The HDR Debate: From the perspective of a recovering addict.

achtungbarry

Following on from happenings in the random photo thread yesterday, it was suggested that a separate thread be created to discuss the merits or lack thereof of HDR photography.

I offered to give some perspective from the point of view of a recovering HDR addict so here it is.

Some of you here who are familiar with my photography know that I went through a long HDR phase (aka the HDR hole to some ). Every single photo I did was a HDR often with the sliders pushed to the limits. I loved it. I liked the surreal-ness of the resulting photos. I liked that they didn’t quite look like reality.

A few months ago, however I began to very slowly change my views on the subject of HDR. It took me quite a while to let go and I went through a long phase of really not knowing what direction I wanted to go in next. I took a bit of a break from photography and spent a while studying other photographers to see if would help me re-find that spark. Luckily it did and I am now on my 12 step plan as a recovering HDR addict.

So first of all: what are the merits of HDR and why was I attracted to it as a method of processing?


1. HDR of course gives an increased dynamic range which reveals plenty of detail in the highlight and shadow areas.

2. HDR really reveals and exaggerates textures for example in stonework. I really liked this.

3. Some people like surreal looking photos and HDR certainly can give a surreal and painterly look to photos.


So why did I decide to move away from HDR? There are quite a few reasons.


1. HDR photos tend to be very very noisy. This really hit home when I was contacted by a restaurant in Lebanon who wanted to purchase a very large print of a photo. When I zoomed in to the print size on screen, I was horrified to see the amount of noise present. No amount of noise reduction can really help this.

2. HDR photos suffer from really bad chromatic aberration (red and green fringing on edges). Again, I zoomed into some of my shots and the CA was really bad.

3. HDR images tend to be very soft.


There is a well known HDR photographer known as Trey Ratcliff (aka Stuck in Customs). I asked my self: “I wonder how he overcomes these problems”. So I had a look at some of his shots that he always posts in full size resolution and zoomed in. My answer was that he didn’t deal with them at all. Some of his best known shots were plagued with noise and awful chromatic aberration. I also bought his book, and even with the small sized prints, they struck me as very soft.


4. HDR images lack contrast and as a result look very un-natural. This appeals to some people and it did to me but my tastes simply changed with time.

5. This next reason is the biggest one that made me drop HDR. When I looked at my photos, I realised that many of them were only interesting because of the fancy processing. The surreal HDR was really all they had going for them The compositions were poor and the light was uninteresting. In effect, the emperor was wearing no clothes. I realised that my best photos were the ones with the interesting subjects, good composition and most importantly the right light.

These are the ones I have been reprocessing without the HDR treatment and the results have been much better. They don’t need HDR to make them interesting.

6. I bought a book by a landscape photographer called David Noton. The thing that made his photos so extraordinary is the incredible quality of the light in them. The treks up mountains in the middle of the night to wait for the right light. Sometimes he has to do this several times before the conditions are right. But, boy is it worth it for the photographs he gets. I decided that landscapes and cityscape being my thing, I had to do the same. So now, I try to concentrate on composition and the right light which is almost always in the morning and evening. In essence, I try to nail it in camera and use the processing to enhance the image.

So basically, those are the reasons I stopped doing so much HDR.

Now, I am not at all anti-HDR. If done with a light touch, it can really look well and there were a few of my older photos were I didn’t go crazy with the sliders and the results were decent. I’ve held on to these few photos but there weren’t that many to be honest.

Now, I avoid HDR mainly because of all the technical issues mentioned above and the fact that my tastes have evolved.

So sorry for the long post but hopefully it will spark a bit of a debate and may have been of interest to some of you.

In the next post, I’ll post a few photos to illustrate some of the points above.

achtungbarry

Here are a few photos in hdr and non hdr versions.

HDR



Non HDR



HDR



Non HDR (taken about 30 minutes earlier when the light was more interesting.



Here is the hall of shame: some HDR images that make me cringe now looking back on them:

This one is just awful. You may want to shield your eyes.



This is one of those images where the light is completely flat but I tried to make it interesting by making the clouds all “dramatic”. Looking back, the shot has little going for it.



Finally, a few cases where I think the HDR worked quite well:

This photo had actually very light HDR applied but I did also add a texture. It would have worked without the HDR and just the texture though. It is actually my biggest seller and recently won the Tom Shanahan Memorial Competition in Fingal.



This interior of a cathedral worked ok I think as I kept the HDR quite restrained.




