What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
61 Comments
- dvsbastard, on 06/05/2009, -1/+44Just like bloom in video games... if you overuse any technique it starts to look terrible...
Except for lens flare... you can never use too much lens flare! :P - bieber, on 06/05/2009, -1/+29It's no different from a whole lot of other image editing techniques: it can be used correctly, or it can be used to make gaudy, flashy crap. For a while after a technique is introduced, the latter tends to prevail. Eventually it will get old, and HDR will move on to just being one more tool in a photographer's toolbox, to be used occasionally when appropriate...
- Inceptious, on 06/05/2009, -0/+16http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=224
- pygmy, on 06/05/2009, -1/+179 out of 10 HDRs look like crap
- WiretapStudios, on 06/05/2009, -0/+15It's like spray on tan. When it's well done, you don't really notice it. But once it hit the retarded masses, you have extreme overkill...
http://www.fashionrat.com/images/crazy-terrible-sp ... - rodrigo74, on 06/05/2009, -2/+15which is also the case for non-HDR photos, so maybe the problem is not with HDR.
- tunafizzle, on 06/05/2009, -2/+13Nice to see this here considering how many "over 9000 HDR shots" stories show up here. Which usually consist of ***** from Abduzeedo that is a crappy HDR shot that is way too ***** enhanced with Adobe Photoshop™ to all hell.
HDR is nothing new, believe it or not you can actually make physical photographs without a digital camera or a even a computer to process the film. Srsly, it's called a "dark room"(AMAZING!)
In this magical "dark room" you can process what are known as "negatives" with them, you can actually combine three, four, five, 27 images shot in the same exact spot with different settings to make one photograph(or "pic" if you prefer) that does exactly what HDR produces(sometimes better!)
I like digital, and film, photoshop and real HDR, just don't like what people pass off as HDR or ***** on HDR - woofers07, on 06/05/2009, -1/+11Same rule applies to designers and drop shadows or other filters.
- ripple123, on 06/05/2009, -9/+19um, yeah! how dare they more accurately represent colors as seen by the eye!
- crazzy88ss, on 06/05/2009, -3/+12No it's not. It's just like any other tool a photographer has. It's utilized perfectly by the pros.
- petemorley, on 06/05/2009, -0/+8Half the images we see trying to pass themselves off as HDR images are just over tone-mapped abortions. HDR, done properly is very subtle.
- TheIndigoSky, on 06/05/2009, -0/+6That is the best comment on this page.
- inactive, on 06/05/2009, -1/+7Except that's not what most "HDR" photos are. Most of them look highly exaggerated and completely fake.
- BossKey, on 06/05/2009, -2/+7There's technically correct HDR (approximating how we see), and there's overdriven HDR (not the way we see at all, just done for effect).
- ashwinmudigonda, on 06/05/2009, -3/+7http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashwinmudigonda/34857 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashwinmudigonda/34883 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashwinmudigonda/20405 ...
Everything, within limits. - daeus, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3Yea like a planet with 10 suns lo
- gronne, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3I guess it's a matter of taste but those look way over done to me also.
- Mercedes383, on 06/05/2009, -1/+4I well done HDR can be quite a pleasing image to view, but the thing with the process is that it is too easy to overcook the picture until it overrides the basic image itself.
I suppose the same can be said about a lot of post production techniques.
I sometimes use it, but it is pretty rare. I often don't find myself in the situation that needs it. Sometimes I will do a multiple exposure or multiple exposure development in RAW post and then blend the images in Photoshop and use masks to bring out detail in the shadows and lost highlights that might have otherwise been lost, sort of like a fake HDR. I try and avoid it, but sometimes the conditions don't allow you to do what you want. - RungeKutta, on 06/05/2009, -1/+4I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that cheaper digital photography and the relative ease of software to merge/make the HDResque images. It doesn't take a lot for someone with little skill to make an HDR or HDR-like image. Most of them are pretty bad, but in the hands of a skilled artist that knows what bracketing is and what it's for will still make a very impressive photo - even if you've grown tired of HDR.
