HDR photos of Ireland loved by newspaper

dinneenp

HDR...hated by many, but loved by the Mail Online.

Gareth Wray's "breathtaking photos of hidden Ireland show Emerald Isle as never before"
I was expecting something different when a friend posted me the link...
link to photos

Cheers,
Pa.

elysium321

Good composition and nice vivid colours but... They are way too oversharpened. And I don't like HDR photos either but that is a matter of personal taste.

I wouldn't be able to take such shots myself but since he's supposed to be a professional photographer, he can take some critics.

amdgilmore

Not the first time I've seen this brand of HDR in the Daily Mail. Think they had one on Chernobyl a while back, which made me retch.

Non-photographers still love HDR, unfortunately.

DaireQuinlan

amdgilmore wrote: »

Non-photographers still love HDR, unfortunately.

You haven't taken a gander through our random pivot thread of late, have you ?

clintondaly

I hate The Mail Online but i love them photos,whatever criticism they get they wont do the country any harm whatsoever.

amdgilmore

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

You haven't taken a gander through our random pivot thread of late, have you ?

No, not recently... but I take it I've put my foot in my mouth. No offence intended to the HDR photographers.

magicbastarder

the shot of the giant's causeway is just bizarre.

Myksyk

HDR is like any creative tool... If it's done well it can be great. Unfortunately it seems too often to be overcooked. I like one or two of these. Others commit the usual HDR sins ... Too saturated, too sharp, too dark etc. but then again, as someone said, it's all just a matter of taste.

superflyninja

In general i dont like those shots. There are one or two that do work fine though.

penev10

I don't mind a bit of HDR if it's done well but some of those are horrible. The stones on the beach and the sheep look totally unnatural.

spygyper

To be honest I am from Strabane and know Gareth very well, he is in no way shape or form a professional photographer, nor does he claim to be.

I personally like HDR photos and the over sharp and gritty appearance that he makes his photos take and I as well as Gareth understand that it is an acquired taste that probably the purists don't tend to like.

At the same time though he is only doing this as a hobby and has a passion for photography of architecture and landscapes, especially in Ireland, and he has defined a style of editing that he has gone for and stuck with in almost all of his photos.

Gareth does spend a lot of time researching his locations, weather and times to take his shots, I have been out with him a few times for photoshoots and its all for a hobby and just by chance his photos got noticed and published by the Daily Mail so I say fair play to him, I'm sure there are professional photographers that would love that kind of exposure.

Have a look at this Flickr page - Gareth Wray Photography - he has almost 2 million views with loads of fantastic photos of Ireland and some nice ones of Dubai as well, and he is more than happy to take criticism as well to help him improve so feel free to comment on his photos.

DaireQuinlan

spygyper

Very good chart, its actually seems almost 100% accurate.

Rainbowsend

There are some really nice images there, I don't mind HDR at all, sometimes an image can take the more overlooked look, each to there own as they say, and I don't think it has done a disservice to tourist Ireland at all.

ScumLord

I wouldn't say I like HDR pictures as such but HDR techniques can make some fantastic looking pictures.

I don't think it should be discounted at all, I've used HDR just to make a scene look normal because there was far to much contrast, like taking a picture out a window on a bright day. With normal procedures you either have to decide on having the inside exposed or the outside exposed and even then run into all sorts of problems without buying equipment. HDR gives amateurs a chance to make some spectacular photos with the basic functions of their camera.

The simple fact of the matter is a digital sensor just can't replicate what your eye see's and even if it could it still can't add the post processing your brain does to everything you see. If you want to get your camera to capture what's in your minds eye HDR and photoshop can be the cheapest way to do it. That's why I try to take photos with the most data rather than trying to get a perfect image in camera. Photoshop is where I finalise the image, even setting the exposure and composition.

Iancar29

Myksyk wrote: »

HDR is like any creative tool... If it's done well it can be great. Unfortunately it seems too often to be overcooked. I like one or two of these. Others commit the usual HDR sins ... Too saturated, too sharp, too dark etc. but then again, as someone said, it's all just a matter of taste.

100% agree...

elysium321

There's nothing wrong with the HDR technique as such. But when it's overdone, it just ruins the image for me.
But that's just my personal taste.

amdgilmore

ScumLord wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is a digital sensor just can't replicate what your eye see's and even if it could it still can't add the post processing your brain does to everything you see.

This comes up every time. I don't think anybody would argue with it if it was just making the scene look the way the human eye perceives it. There are a couple of photos in the above link that are not bad at all. But shots like that still seem to be the exception in the HDR world.

I personally would be inclined to lay a lot of the blame at the door of the software, which is still pretty crude. Photoshop layers is still the best way to get a realistic exposure, in my opinion. Time-consuming though.

If any software maker or camera manufacturer ever achieves the goal of replicating the way the human brain averages a scene exposure I'll be impressed, but that's a long way off.

That chart on the previous page is funny. Although I seem to have been stuck at the 'I hate my photos' stage for ages.

ScumLord

amdgilmore wrote: »

If any software maker or camera manufacturer ever achieves the goal of replicating the way the human brain averages a scene exposure I'll be impressed, but that's a long way off.

They probably never will unless they build photoshop into the camera. When you look at the actual image coming from each eye it's pretty bad, mostly blurred with one tiny spot in the centre actually in focus, one large black spot. The fact is your brain makes up a lot of what your see. All this can change depending on mood, how hungry you are whether you need to go to the toilet. The only way to be able to produce the image in your head is to have complete control over every aspect of the image which is next to impossible.

Of course you could go to all the effort of trying to achieve the image in your head only to find that the camera produces an better scene by accident, but that's fun too.



Another problem with HDR that just popped into my head is that messing with it is fun. Unfortunately no one else is going to see the fun in the mess you've made of your picture.

Calina

What catches my attention about those photographs is not, interestingly enough, the HDR, but the fact that they are nearly all using serious wide angles with the distortion that goes with that...