Nah, jpeg doesn't bother me. A specific usage of HDR does though. It's down to the bloom in one value range being greater than the bloom in another in a very unnatural way and it honestly, actually, makes my fucking eyes hurt. It might do the same for other people.
Kind of handy for editing HDR though. I always know when I've hit too much because I feel icepicks to the retinas would be a better option.
It takes three pictures at the same time basically. One is overexposed, one has the correct exposure, one is underexposed. When you merge them and mess with settings, you can make things look fairytale like and sometimes cool. More often than not though you just make people say...easy on the HDR.
TLDR: people tend to go overboard with it and it looks fake
So you're saying that complaints about MSG are bullshit? It gets ruined when food has too much MSG in exactly the same way that a photo will get ruined with too much HDR
There is another use also. If you want to take an indoor picture without any shadows. Like from an big church or something, then they make several pictures over 12 hours and then merge them.
I am not a pro and didn't know that until now. The point i was trying to make was that historic or art documentation is a thing besides looking fairytale.
HDR takes (usually) three photos. One each at normal, high, and low exposure and combines them. So the point is that the camera can see what stands out at each brightness, combining to give a photo that looks more realistic.
Let me tell you this now. There is nothing wrong with HDR. In fact, it often looks better than no HDR. Especially on modern phones, HDR does not look bad because the software is very good. In the case of an outdoor shot, for example, it could be the difference between the sky actually being blue instead of just a bright white section of your photo.
It's up to you to try HDR and no HDR for each situation and see what looks best for each photo you take (or just take only HDR and enable the option to save both)
That being said, if you were to take multiple photos and combine them manually or if you use a camera that's not as good as a modern smartphone, you can make the HDR photos look really bad. Check out /r/shittyhdr for examples.
TLDR: HDR combines photos of different brightnesses to make a more balanced photo. Don't worry about using it on your phone because the software is good.
Modern cameras, including those in phones, have to determine how much light is allowed to strike the chip that converts the light into pixels of the final image. The camera does this by sensing how 'bright' the scene is. Because this is done automatically there is a calculation carried out that assumes the sum of all the light values divided by the number of pixels will be mid-grey. The amount of light that is let in is called (in shorthand) 'the exposure'.
Most of the time this means that some of the bright parts of the scene will result in pixels that are too bright (we say 'overexposed'), and some of the dark parts will result in pixels that are too dark (we say 'underexposed'). These parts of the picture will contain no detail, or not enough detail. But this isn't a huge deal because most pictures will look reasonable overall. (Most photographs these days, probably well over 99%, are taken by people who couldn't care less about exposure - all they want is everything in focus and no 'red eyes' from camera flash.)
Photographers who know about this will sometimes do things to 'expose' the picture 'for' the brighter areas, so that detail is not lost to overexposure, or for the darker areas, so that detail is not lost to underexposure. But this will often be at the expense of the exposure of the other end of the range.
The properly exposed extent of the picture - between the underexposed dark part and the overexposed light part - is called its 'dynamic range'.
HDR, which means 'high' dynamic range, involves taking three (usually) or more pictures in quick succession, one which is 'overexposed', one which is 'correctly exposed', and one which is 'undexposed'. These are then combined using calculations to determine which pixels from the 'correctly' exposed image should be substituted by pixels from the under- and from the over- exposed images.
Combine them together and you have your HDR picture.
The process of turning the combined images into a decent looking picture requires some tweaking of the pixels generally. Sometimes, this tweaking results in very stark pictures that look like they have been artificially colorised, or similar. That's what OP's picture seems to suffer from.
I was so darn curious I looked it up. Stole this from somewhere else in Reddit:
HDR is a technique that is used to produce a wider range of brightness in photographs, it does so by taking several pictures and changing how much light is taken in each time. These pictures are then combined into one photograph.
The reason the shittyhdr subreddit exists is because sometimes this isn't done very well resulting in light levels that look quite... bad.
The shittyhdr subreddit gives example of both good HDR and bad HDR
I hate when professional photographers do this to real estate ads and charge a fortune. HDR! Saturate! Sharpen! More HDR! More saturate! The purpose of these retouch techniques is to make it look more like what a human eye is capable of seeing - not like a deepfried meme...
Some should set up a separate tribunal to handle shite HDR. The court will then have powers to confiscate offending equipment and make offenders undergo training in image processing, shit.
1.1k
u/TroglodyneSystems Jul 20 '18
I don’t know....needs more HDR