Photography is like any art form, really. It takes a combination of artistic talent and technical skill to produce a good product. Also, it's probably the easiest and least expensive "regular" art form to get into that doesnt require immediate skill like drawing/painting. - coheedcollapse, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3I wish I had the skill to do good HDR, but I don't so I stick to regular single-exposure photography.
One of my contacts on Flickr, however, has it down:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tendril/sets/72157603 ...
I always feel the need to post his stream when I'm arguing about how much I dislike "typical" HDR to show that there is a correct way to do it.
The problem is, many people are lazy. They don't want to put work into their photograph. Tonemapping three exposures takes 10 seconds (insert photos, hit combine, enhance - saturation - all the way up). Doing what this guy does takes a measure of time and skill that many just aren't willing to attain unfortunately.
This is so refreshing, by the way. Having a reasonable HDR article on the front page instead of horrible HDR photos of cats that I'm so accustomed to writing pissed off comments about. - coheedcollapse, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3I'd say 9.9 out of 10 HDR's look like crap. Too many people use tonemapping as a crutch for their lacking photography, so if you can even remotely look past the "oooh, shiny pretty colors wrapped in saran wrap appeal" (which I despise, by the way), you see how horrible the original photographer really is.
- seroevo, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3Designers are -horrible- with jumping on trend bandwagons. Every year there are easily a dozen fads that are played out within 6-12 months.
Of course, design is supposed to be about problem solving, not just "making things look pretty," and that point is often lost. - chriswastaken, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3thats what jj abrams says
- endus, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3This is a pretty good article. More or less all my comments on here re: HDR are negative, but thats more a funciton of the garbage photography that gets linked here than because I hate the technique itself. It's true that I do tend to lead towards the "expanded tonal range and thats it" camp, but I have seen surreal HDR images that I like as well. It doesn't happen as often, but sometimes it works. So I very much agree with the authors comments about losing your control of composition, exposure, etc. HDR will not turn a good photo bad.
The only thing, though, is that Im looking through some of the links the author provides and.....IIIIIII dunno if we're really on the same page. Im looking at this dude Ben Willmore's galleries...
http://thebestofben.com/
...and there is a lot of garbage in there. Look at the shot of the stools in the salton sea gallery. The shot is terrible and the HDR unquestionably takes away from the image. The entire thing is just a mess of tones with no real light and shadow anymore. You can barely even see what the subject is. The rest of that salton sea gallery is questionable as well. Looking through the rest of the site it's clear that the guy has some skills, and even uses HDR to improve some of his images, which is what makes it all the more frustrating when otherwise decent images are ruined by this cartoony ***** look.
Surreal is great, but you have to retain the principles which make good images. Composition, contrast, light and shadow, color, etc...and a lot of HDR images just completely lose that.
The author makes another point about selling images. Whether or not something is good photography or not, you can still sell it to the drooling, brainless masses. It's a lot like selling heroin to elementary school children. Sure it's ethically questionable, but at least you can make a buck, right? Never really subscribed to that philosophy myself, but then my standards for artistic integrity have always been quite inflated. I don't like the idea of whoring myself out and producing images which anyone who knows anything knows are terrible, but sell well. Thing is...these horrendous HDR images aren't going to stand the test of time. HDR will remain, but bad HDR will be recognized for what it is in time. So...now the whores have got images out there with their names on them which represent their pandering to the lowest common denominator. That's not why I do photography, I do it to capture something real and hopefully create a lasting image that will be enjoyable or interesting after I am gone. However, I guess once the person buys the image the money is in your pocket...so if that's what you're going for then...
I will now provide a link to my site because a.) I *am* enough of a whore to want traffic and b.) I think it is actually relevant now that I have ranted about photography...you can see what i do.
http://www.desolatemetropolis.com - Mercedes383, on 06/05/2009, -2/+4Isn't photography considered art nowadays?
- coheedcollapse, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2You won't get the halo look if you do it correctly. Ditch every single tone-mapping program you own and pirate Photoshop. For the sake of art do it.
