Comments on: The Magic of HDR Imaging

By: Yonit

Yonit — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:12:00 +0000

Fascinating article, I never realized that’s how these kinds of pics are made.

I wish there was a side by side comparison of these HDR shots & the “normal” shot. To my brain/eye there is just something fishy about them that I can’t put my finger on and while I understand the whole background vs foreground exposure, I think I need a more visual comparison.

By: NicoNicoNico

NicoNicoNico — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:37:00 +0000

Interesting you brought this up. I just took some pictures today of a local development that has reduced the prices of all their lots. I couldn’t resist the urge to take pictures of rows after rows of “Price Reduced!” signs on top of the real estate signs. I’m going to convert them all to HDR. ;)

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:42:00 +0000

@Stane
I agree — but it will sink, as every form of art before has done when in the hands of someone who doesn’t know what they are doing makes them sink. There is a larger problem with this as everyone with Photoshop (or, my preference, Photmatix) will have the ability to abuse their photos. But you can’t make a bad photo interesting just by cranking it up into supercontrasty HDR mode. Yes, supercontrasty is a word!

In the interest of full disclosure, I like creating HDR shots, and I’m occasionally guilty of torturing them. So I might be biased! :)

By: Stane

Stane — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:04:00 +0000

@Ryan
I agree art is hard to define, but I was aiming at something else. HDRI is on a good way of becoming one of famously overused Photoshop “effects”, and I think no one would like to see a good method sink to that level.

By: Miles Maxwell

Miles Maxwell — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:53:00 +0000

Good article. I’ve been doing HDR for a few months but I didn’t know about LeGray. Excellent tidbit!

And please photo wonks, you need to stop referring to the “unreal” HDR treatment as abuse. There’s nothing wrong with using HDR to stretch the artform beyond realistic looking images. It’s called artistic expression and the boundaries of it should always be explored.

By: HeyBeckyJ

HeyBeckyJ — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:27:00 +0000

Very neat article – I hadn’t seen anything like this before. But it would have been nicer if the acronym HDR (high dynamic range) had been defined.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:54:00 +0000

Not to be a little anal or anything, but strictly speaking, these aren’t HDR images as HDR images can’t be directly viewed on a computer screen. They are tone-mapped images built off of those HDR files, which means that the high dynamic range of the blended exposure file is compressed down into an eight-bit image that a computer can display.

@Stane -

Who is to say what the idea of any sort of photography is, other than the photographer? In the case of the Golden Gate photo, we are talking about a landmark that has been photographed some billions of times. Maybe the artist just wanted to show a different way of seeing it than what those billions of photos already showed.

These are artistic photos, not documentary or journalistic. Not liking them is one thing, but you can’t say definitively what the point of HDR photography is any more than you can say what the point of sculpture is.

-Ryan

By: Morris

Morris — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:27:00 +0000

HDRI has been around in the 3D animation industry for years.

We often use HDR images to improve the realizm of reflective surfaces or to help illuminate scenes.

Although, Photoshop has HDRI filters now, they are a late comer to this technique.

By: Johnny Cat

Johnny Cat — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:17:00 +0000

The one of the house made me think. This would be a great listing picture, easily skirting the MLS rules about ‘Shopping the pictures. Must look into it.

Oh, and Ransom: your website is the shnizz.

By: Ransom Riggs

Ransom Riggs — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:38:00 +0000

@Stane –

Subtler HDRI isn’t very good for illustrative, introductory-blog purposes. But I agree, the extreme stuff isn’t always the best use of the technology.