So all in all, I think that HDR has its place but in general there are too many associated issues. This allied to the fact that HDR is a much abused tool.

Again, apologies for the long post.

What are your own opinions on HDR?

Any other recovering addicts out there?

Paulw

HDR, when done properly, shouldn't blind people. It should be subtle.

I normally hate HDR, because most people do it to death, and ruin what is probably a good photo.

I seldom use HDR, but here's one I did, and I like -


Haystack_HDR2.JPG by PaulWa, on Flickr

Anyway, that's just my view.

11811

I like a bit of HDR myself, but again used a little lightly. I guess you're in trouble though if you rely on it to make a boring shot more interesting.

That shot of the french (i presume) street is lovely, works really well there.

jam_mac_jam

I like it when its lightly done, it nearly hurts your eyes in some cases though. I dont like the Paris one, the sky is too much, but it really works in the street and the cathederal.

m-i-m-m-

Thanks for the post achtungbarry, quite an interesting read. I dabbled in hdr myself, very similar story to yours. I think hdr has its place, but is general abused and overused. It has some interesting quality's.. look for instance at the reflections in the water in your boat house shot.

Its downsides ultimately outweigh the positives, the non hdr version of the frosty tree is far far better in my opinion. Its just subtler, cleaner, more natural and has more contrast.

As for the dynamic range issue... to overcome the inherent dynamic range limits of a dslr sensor (if I feel a scene needs it) I find manual blending of different exposures produces much more natural results.

Fionn

hmmm... abused and over-used
see i have a problem with this,
i.e. other peoples tastes/opinions about whats right or wrong (not just HDR) theres so many techniques out there! which one is right?
it would seem the general concensus is, re - HDR is acceptable if it's done lightly, well thanks!
what if i over do it? my stuff is not acceptable eh? or is over done, overcooked whatever!
who adjudacates over whats overused or overdone?
by what degree?
are you making the photograph for other photographers or for yourself or the general public or someone else?
for instance if you applied a stock PS filter of say, oil painting on a photograph, theres a danger at least in some people's minds of being excuminacted from the general online photographic community, so people tend to tip toe around such frivolity!!
I remember being slagged off for my overuse of photoshoppery on some photograph i presented, and you know what?
look, if you like your photograph HDR'd to the nth degree - if you like it -thats what matters in the end!!
i dont mind HDR or high key or photoshop or digital cameras for that matter!

it's all relative...

rant over

The Snipe

The way I see it is, Its like most things - people find a new technique, and then they use it non-stop until they get bored of it or discover a new one! Then, with time, they slowly discover how to work all the techniques into one.

BlastedGlute

This my favourite thread on boards ever.

I have a passionate dislike for HDR, and even more of a dislike for Trey Ratcliff. He's in a position where he can travel the world and visit amazing places, and take pictures all day. And then....and then....trash the images around in photoshop. GAK! I recently had a discussion with him online about what his belief in his own images are, or was he in fact persuaded more by people that told him his images were great. I wondered how he really felt about them, if he thought he could do better by in fact doing less. He made me gack when his opening response was "Well I've shown these to millions of people and..." I switched off, think I may have blacked out.

I'm awful ignorant though. Thats just me, but i really hate HDR

CabanSail

Thanks for opening this thread Barry, and for the effort and self examination. It's appreciated and welcome.

I have always appreciated your work. The "overcooked" HDR's were not to my taste, but they still were well executed examples of that genre of photography. I feel you are being a bit harsh on some of your earlier work, but your later more subtle images are much more to my taste. To me this shows that you have a good eye for what makes impact in an image. You have just entered a different phase now where you are looking to have that impact provided from the light in the scene rather than making it happen in PP.

It also seems that this change has come from within. There have been comments in the past about folk not liking HDR but that did not seem to affect you, it's been a careful self appraisal process as outlined above which has been responsible for the change in direction. I feel that you will now be able to employ techniques you have mastered before to show the natural light in a scene to it's best advantage. Once you have captured the data from a scene it still requires processing to become a finished photograph.

alfalad

Really like the effect it has on the lake in the first one, seems to smooth it out giving a much nicer reflection, but think the colours in the non hdr are stunning. I know nothing about hdr so can't comment (must do some googling) but an interesting post i have to say.

achtungbarry

m-i-m-m- wrote: »

As for the dynamic range issue... to overcome the inherent dynamic range limits of a dslr sensor (if I feel a scene needs it) I find manual blending of different exposures produces much more natural results.

