When you hear the term “HDR photography,” you probably either cringe, or start to smile at the thought of beautifully balanced landscape and architectural imagery created by the likes of Trey Ratcliff. Some may argue that with the dynamic range of current camera sensors, taking bracketed exposures is no longer necessary, since detail can be effectively recovered from both shadows and highlights. In this video, Scott Kelby demonstrates how an image produced from combining bracketed exposures can be superior to one derived from a single frame.
Kelby compares processing three exposures of a concert hall using Lightroom’s Merge to HDR feature to adjusting the highlight slider to recover details in overexposed areas. He demonstrates that pulling back the highlights in Lightroom results in a “mucky” gray tone, while underexposing the image in camera reveals the details in the highlight areas without producing any color casts.
The divided opinions on HDR photos have largely resulted from the plethora of extremely poor examples of HDR attempts, readily accessible on a Google image search for HDR photography. I’ve always thought that the goal of HDR should be to give a more realistic view of a scene from how our eyes actually perceive it, and this is a great example of how a subtle level of HDR can be implemented to create a visually balanced image.
Is this available only in the latest Lr version?
It was added in LR6.
Occasionally, I'll use HDR but I typically blend multiple exposures manually. Sensors aren't at a point to where bracketing is never needed, just less often.
I love HDR... I like it when you cant tell it is HDR... (or would not be able to tell... as with the example Scott is showing here... ) and I love it when you are looking for an artistic totally pushed Trey Ratcliff look. I have all of the additional HDR apps including Aurora 2017 that is pushed by Trey. And I love it. I don't often use them but sometimes it is really fun to see what Trey... or Serge's presets will look like as there are about 10 from each built into that application. Though most of the time it is not appropriate for the subject I am shooting. Photography for me is about fun and art. When I see something that is visually stimulating, that is fun. Makes it interesting. The Merge to HDR function built into Lightroom is fantastic as well when you just need a little without adding anything too crazy.
I appreciate Scott being willing to cover this in this manner and to point out that even... if you are not looking for neon, HDR has it's place.
There's definitely a case for HDR in professional photography. Like most things, it can be done in good taste or not. In real estate photography, it can be very handy and look very natural. Case in point: these two are 5 bracketed exposures.
Thanks for the images Korey! Another great example of using HDR techniques while keeping things looking realistic.
I am going to make my comments about Korey's second image here. The best architectural real-estate photographers that I follow and admire, generally stick with compositing manually in PS or get a great single frame. Blending composites puts the art of blending in the artists' hand/eye, instead of the algorithm of the software. As an architect and architectural photographer, I can tell you lighting would never look the way it is shown here, The flat part of the ceiling and the sloped sides are almost completely and evenly illuminated - that never happens, unless you add in artificial lighting, and that usually doesn't look natural or accurate either. It appears by the shadows on the sloped sections of the roof that the light is coming in almost centered on the center window probably around 1:00 pm, which means the wall you are looking straight onto should be significantly darker. You can see a temperature cast on that wall causing it to look red-ish compared to the side walls. That was probably caused by the calculation of the HDR software picking up the color off the railing. Also, you can clearly see ghosting at each window pane perimeter which should not be happening.
Personally, I think HDR software has a place, but I rarely see photos processed with HDR software that represents light naturally or accurately.
I'd rather have bracketed photos and not need them then need bracketed photos and not have them.
Lame True Romance reference.
The dynamic range of sensors is quite impressive these days, but still there are some scenes that require bracketing (see example below :P )
And even when it's not strictly necessary, pushing too much the shadows can bring up some noise even in the latest, high end cameras. Generally it's not a great deal unless you're pixel-peeping or you're planning some large prints
https://fstoppers.com/photo/150486
It's also nice when you forget your ND grads:
https://fstoppers.com/photo/149722
I shoot wedding decoration weekly and Lightrooms HDR saves me everytime. It allows me to maintain highlights and fill shadows with almost zero noise.
It also makes the adjustment brush and filters 10 times more powerful as I can really push exposure control etc. in determined areas of the shot without having to worry about the image breaking down.
In this shot, I am using a Canon 1Ds Mk III at ISO 320 with a 3 shot (-2, 0 + 2) HDR.
Until a camera can give me 20 stops of Dynamic Range, I will be sticking with HDR.
The problem is, is that people like Kelby butchered "HDR" with highpass/clarity, and now he's acting like he's not guilty and trying to convince everyone that real HDR is ok. Yeah, we know HDR is good. Stop butchering it in the first place and you wont have to to defend it.
I tend to find luminosity masks look more natural - and they help eliminate noise more than any HDR processing.
I completely agree, luminosity masks are the only tool I use for processing bracketed images.
I agree that the best cameras on the market for dynamic range don't need multiple exposures, at least not for most people. Then again I'm more interested in keeping things looking natural. I'm also not concerned with some highlights going white or shadows going black. To me that has always been a part of what makes a photograph look different to what we see with our eyes. Far too many photos today also look unrealistic and plastic CGI like, like most on this site. I also wouldn't be too happy seeing older movies being given an HDR treatment. Unfortunately that is probably coming. Luckily I already have every older film I want on Blu-Ray without any of that nonsense.
Finally. Properly done HDR gets some respect. I've been doing this for years and it gives me the most realistic looking images - what it looks like to the human eye.
HDR is invaluable. Kelby is right, use it just enough to fix dynamic range issues. But HDR in the hands go Joe camera guy is almost always silly. The halos, the ridiculous color and saturation. I plan on going back and remaking a whole slew of my images that got caught up in the early HRD boom. All that stuff is going to be reprocessed. However, I want to shoot 3 to 5 shots every time to fix certain things when needed, so HDR is a must tool. Just use it right.