HDR – or maybe not - Photoclub - Fotocommunity Alternative und Fotoforum

01.06.2020, 19:21 #1

Holger Förster

HDR – or maybe not

When is HDR editing beneficial?

Some comments on my uploaded photos have recommended using HDR editing to improve them. In one case, this was even suggested for a portrait shot. I'm not a big fan of this editing method, so here are a few thoughts on the subject (I’m very interested in a discussion about this):

HDR editing (High Dynamic Range) expands the dynamic range that a photo can display.
Dynamic range can be measured in various units—I’m using "stops" here because that’s the most familiar to photographers.
What dynamic range can different media display or perceive?
- Modern sensor:     15 stops
- Human eye:         13 stops (without adaptation)
- Color film:             11 stops
- LCD display:          9 stops
- Photo paper:           5 stops

So, if I photograph a subject with a dynamic range of 15 stops, I can store that in a RAW file, but I can’t fully reproduce it. With a “normal” exposure, I capture the mid-range stops; this means the 3 brightest stops will appear as pure white without detail on an LCD display, and the 3 darkest stops will appear as pure black without detail. HDR editing compresses the entire 15-stop range into 9 stops (or 5 stops for prints). Naturally, some of the tonal differentiation within the dynamic range is lost: what is compressed externally becomes coarser internally.

Creating an HDR image from a single RAW file results in a pseudo-HDR. A “true” HDR consists of multiple images taken at different exposures. The dynamic range of this exposure series is determined from the darkest value in the darkest photo to the brightest value in the brightest photo. When this series is merged into an HDR, the entire dynamic range is again compressed into 9 or 5 stops. The stronger the compression, the more “unreal” the result looks (our brains know what the real dynamic range should look like).

This HDR calculation can be done automatically by an algorithm; depending on the software and subject, the results vary. Several programs are discussed in the club’s forums.

You can also stack the individual photos as layers in Photoshop and use layer masks to manually select the best-exposed areas from each layer for the final image. This manually replicates the algorithm mentioned above; it offers much greater control, but also requires more effort.

I only use true HDR for subjects where a distortion of perception is desired. The more the dynamic range is compressed, the greater the distortion inevitably becomes. Since this distortion is clearly noticeable, it can’t convincingly simulate a real situation. With my style of photography, this happens maybe once every few years.

For algorithmically generated pseudo-HDRs, I find the control options too limited. Instead, I prefer to adjust contrast, brightness, tone curves, and histograms. This achieves the exact same compression of the overall dynamic range while preserving all creative and control possibilities.

As for the genuine HDR editing recommended to me for a portrait: the subject would have to remain absolutely still until the entire exposure sequence is complete—this applies to the camera as well. And it only makes sense if the portrait has a dynamic range of more than 15 (!) stops. That would require some seriously bright eyes.

01.06.2020, 20:18 #2

Pic Hunter

Hobbyfotograf

Sorry, I probably don’t know enough about HDR to really join the conversation. I’m only familiar with the process of taking at least 3 shots. I’ve used Photomatix Pro and, more recently, Aurora.
But sometimes it’s appropriate and looks great, depending on the subject..
Portraits, in my opinion, don’t really fit into that category.

24.09.2020, 09:06 #3

Ben H.

@Holger Förster Hey there. The issue is that only a very narrow range looks good in HDR. Too little doesn’t do anything, and too much always ends up looking way over the top. I’ve done a few here and there, know how it works, but that’s about it.

Cheers, Ben

This entry has already been edited

16.03.2021, 02:47 #4

Matthias Polakowski

Holger has covered this topic in great detail and is certainly right with his points. I used to create HDR images quite often, sometimes using exposure brackets with well over three differently exposed photos. Back then, I frequently explored abandoned places and dilapidated buildings, where the lighting conditions were often challenging. In those situations, HDR was sometimes the only way to get decent photos.

I'm not sure if HDR is really suitable for portrait photography. However, exposure bracketing is definitely possible and can even be pre-set on the camera. In that case, just three quick shots are enough—ideally taken with a tripod.

Ultimately, everyone has to decide for themselves whether HDR (possibly combined with tone mapping) is the right approach. And HDR can be applied subtly enough that it might not even be noticeable. Sometimes, though, an exaggerated effect is intentional and used as a stylistic choice.

