To HDR or not HDR?

[HughieD]

So far I've resisted it. When I look at some of the subtle HDR shots on here they look excellent and really help bring out the locations in difficult light conditions. On the other side if not done in a subtle manner they look too hyper-real/un-natural.

So....the big question, to HDR or not HDR?

 

[Ramsgatonian]

It all depends on the photograph IMO, I don't like reports where the photographer had HDR'd EVERY image, as it just doesn't suit some. With practice, subtle HDR can be like you say, excellent.

 

[Bones out]

God HDR is the stuff you dont notice.....

 

[night crawler]

Put it this way if you over cook it then it's in the pit.

 

[UEP-Wales]

As already said, HDR doesn't suit every photograph and unless its done properly it just looks awful! Generally HDR doesnt have a place on this forum because we are all about documenting the buildings rather than doing some arty farty shots.

To save everybody saying how much they dislike HDR im going to close the thread.

 

[TeeJF]

I think everything has it's place and we use it retrospectively ourselves to grab stuff that is not immediately apparent through faults of lighting, exposure etc.

And even grossly over cooked HDR has it's place if it is done in an artistic fashion, or to make a statement. I think the problem is, people love it or loath it.

But the forum line on HDR is that if it is used it shouldn't be lathered on in buckets because the primary purpose of the forum is documenting decay, not creating "art". Personally I'd like to see a section for arty stuff but it's difficult to implement because of "crossing the line"... at what point would a photo go into "art" and when could an HDR enhanced photo still be allowed to stay within a conventional report.

Dunno...