With a good HDR, you won't know it's HDR at first. Trademarks are even lighting and pronounced textures, not that ugly saran-wrap halo you get on crappily done HDR. - ThirdPrize, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2The Ben Willmore stuff he recommends is so removed from realism that it just looks like stylised CGI to me.
- snagglefoof, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2I'm quite glad you used the TM symbol after Adobe Photoshop.
- spontec, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2HDR is about tonal range...not color. The dynamic range of an image encompasses the brightest highlights and the darkest shadows that still contain detail.
- imbok, on 06/05/2009, -0/+2The only issue that I have with HDR is that almost all HDR photos I've seen don't represent what things really look like. The only time in my life where things resembled an HDR photo was after taking LSD.
- petemorley, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1Naaaah. Every now and again uncovering a buried comment can reveal some amazing levels of lunacy/idiocy. Totally worth it.
- zmigliozzi, on 06/05/2009, -2/+3easy mode for point and click "photographers"
- Sabin, on 06/05/2009, -1/+2Try shooting film for a while and then go back to digital and you will see why HDR is useful.
- gronne, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1HDR is supposed to help make your images better resemble what your eyes see and unfortunately that's not what most people use it for.
- Threlly1, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1Some pictures benefit from expanded dynamic range, after all, the cameras quaint process of aperture and exposure is primitive compared to the human eye & brain.
So a little can work quite well.
I have seen some very very processed HDR pictures where the effect is striking, but only as an effect.
HDR is not a replacement for a little bit of common sense. - Mercedes383, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1I agree, it is way too overdone.
- bot001220, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1Not usually. Unlike most fads, new technologies like HDR actually have a purpose and a good reason for existing. It's kind of hard to justify other fads.
- rodrigo74, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1Yeah but that huge black border kills the first photo, IMHO.
The border on the 3rd one is not doing the photos any favors, either. - loneraver, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1If you don't believe me, read the tech doc by the godfather of HDR, Paul Debevec.
I've known about HDR since 2003.
http://www.debevec.org/Research/HDR/ - Sabin, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1HDR Imaging is a process, not a look. Yes it is possible to adjust the exposure on a 32bit HDR image but it is also possible to save it down to 8bit image and still be showing greater range than would normally be possible from an average digital camera.
- chopeh, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1Yeah, would be a lot better to drop design styles and make everything look the same.
How is it up there on that horse anyway? Looks mighty high... - offwhite, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1The HDR process is just a tool. Does a hammer bring out the best/worst in carpenters?
See, lame question. - troymccluresf, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1Well, yeah, that's the idea, but almost no one uses it for that. A proper HDR should barely be noticed but for the clarity of the entire photo.
- hark, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1HDR is like the photograph version of auto-tune.
- snagglefoof, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1I don't know why everybody's getting so excited. It's a fad, just like there are fads in any other industry. People will like it, other people won't, and the only that matters is what an individual likes.
- alpha88, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Not exactly true, *some* designers are horrible with jumping on trend bandwagons, but those are usually self-taught 'designers'. Anyone with some Adobe applications can call themselves a designer and give the rest of us a bad name.
Also, drop shadows (if the settings are adjusted well and they are used in moderation) can occasionally be an effective technique. - Snoogs, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1^average digger.
- Sabin, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1I'm a hobbyist photographer and have been working in a print shop where my specialty is digital imaging/colour since 2001. I live and breath things like tonal range and colour gamuts.
The link you provided is illustrating only one of the many possible applications for HDR imaging. This is like saying that the purpose of paper is to make paper airplanes and then providing a link to a website with paper airplane fold lines.
Oh, i've also been using photoshop for image manipulation since Photoshop 2 on the mac in 1993. Do I win the e-penis waving contest now? - Sabin, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1I usually avoid the tone mapped look but I do use HDR so I can get something resembling the range of film when shooting digital.
- HPMNick, on 06/05/2009, -0/+0I personally like the surreal looking HDR images.. I also like using Orton effects, and other exaggerated imagery..
I know its not for everyone and not for EVERY shot, but it has an interesting colorful look to it. Not everything has to be natural -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 