Best regards, Matthias

06.06.2021, 13:34 #5

Christof Pöllinger

Hobbyfotograf

Hi, I mostly use HDR for technical shots, like machines, because it brings out the details better and the look fits well, or for photos where the dynamic range isn’t enough.
For portraits, I don’t see much point—it tends to be too heavy.

15.06.2021, 12:15 #6

Holger Förster

If you don’t have a bracketed exposure series, you can still create pseudo-HDR photos from a single shot. Various methods for this have been described multiple times above. Here’s a very simple yet effective technique that unfortunately only works in Photoshop: Open a photo and go to Image > Adjustments > HDR Toning in the menu bar. From there, you can experiment with the sliders across different submenus, or simply click on presets like “Scott5” and be pleasantly surprised. Whether you generally like the pseudo-HDR look is a matter of personal taste, of course.

28.07.2021, 13:42 #7

Te Hage

Fortunately, the hype around HDR is finally dying down. After a while, it just gets tiring to watch people try to turn an entire series of mediocre photos into highlights by running everything through an HDR generator.

28.07.2021, 18:07 #8

Richard Rduch

@Ralf Scheer I don’t think so, Ralf.
HDR and all the techniques that combine multiple photos into one final image are more popular than ever. I’m referring to both panoramas and focus stacking to increase depth of field. Night photography can hardly exist without HDR these days, and the same goes for astrophotography to some extent. What’s much less common is the old HDR look—we’ve largely moved away from that. Often, we don’t even realize an image is HDR anymore.

28.07.2021, 18:13 #9

Holger Förster

If you can't tell it's an HDR photo, then it's a perfect HDR shot! But that HDR look, which some people mistake for "art," just ends up looking cheesy and overdone — hopefully, that will disappear completely soon. Then the question of whether to use HDR or not won't even come up: use HDR only when it's technically necessary — and only then. Wonderful :-))

This entry has already been edited

28.07.2021, 19:46 #10

Michael Krampe

Experte

I once used an HDR software, but I didn’t like the look because it always appeared too artificial. Plus, when there were fine details in the image (like the rigging on ships), you’d get unevenly bright spots in the sky.
Modern sensors now offer more options to darken or brighten specific areas with masks, without introducing annoying noise.

Cheers, Mike

29.07.2021, 07:41 #11

Te Hage

@Richard Rduch That's true, especially since stacking requires a bit more "hands-on" work. I was actually referring more to the HDR feature, which creates nice colorful images with just one click—images that ended up filling all the photo platforms.

29.07.2021, 07:46 #12

Te Hage

@Holger Förster This is exactly the "artificial" look I was referring to. Very well put.

01.08.2021, 18:21 #13

Holger Förster

@Michael Krampe You're absolutely right. Modern sensors have a dynamic range of about 15 stops. On paper, only a range of 5 stops can be displayed. So with a typical shot, you have nearly a 10-stop buffer to brighten shadows and tone down highlights. Only when that isn't enough do you need a (true) HDR.

01.08.2021, 18:46 #14

Richard Rduch

You can also upload photos here in the forum.
It would be helpful to provide examples—both positive and negative—to clarify exactly what is meant.
Those who aren’t very interested in this might have trouble understanding what’s being discussed here.

This entry has already been edited

01.08.2021, 19:01 #15

Holger Förster

@Richard Rduch
There are actually two main points here:
- The difference between true HDR created from multiple photos with varying exposures and pseudo-HDR generated from a single RAW file. This is quite a complex topic that can’t be fully explained with just a few example photos. But if you’re interested, you can find some insights in the forums or simply Google “pseudo-HDR.” If you have specific questions, feel free to send me a private message.
- The question of whether art and creativity on one hand have any meaningful connection to the typical HDR look on the other. Some consider it art, while others see it as outdated kitsch. We have a photographer in the forum who uses the HDR look as a creative tool even when it’s not technically necessary. One of his images, in my opinion, serves as a good example for this discussion:

P R E S S 2 Helmut Wachtarczyk

12.01.2022, 22:18 #16

Andreas Schäfer

Experte

Personally, when I can tell an image is HDR, I don’t really like it. I feel the effect gets old quickly. So far, I’ve always managed well with my camera’s dynamic range in challenging lighting situations by exposing based on the histogram to protect the highlights, and that’s usually enough. When it’s not, I only need a bracketing series of three shots.
But that’s just my personal preference—I also know people who love HDR. Variety is what makes life interesting!

HDR – or maybe notHDR – or maybe notHDR - oder lieber nicht

HDR – or maybe not