I agree with this. I've recently started using blending as an alternative to HDR when dealing with scenes with high dynamic range. I either blend them manually with masking or use the exposure blending feature in Photomatix which works well and gives really good natural looking results.

Fionn wrote: »

hmmm... abused and over-used
see i have a problem with this,
i.e. other peoples tastes/opinions about whats right or wrong (not just HDR) theres so many techniques out there! which one is right?
it would seem the general concensus is, re - HDR is acceptable if it's done lightly, well thanks!
what if i over do it? my stuff is not acceptable eh? or is over done, overcooked whatever!
who adjudacates over whats overused or overdone?
by what degree?
are you making the photograph for other photographers or for yourself or the general public or someone else?
for instance if you applied a stock PS filter of say, oil painting on a photograph, theres a danger at least in some people's minds of being excuminacted from the general online photographic community, so people tend to tip toe around such frivolity!!
I remember being slagged off for my overuse of photoshoppery on some photograph i presented, and you know what?
look, if you like your photograph HDR'd to the nth degree - if you like it -thats what matters in the end!!
i dont mind HDR or high key or photoshop or digital cameras for that matter!

it's all relative...

rant over

As I said, I am not anti HDR at all. My main issue with it is the technical problems (noise, chromatic aberration, softness) it causes. The fact that I am less crazy about the more heavilly processed "look" came later to be honest. It's simply a personal opinion. However, if you as a photographer like the more heavily processed look then that's what you should do. As you say, the important thing is that you like it.

XiledSniper wrote: »

The way I see it is, Its like most things - people find a new technique, and then they use it non-stop until they get bored of it or discover a new one! Then, with time, they slowly discover how to work all the techniques into one.

I found that when I was at the height of my HDR phase, every photo looked like a candidade for HDR! this lead to some pretty awful results, many of which never made it to Boards:pac:.

You mentioned working "all the techniques into one". I can certainly say that I learnt a huge amount about post processing while doing HDr and this has certainly benefitted me now when I apply it in a more subtle way.

CabanSail wrote: »

Thanks for opening this thread Barry, and for the effort and self examination. It's appreciated and welcome.

No problem. I've been meaning to find time to participate more in discussions here.

CabanSail wrote: »

It also seems that this change has come from within. There have been comments in the past about folk not liking HDR but that did not seem to affect you, it's been a careful self appraisal process as outlined above which has been responsible for the change in direction. I feel that you will now be able to employ techniques you have mastered before to show the natural light in a scene to it's best advantage. Once you have captured the data from a scene it still requires processing to become a finished photograph.

This is interesting. It's true that I often got a lot of flack for my HDR photos. I even got some hate mail via my website......... seriously:D. I usually ignored the critisizm of HDR on the basis that I liked what I was doing as Fionn alluded to above. I would hate to think I moved away from HDR because of what other people thought. It was really the realisation of the technical issues involved that sparked the rethink. The realisation that many of the photos had little going for them other than HDR finished the job.

achtungbarry

Here are some samples of the technical issues I mentioned.

Artifacts and noise







Chromatic abberation



Softness. Compare the HDR version to the non HDR version below. There is a huge difference in terms of sharpness and definition even at this small resolution.

HDR



Non HDR

Hugh_C

Thanks for the great thread Achtung, I passionately hate HDR for its eye-dazzling, nausea-inducing qualities. If people are eager for a high dynamic range, why not just shoot medium format film or even 35mm?

magnumlady

I don't mind HDR although I've never tried it myself. Although out of all the photo's you posted I prefer all of the non HDR ones.
One of my contacts never posts a non HDR photo. I would like to see some of his 'normal' work.

pete4130

BlastedGlute wrote: »

I have a passionate dislike for HDR.... Thats just me, but i really hate HDR

You haven't really said why you dislike it.

BlastedGlute wrote: »

He made me gack when his opening response was "Well I've shown these to millions of people and..." I switched off, think I may have blacked out.

So why you didn't listen to what he had to say about it?

BlastedGlute

Pete, If I replied to that last observation you made with "Well I made my opinion known to millions and we all agreed.." you would have switched off to, or tried to turn into some kind of keyboard warrior. It's a douchbag response. Do I care if millions of people have seen his work and that somehow equates to it actually being good? Million of people have seen rebecca blacks "work", but numbers dont justify the actual product so as an instant opener, and what his first ego driven thought probably was, then no I'm not interested after that.

