HDR is better....

[sk66]

I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that HDR is better (can be better).

I am not talking about "over the top" HDR, that has it's place if you want an "art effect", but often results in an image which could never be considered "realistic".

However, judicious use of HDR will result in an image much more accurate to what was actually seen. FWIW, I teach basic physiology of the eye and have done some study in this area, but I am not a doctor or physiologist.

I base this decision on a few facts (none of which are absolutes) and personal observation.

First, the average human has a field of view approaching 180*, but the field of view which is in focus is under 10*. It is this smaller field of view where an individuals "attention" is focused and the part of a scene the mind is primarily interpreting. Each small area gets adequate attention to bring it into balance with the surrounding areas. The camera does not do this, but HDR helps...(the rest is done when viewing an image).

Also of consideration is the fact that the eye will attempt to adjust in order to "expose" this smaller field correctly....If you take a high dynamic range scene, your eye will adjust to "see into" darker shadow areas, and it will adjust to properly expose bright areas. The brain then pieces all of these bits of information into an interpretation of the entire scene. The camera cannot do this, but HDR does.

Now we consider the color sensitivity of the eye...
The eye senses in RGB, so why is SRGB a "limited" color space? The eye can sense in the vicinity of 10 million colors, and an average 24 bit monitor can generate in excess of 16 million colors, so why is there 32 bit and true color? It comes down to gamut or range. Having additional colors within a limited spectrum does no good (except marketing), the eye cannot see the difference. The eye can see a wider gamut than SRGB, AdobeRGB, and ProPhoto (all Jpegs should be SRGB for now), and in fact a wider gamut than any display I know of.
The eye also has different levels of sensitivity to the three colors with green being the most sensitive and blue being the least. This is why we tend to bump saturation (with the one slider) to boost green/reds, and bump contrast to "simulate" a wider gamut. But because it is done across the board, and because the camera has much less differential in sensitivity to colors, the result is often unnatural. However HDR will "combine" in a manner which is more true to what is seen. (maybe I should have said "can combine"...) (An equally effective (or more effective) method is to adjust saturation/luminance of the channels individually.)

I think these differences are why a scene often "falls short" when viewed in a standard picture, too much is lost overall. It is also why it is often better to focus one a smaller area of a scene...much less is lost proportionally.

It is also why HDR might be better...

[Bluenoser]

Nice write-up, good points. Just want to point out, though, when adjusting saturation, etc in PP, I (and I'm sure a lot of others) never do it across the board. I focus only on the areas of the image that need it. Just seem to get better results that way, because I agree, when it is done across the board, the results often leave a lot to be desired.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Nice write-up, good points. .

Thanks.
I'm surprised this didn't generate more discussion since HDR is often berated here.

[Quo Fan]

I think its not that HDR is berated, but that bad HDR is.

Though I'm not a huge fan of HDR, I can appreciate it when it is well done. I like the subtle HDR, not the over-the-top-move-all-the-sliders-to-the-right HDR.

[windrider86]

I think most people look down on the whole HDR thing because it has been so abused and the market is sooooooooo over staurated with the overprocessed images.
if done properly, the images it produces cannot be matched.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by windrider86

if done properly, the images it produces cannot be matched.

I think I agree....

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Quo Fan

I think its not that HDR is berated, but that bad HDR is.

Though I'm not a huge fan of HDR, I can appreciate it when it is well done. I like the subtle HDR, not the over-the-top-move-all-the-sliders-to-the-right HDR.

That I can definitely agree with. There is something to be said for subtle, well done HDR. But when it's so overdone it makes my eyes want to bleed? Well, that's a different kettle of fish.

[beatles2]

I think it can or should be used for every shot, some are meant to be B/W and some color. What makes a photo is when a photographer knows what the shot call for.

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by beatles2

I think it can or should be used for every shot, some are meant to be B/W and some color. What makes a photo is when a photographer knows what the shot call for.

My question is Why use HDR to compress the dynamic range on a scene which does not exceed the dynamic range of the camera?? Seems counter productive too me!

[beatles2]

Originally Posted by Elmo

My question is Why use HDR to compress the dynamic range on a scene which does not exceed the dynamic range of the camera?? Seems counter productive too me!

My bad, I should get more sleep after working all night before posting. What I ment was Only some shots wiil look good in HDR, like some look good in B/W. etc.etc. And thank you for not saying what the hell are you talking about. LOL.