Do We Need HDR?

Just a bit of fun, I was wondering what the views of our esteemed Forum members are on whether HDR is needed or not, in particular given the dynamic range of the K-5 and newer bodies, also the range of processing options available to us. I'll start the ball rolling with one of my (non HDR) images and I will say that normally we don't need HDR, but there are rare occasions where I use it to achieve a particular look (usually tonemapping).

The Lead Mine



The image is of Magpie Mine, near Bakewell in the Derbyshire Peak District.

Regards
David

This isn't HDR, justed dropped and lifted a couple of sliders.




I think HDR is still relevent, maybe some interior or architectural shots will benefit from the process.

I am with you and would say that HDR is generally not needed, but I am sure aficionados would beg to differ.

I guess for myself evaluation of 'need' is directly linked to 'desirability' and as I am not a fan of most HDR, I don't fully see the need and am happy with the dynamic range available in a single shot from my k30. I do concede that there may be a few exceptions.

HDR is needed yes.

I have only VERY recently embraced it and as such struggle to get it looking natural... it's easy to do badly but not so easy, for me at any rate, to do it well.

btw I love magpie mine - was there a few months back and snow was 18 inches deep in parts...thought I wasn't going to make it there.

Cheers Mike, I think Magpie Mine would make a great location at sunrise or sunset in the depths of Winter, especially with snow on the ground. It's one of my 'must do's' this coming Winter.

Regards
David

sounds good ... gimme a holler when you intend to go and if at a loose end might join you if you fancy some company ?

I think I will take you up on that one Mike, I'll contact you when the conditions look like they might be right!

Regards
David

cool sounds good to me

I very rarely like a shot that has clearly been 'HDR'd'. But when used to a subtle degree I think it's an option. I rarely use HDR techniques as I find I get what I need from raw editing alone, now that the dynamic range we get from our cameras has come on leaps and bounds in recent years.

But I've always favoured a more natural feel to photos - it is of course a personal thing.

apologies for being image heavy but it is for illustration of the process being discussed

single exposure CS5,shadows/highlights,unsharp mask, save as jpg




5 exposure with Exposure fusion in Photomatix




and 5 exposure Tonemapped backed off a tad with hue/saturation in photoshop




all shot with DA15mm limited, so all needed some straightening,in fact the 1st one still needs some i have just noticed, but no acid trip colours that i can see. just did it for the fun of it.
do we NEED HDR maybe ,maybe not but it is always nice to have options to play with, you could even do things like this:-

I hope you dont mind David


yours






mine HDR

This one is a 5 exposure HDR, used to create this look rather than any need in terms of dynamic range.

HDR, Yes I need it.

If I had the ability to do what some of you seem to be able to do on the processing side, I might not.
I have low skills in processing, usually shoot jpegs and have Photomatix software. I have learned how to not make the use of HDR too obvious and it helps me get the picture I want sometimes.

I think we're seeing that HDR has its place, but it is clear that it is not always because of the need for dynamic range, it is quite often to achieve a certain 'look' that is difficult to achieve with 'normal' processing.

Keep the images coming, it is great to see different takes on what HDR can do.

Regards
David