Fact is he's made a tonne of money from travelling to the worlds most exotic locations, meeting amazing people, taking beautiful pictures....and then blowing them apart in photoshop. He's very successful and people really really like his work so more power to him but I dont have to be impressed by his passport stamps and HDR overkill. I actually really like the OP'S HDR, I didnt know the lake picture with the tree was HDR and I loved it on the Random XX. i think that's using the style for it's best points, subtle and eye catching. But one sideways glance at any of trey's work and it screams PP. It's too much like a pre-screen for concept artwork for games(which I'm knee deep in these days and sick of looking at), not realistic, too dreamy and hazy,noisy as hell and useless as large format.

pete4130

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Pete, If I replied to that last observation you made with...

....sorry, I switched off there....I've no idea what the rest of your post said....

So I suppose you passionately hate these images?

















hold on a minute...one of them isn't actually HDR!

frankmolloy

Hugh_C wrote: »

Thanks for the great thread Achtung, I passionately hate HDR for its eye-dazzling, nausea-inducing qualities. If people are eager for a high dynamic range, why not just shoot medium format film or even 35mm?

or maybe just take 2 pics and blend them...

bullpost

Anyone had a go at exposure fusion as an alternative to HDR?

Akin to auto blending and produces more natural-looking results without the noise etc.


http://www.digital-photography-school.com/exposure-fusion-what-is-it-how-does-it-compare-to-hdr-how-do-i-do-it

frankmolloy wrote: »

or maybe just take 2 pics and blend them...

BlastedGlute

Pete if thats supposed to be some sort of circuitous defence for a pro-HDR argument then why dont you just have at it and speak your mind. You haven't tried to found an argument for or against the topic that the OP is raising, but If you want to troll a thread I suggest you visit the after hours forums. Other than that, no i dont like any of the images you just posted. Except perhaps the first one. I guess prisons tell a bit of a story in their own solitary way. The others are houses and a field, there's no context or imagination and I find them a bit uninspiring. But that's just me, it's not something I like. But I'm sure Trey would love them.

m-i-m-m-

Fionn wrote: »

hmmm... abused and over-used
see i have a problem with this,
i.e. other peoples tastes/opinions about whats right or wrong (not just HDR) theres so many techniques out there! which one is right?
it would seem the general concensus is, re - HDR is acceptable if it's done lightly, well thanks!
what if i over do it? my stuff is not acceptable eh? or is over done, overcooked whatever!
who adjudacates over whats overused or overdone?
by what degree?
are you making the photograph for other photographers or for yourself or the general public or someone else?
for instance if you applied a stock PS filter of say, oil painting on a photograph, theres a danger at least in some people's minds of being excuminacted from the general online photographic community, so people tend to tip toe around such frivolity!!
I remember being slagged off for my overuse of photoshoppery on some photograph i presented, and you know what?
look, if you like your photograph HDR'd to the nth degree - if you like it -thats what matters in the end!!
i dont mind HDR or high key or photoshop or digital cameras for that matter!

it's all relative...

rant over

Hi Fionn, I appreciate where your coming from. Believe me I'm not arrogant or closed minded enough to believe that there is a "right or wrong" way to approach making an image... nothing, especially matters of taste, is as black and white as this. Of course it's your own opinion and regard for your work that counts in the end.

I do find that hdr is over-used sometimes, it's just my opinion. For me its not a case of what is "acceptable" of not, I have no time for acceptability... in fact I often strive for the opposite, it's more fun. I'm just stating my opinion, my preference from an visual point of view. I stand by this, while having total respect for someone else's way of looking at... being true to my own opinions while having respect for others is very important to me believe me.

frankmolloy wrote: »

or maybe just take 2 pics and blend them...

It really is an effective method, and can also be used to provide massive dof. It's an interesting technique.

Nebezpeci Mys

Very interesting thread indeed - thank you, AB.

I must say I adored most of your HDR images and when starting with photography 3 years ago I was amazed with what you can actually do with bracketted shots. My first attempts at the technique were well overcooked but the approach softened with time (and after a lot of reading ). In my opinion this is a natural process - you discover, overdo and get sick of things, so you can learn to do them in more moderate amounts/ways.

At the beginning I too bracketted every single shot I took and then spent hours processing images that my most honest critic would 'tear into pieces' in the end. The turning point for me came with realization that determining which scene/subject is the most suitable one for HDR is the first and most basic step towards good HDR. This determination also helps in the processing stage as the image usually doesn't need that much 'slider action' to achieve the desired effect.

