Thoughts on HDR and exposure blending?

I've been looking at some of the photo galleries on sites like Fred Miranda, POTN, and Nature Photographers, and it seems like exposure blending (I'm talking either two completely different exposures, or 5+ exposures into one) and HDR shots are becoming more and more popular. However, every time I see those, I can't help but think that the photographer (or artist) is mis-leading the viewer. Specifically, I'm talking about the shots where the exposures are so different that the image could never happen in real life, or the HDR looks so misleading that its almost techni-color.

I realize there are two schools of thought here- the other being that the photograph is really a piece of art that's left to the photographer to decide how the image is portrayed. Maybe its because I'm relatively new to photography, but I just can't wrap my head around that being the right way to display an image.

There's no right or wrong answer here, but I was just wondering what everyone else thinks about these types of images. There aren't a lot of blended exposures or HDR's on here, so maybe my thinking is more popular... its an interesting debate.

hdr can look very good... and it can look verrrrrrrrrrry bad... the majority out there is of the latter in my opinion... i think the photog gets lost in the processing and forgets what makes a solid photo... the best hdr's in my opinion are the ones you don't know are blends...

I generally like them, but there are some crummy ones too. But I fall on the artsy fartsy side of photography. As far as reality and misleading the viewer, I guess I'm more interested in what the photographer feels is the way they want the scene to be protrayed.

Also the eye/noodle system is capeable of blending and processing scenes with huge dynamic range(I remember hearing but can't find the quote of something like 20+ stops of dynamic range) so maybe hdr shots are more realistic, just don't look like traditional photographs.

It's not supposed to be realistic... it's being creative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shepherd Wong

Also the eye/noodle system is capeable of blending and processing scenes with huge dynamic range(I remember hearing but can't find the quote of something like 20+ stops of dynamic range) so maybe hdr shots are more realistic, just don't look like traditional photographs.

---

Ding Ding Ding

Yes, some HDR shots are done to be creative and some of these images work, but most look like shit. Novelty for novelties sake.

Other HDR shots are done to try and replicate what the eye sees. There is very little truth in photography, a photo is always an interpretation of a scene as the camera sees it based on how the photographer set the shot up. It almost never looks the same as with the eye. HDR can be used to more accurately replicate the dynamic range of the human eye.

Editorial/Journalism are really the only realms were truthiness is mandated. Everything else is pretty much fair game. Even then, Editorial/Journalism images are massaged to a limited degree before going to print. The final product is all that matters, no matter what wet/digital darkroom techniques are involved.

Keep in mind that the jpegs (if you shoot jpg, not raw) that come straight out of the camera have gone through the camera's internal "photoshop" whether you like it or not. All this means is you have limited control over the global adjustments, and absolutely no control over local adjustments. The question is, do you want control over how your images are processed, or do you let the camera decide for you? If you absolutely must have what the sensor recorded with no processing, then a linear RAW file conversion is the only way to get what the sensor actually recorded onto the screen, but they always look like shit. No matter how you look at it, every image will receive some sort of massaging before being ready for viewing. How far you want to take it is only limited by one's taste, knowledge, and desire to get it looking "good".

I'm not a fan of HDR and every HDR shot I know to be HDR that I've seen has looked fake. There *may* have been a few I've seen over the years that have gone undetected but for the most part people seem to go nuts with it and for me they fall amongst the endless over-saturated landscapes and b&w pics where the sky is almost black. For me it's tasteless but it's their work so they can do whatever they want. The software still doesn't seem to be up to task either with all kinds of halos and artefacts evident.

I exposure blend purely to compensate for the cameras DR being smaller than what the eye can see - it saves me using ND grads. I don't want it to be an effect, I just want to compensate for the limitations of my equipment.

I only like my toast dry and white...anything else is fake.

It's a complex conversation. I'm not a fan of the extremely fake looking HDR. Some guys though, like this guy, have really mastered it, and get what I would consider very realistic results. The human eye is able to distinguish 15 stops of light.

This is NOT my photograph, but it is a 9 stop HDR. He did a tutorial on Fred Miranda a few years back with this photo.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-1771949...1_2080_7126275

Exposure blending is usually just combining 2 images(or one, double processed), and I think most of the time yields the best results. Sometimes a 2-3 stop GND filter just isn't enough, or the scene is too complex for a filter.

This is my picture, 1 image, double processed. Once for the mountains/sky, once for the arch.

http://www.tonystreks.com/Landscapes...96_Jx7qk-L.jpg

Maybe this would be a good topic for future MPC contest. Photos submitted with no post processing. just a thought.