Wikipedia’s simple definition of HDR ( High Dynamic Range ) is a range of techniques geared toward representing more contrast in pictures, which is exactly what it is. The way you go about creating these are entirely up to you. In 2005, Photoshop introduced the Merge to HDR function, which allows you to merge 3 or more exposures into one photo, which then you can adjust the dynamic range on. Another way, is to “cheat” it by using a single image, and with various layers and such, photoshopping the hell out of it. This article isn’t about how to achieve either. There are tons of online tutorials on how to do that. This is when to use HDR piece. Sorry to disappoint you.
I’m fairly new to HDR photography, and in all honesty, i’ve only actually created two HDR photos, so far ( I think they turned out ok, but you be the judge ). HDR is a process that you really see a lot now online, and especially in travel and landscape photography. Doing it right, can make an image absolutely stunning. Doing it poorly, well, you’ll see.
THE GOOD (actually, the great)
If you’re a fan of travel photography, there is a very good chance you’re a fan of Trey Ratcliff. The man behind the brilliant site Stuck in Customs is spectacular at HDR. His photos instantly pop of any screen. Here are some of his shot that will BLOW YOUR MIND!
Photo by Trey Ratcliff
Photo by Trey Ratcliff
Photo by Trey Ratcliff
Check out more of Trey Ratcliffs amazing work at stuckincustoms.com.
The Bad (really really bad)
Of course, with every great HDR shot, at least 3 are published online that are very, well, bad. I won’t name names, or websites, but a simple Google search for bad hdr will bring up tons of the bad. Here’s a few.
My Attempt
I’m not gonna lie when I say that I was not a huge fan of HDR, until I saw more and more amazing HDR work coming from photographers like Trey Ratcliff, David Nightingale, and Ken Kaminesky. I’ve come to accept it now, and actually enjoy HDR, when done right.
So when I was recently out in the South Western United States shooting, I made an attempt to somewhat imitate these guys, and give HDR a chance. Thoughts?
Photo by Attit Patel
Photo by Attit Patel
Remember, leave your thoughts in the comments 
I agree with your assessment of the good and the bad. As for yours, I think they are good…I like the second one much better than the first. The first one shows a lot of detail, but it looks a bit over the top. My personal feeling about HDR…when done well its great…when done bad it’s really bad. I like the other-worldly feel of it sometimes. Keep in mind, my opinions are very armature. I’m new at photography and editing.
I’m not a fan of HDR photography either and I only think the Ratcliff photo of the Taj Mahal is “acceptable” (according to me) of the three you’ve shown. But my preference is for natural looking images. Bringing down the contrast is one thing, but darkening highlights in one area of a photo below the midpoints of other parts of the image is just going too far for me.
That said, I don’t mind either of your attempts, which are both more acceptable to me than the Ratcliff Cambodia and Hong Kong images. I like the lightning shot better but that may just be because the subject is inherently more interesting while the second has no point of focus structurally, aside from the lens flare.
I say keep experimenting. Just keep it subtle. I admire people who forge ahead and try new things, even if it’s not something that necessarily appeals to me. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I have always found Trey Radcliff’s work very gimmicky using HDR. He has cornered this market and become the face of HDR, but remove the software enhancements and his work immediately is average.
Subtle is the best use to balance tricky exposures in landscapes and skies…otherwise your work will be dated very fast.
This technique reminds me Black Velvet paintings.
I think all the pictures look artificial and unattractive and I’m totally on board with the comments of MU and Paul above.
Love your pictures! Great work!!
I like Trey Radcliff’s Taj Mahal and your lightning bolt hitting the top of the canyon bluff best. Thanks for posting this and educating us about HDR with examples!
@Jim fair enough, it’s all about personal tastes.
@Maihaa
Trey’s work is amazing, you should really check out his site, http://www.stuckincustoms.com
There is no bad when it’s not a commission.
Photography artists create a photo they are happy with and for any single person to say ‘That’s bad’ is personal preference and should not be judged.
Whats Bad to one is good to another.
Attit, I actually like your very last shot the best of all the photos in the article, so I would say you’re well on your way to being an hdr master already
Haha, thanks! I still have much to learn about it.
Like most people, I like HDR when used for good (tastefully enhancing color, texture, and contrast) rather than evil (blowing the eyes out of the viewer’s head with bright colors and hard lines).
I love Trey’s work. He’s one of the few that can push HDR into the realm of fake-looking pictures and still make it work, but I don’t care much for the Angkor Wat photo.
I really like the ones that you did at the end. The HDR is used to enhance the photos and make them more interesting without going too far.
Personally, I only like to use it in certain circumstances, like when there’s a big difference in lighting between the foreground and background that can’t be compensated for any other way, when I want to blow people’s eyeballs out of their heads, or I just want a photo that will get a bazillion ‘likes’ from my family on Facebook.