Nowadays, I still do fair bit of HDR or exposure blending and I would like to think that these are not overcooked (unless that's the look I really want). Yes, I still love well executed HDR shots - especially the BW ones - but I'm also much more critical about them. And also, bracketting is no longer a priority - it's simply a way of creative processing, making some of my shots stand out. Whether it works or not I let the people around to decide for themselves...

pete4130

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Pete if thats supposed to be some sort of circuitous defence for a pro-HDR argument then why dont you just have at it and speak your mind. You haven't tried to found an argument for or against the topic that the OP is raising, but If you want to troll a thread I suggest you visit the after hours forums. Other than that, no i dont like any of the images you just posted. Except perhaps the first one. I guess prisons tell a bit of a story in their own solitary way. The others are houses and a field, there's no context or imagination and I find them a bit uninspiring. But that's just me, it's not something I like. But I'm sure Trey would love them.

It's not trolling nor defence. As a newbie here you don't realise I'm less fond of HDR than a fan if it.

My point was, that you didn't bother to listen to someones side of things, made a blanket statement about HDR.

The sample images I posted of have no context to each other, they were examples of HDR shots that aren't typical HDR shots and for the most part aren't recognisable as HDR. This is especially true as your favourite from the bunch is an HDR shot.

I'll post some HDR portraits later when I'm near a computer for you to have a look at

m-i-m-m-

I quite like those Images you posted Pete, save the last one. Defiantly not overdone imo. I can't spot the non hdr! Care to share which it is?

landsleaving

My money's on no.3 :pac:

BlastedGlute

Thats a fair point pete, and as always duly noted! I'm not only new to boards photog forums, but also to photography. I cant really take things with experience or from formed knowledge and then make up my mind on it, because I simply dont know enough right now. But I've been an artist of sorts since I knew what a pencil could do, and I know what I like.


I find HDR images to be less about photography, and more about a desire to express or garner some kind of misty artistic merit. The greatest of paintings are dreamy, and other worldly but also deeply resonant and familiar to our own world, so it creates an almost pre-emptive nostalgic connection between the viewer and the work itself. I think some HDR experts (such as Trey) feel that, while perhaps not voicing, that they are more of an artist than a photographer. Like "fine art" photographers.


It's just a throw back to the old chocolate box painters who would copy great works and felt that this was in fact art, fine art, and not just advertising with a hint of plagiarism. For me this style in it's extreme form tells me a lot more about what kind of photographer the person is trying to present themselves as, and much less about what is actually IN the photograph. I dont want to argue with anyone and I dont want to be picked apart for having an opinion. If you like it then more power to ya. I picked the prison for the content. The grill on the steps gives away thats it's HDR, the last one is not HDR.

m-i-m-m-

landsleaving wrote: »

My money's on no.3 :pac:

Yes I think I agree, It looks the most likely. The similarity's between 3+4 through me off a bit though... on further inspection the detail though the window in 4 may be a giveaway. Guess we'll have to wait and see!

pete4130

The first one is a 1 shot pseudo HDR, the next 3 are 9 shot HDR's (-7,-5,-3,-1,0,+1,+3,+5,+7) and the last one is simply a bw conversion taken in the evening.

The key to normalising an HDR is to get as many bracketed shots to reduce the noise and CA so the software doesn't have to stretch the DR too much of each exposure.

And desaturate when adjusting levels and curves in Photoshop. Some shots work, some just don't.

BlastedGlute

Maybe I do have an eye for these things so huh

pete4130

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Maybe I do have an eye for these things so huh

Hard to tell when posts get edited

BlastedGlute

That's why posts have time stamps :P

m-i-m-m-

pete4130 wrote: »

Hard to tell when posts get edited

Your giving me ideas now. Have to edit my post to say clearly its the last one, no doubt in my well educated mind,

pete4130

m-i-m-m-

They are excellent portraits Pete, presumably these are pseudo HDR made from one raw. Unless you have amazingly still subjects! One thing I would wonder is the HDR treatment adding anything, as in would the original raw processed well look just as good or even better? How did the non HDR versions compare?

Mjollnir

HDR is almost always like that uniquely American contribution to the destruction of all things artistic: the paintings of Thomas Kinkade.

