr

I know they're not entirely natural, but HDR is fun to play around with.


----------



## voyagerfan99

The railroad one is good Jason :good:


----------



## spirit

voyagerfan99 said:


> The railroad one is good Jason :good:



Cheers. It was getting a lot of comments on Flickr I noticed. People seem to like it... 

Here are more of my experimental HDRs (the photos below and the railway photo above are just HDR remakes of photos I took in January, the one of the church above was intended to be HDR when I took it the other day).




Chapel by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr




Wast Water by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr




Snowy Dreams in High Dynamic Range by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr

So they look a bit more natural. 

By the way, feel free to showcase your HDRs too!


----------



## speedyink

HDR's have their place.  Not a huge fan of the overdone ones, but in the right application they can look cool.  I mostly like HDR for keeping everything exposed.  It's nice to be able to bring out details that would otherwise be lost.  The whole "Glow" effect thing is an entirely different style of HDR.

Here's an HDR of mine where the mission was just to get more details in


----------



## Punk

spirit said:


> Wast Water by JasonBrown2013, on Flickr



This one works perfectly. I'm not a fan of the others, but that's just me


----------



## spirit

Punk said:


> This one works perfectly. I'm not a fan of the others, but that's just me



Yeah in the original photo the sky was really blown out, but by using HDR, I was able to get some details back into the sky. 

By the way that one wasn't taken with my D-SLR. It was taken last August with my Fuji S4000... which I haven't used since I got my D-SLR.


----------



## Punk

spirit said:


> Yeah in the original photo the sky was really blown out, but by using HDR, I was able to get some details back into the sky.
> 
> By the way that one wasn't taken with my D-SLR. It was taken last August with my Fuji S4000... which I haven't used since I got my D-SLR.



I'd like to try HDR, especially for astrophotography, do you know any good tutorial? What software do you use also?


----------



## spirit

Punk said:


> I'd like to try HDR, especially for astrophotography, do you know any good tutorial? What software do you use also?



I use Photomatix (just bought it). There is a trial version which you can download and use.

Here are some other alternatives http://captainkimo.com/hdr-software-review-comparison/ there's some free HDR software in there too which you might like to tree.


----------



## Spesh

speedyink said:


> HDR's have their place.  Not a huge fan of the overdone ones, but in the right application they can look cool.  I mostly like HDR for keeping everything exposed.  It's nice to be able to bring out details that would otherwise be lost.  The whole "Glow" effect thing is an entirely different style of HDR.



Generally, if I'm just trying to keep the sky exposed properly with the rest of the scene, I find it better to use a graduated ND filter and get the whole scene in one shot. This looks more natural as well. I tend to only use HDR if I'm trying to create a dramatic image.

The image you posted looks good though.



spirit said:


> I use Photomatix (just bought it). There is a trial version which you can download and use.
> 
> Here are some other alternatives http://captainkimo.com/hdr-software-review-comparison/ there's some free HDR software in there too which you might like to tree.



Yes I use Photomatix for HDR too. It's a great little program. How much did you pay for it if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## spirit

I got Pro which was $99, so £65.

http://www.hdrsoft.com/order.php

Can't buy my Flickr Pro account now because I spent the money on Photomatix but oh well (my Flickr Pro trial ends tomorrow).


----------



## speedyink

Spesh said:


> Generally, if I'm just trying to keep the sky exposed properly with the rest of the scene, I find it better to use a graduated ND filter and get the whole scene in one shot. This looks more natural as well. I tend to only use HDR if I'm trying to create a dramatic image.
> 
> The image you posted looks good though.



Hey thanks, I didn't know such a filter existed!


----------