Almost always.

landsleaving

Seems to me it's much like any technique, in the wrong hands it's quite awful, I looked up Trey Ratcliff and while I'm obviously jealous of his travels, I think it only mildly ifluences my dislike of what he produces. It's cheesy, everything looks like a desktop background. This one particularly made me cringe.

Those portraits though, and some of AchtungBarry's shots, show it can clearly be used to good effect, not to mask an otherwise dull picture, but to reveal the hidden detail in an already good picture.

Just my 2c anyway

m-i-m-m-

Mjollnir wrote: »

HDR is almost always like that uniquely American contribution to the destruction of all things artistic: the paintings of Thomas Kinkade.

Almost always.

I'm gona send you this for christmas so... muwhahahahaha :pac:

http://www.thechristmascottagemovie.com/

Mjollnir

m-i-m-m- wrote: »

I'm gona send you this for christmas so... muwhahahahaha :pac:

http://www.thechristmascottagemovie.com/

I don't think I've ever thrown up on my crotch while simultaneously soiling my trousers with my own man-dirt.

I'm sending you a bill!

magicbastarder

one problem with HDR is the excuse that it deals with the issue that your eye adjusts to various parts of a scene as you look around it to give an optimum 'exposure' for each part of the scene. which is all well and good, except for the salient fact that you don't view a photograph in the same way. the photograph becomes a small part of the scene which you are viewing, and your eye does not roam around and adjust in the same way, so it looks unrealistic if done badly.

frankmolloy

Mjollnir wrote: »

I don't think I've ever thrown up on my crotch while simultaneously soiling my trousers with my own man-dirt.

I'm sending you a bill!

magicbastarder

Mjollnir wrote: »

I don't think I've ever thrown up on my crotch while simultaneously soiling my trousers with my own man-dirt.

there's this club i know about you may be interested in.

let's take this to PMs.

BlastedGlute

m-i-m-m- wrote: »

Your giving me ideas now. Have to edit my post to say clearly its the last one, no doubt in my well educated mind,

Ah now come one, I replied and edite my post nearly 2 hours before he made his big reveal. It seemed obvious to me but could be my monitor settings. I'm just saying HDR isn't my thing and Im still not convinced, although I really like the portraits you have there. Especially the second of the two. Magnificent looking eye!

kelly1

Hugh_C wrote: »

Thanks for the great thread Achtung, I passionately hate HDR for its eye-dazzling, nausea-inducing qualities. If people are eager for a high dynamic range, why not just shoot medium format film or even 35mm?

Hugh, does film in fact have a higher dynamic range or does it just compress the highlights?

Personally, I'm not a fan or HDR. It's a fad if you ask me.

m-i-m-m-

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Ah now come one, I replied and edite my post nearly 2 hours before he made his big reveal. It seemed obvious to me but could be my monitor settings. I'm just saying HDR isn't my thing and Im still not convinced, although I really like the portraits you have there. Especially the second of the two. Magnificent looking eye!

I wasn't referring to you! I was talking about my post. I did notice you guessed it right before he relieved it btw.. he had me fooled so well done.

Mjollnir wrote: »

I'm sending you a bill!

You send me the bill and I'll send you a copy of the Christmas cottage Movie. I'll have the last laugh!

pete4130

I found some more normalised HDR's on my flickr. Some have more obvious traits than others and are recognisable as HDR quite easily. In saying that, I don't believe they fall into the extreme HDR look that most people associate with them.

CabanSail

I don't use any HDR software. When I have used HDR I have done so manually in Photoshop. Below are some of the resulting photo's. In some of these scenes had light which was going to well beyond the dynamic range of film or RAW. This is where I took multiple images (sometimes without a tripod). More often I will just exploit the full dynamic range in the RAW data.

Here are some of those shots.

BlastedGlute

I really like that first on and the 3rd one! Why am I thinking concentration camps though.... :O

CabanSail

Maybe because they were both taken at Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin. I'm am pleased that you are getting the feeling I'm trying to communicate. That makes the images a success. Both of those are blended multiple exposures taken without the aid of a tripod.

Mjollnir

Had to look around a bit, and then I remembered this guy.

I've never seen someone who uses HDR so well (the way it was intended) and is so technically brilliant.

He's a monster.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/steventheamusing/5743892204/in/photostream/

spooky donkey

well im in favour of HDR as I do a lot of work with cars and metals.
But I do agree with Barry there, when I first discovered it, it was all I did.
I do try to do other things.
But HDR has its place....

here is a recent car pic I took that I felt needed HDR....


mustang castle by BarryKelly, on Flickr