Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see many HDR images for sale in nature and landscape collections and was wondering if these images sell well? I personally don't enjoy HDR images in media such as Outdoor magazines for example, where a natural, more true to life image is more appealing but I have seen them in these types of magazines from time to time. If you are a landscape photographer and you have an extensive HDR portfolio, are you limiting your sale options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, you don't even notice the best HDR images.  If you notice it, it's overdone.

 

Does it sell? . . . well, does Elvis painted on velvet sell? The answer is yes, in certain markets. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes myself, but then I'm not part of that "certain market" . . .

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, you don't even notice the best HDR images.  If you notice it, it's overdone.

 

 

+1 I don't think of 'HDR images' any more than I think of 'grey grad' images. HDR is just another tool in the box. It has its uses (interiors, for example) but 99% of the time it's used by photographers who just want to make their pix look 'different'.

 

I've sold pix on Alamy where I've combined exposures (Photomatix), but I doubt if I'll submit many more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my sister's boys, Patrick, is in the process of learning photography. For him, it is strictly a hobby; he already has a very good career.  Patrick is all over HDR, which, so far, he's done very obviously and very badly. And he wonders why I'm not interested. I tried to explain that my experimental period was long long ago. (Secretly I still try new things but in private with the door closed.) 

 

I'm in step with everything that's been said above, and if I were going to use HDR I would follow Dusty's thought, "If you notice it it's overdone."  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only ever offered one HDR image for sale, anywhere and it has sold through Alamy, but then this image represent 30% of my total sales with Alamy so perhaps I should do more.

I agree with Dustydingo, that if you can tell its HDR then its overdone. Where needed I usually manually blend multiple exposures using luminosity masks and adjustment layers, a lot of work but then I enjoy it and usually prefer the end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel this chap is very good at HDR techniques but whether these type of images are acceptable I don't know.

 

Edited by Gervais Montacute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not much of an HDR fan myself. But there are lots of HDR images for sale on Fine Art America and other POD print websites. People seem to buy them.

 

Extreme HDR strikes me as a fad. It too shall pass IMO, like lava lamps and chia pets (for those who remember the 60's and 70's).

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not much of an HDR fan myself. But there are lots of HDR images for sale on Fine Art America and other POD print websites. People seem to buy them.

 

Extreme HDR strikes me as a fad. It too shall pass IMO, like lava lamps and chia pets (for those who remember the 60's and 70's).

 

I don't think it's HDR that's selling on FAA. What's selling is landscapes and landmarks, and that's where you find most HDR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lifetime ago tobacco and pink grad filters were all the rage to try and rescue some real stinkers. Fad gone. Then there was cross-processing. Gawd!  By comparison, HDR is tasteful. long as it isn't overdone.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not much of an HDR fan myself. But there are lots of HDR images for sale on Fine Art America and other POD print websites. People seem to buy them.

 

Extreme HDR strikes me as a fad. It too shall pass IMO, like lava lamps and chia pets (for those who remember the 60's and 70's).

 

I don't think it's HDR that's selling on FAA. What's selling is landscapes and landmarks, and that's where you find most HDR. 

 

OK, I haven't really been keeping tabs on what sells on FAA. I guess what bothers me about extreme HDR is that it often takes away from the content of the photo -- i.e. the technique becomes more important than the content. A sign of these technology-obsessed times, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only image I have sold three times this year is HDR:  D5CMFC

 

Dusty is right of course:  the point of HDR is to deal with linear sensor data, not to make boring images less boring (or more boorish, whichever way you want to look at it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to watch out for artefacts for Alamy but having just acquired a camera that purports to do HDR on its own I'm tempted to have a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I regularly push and pull bits of the photo in PS just as I used to with an enlarger. However I am hoping that the results better represent what I saw and felt about the scene, rather than produce an OTT image. Does this count as HDR?

 

I see people peddling overblown HDR shots as prints in the local markets so, presumably, somebody must buy them.  I can see the appeal, it's art of a sort, and some are very visually attractive, but I'm not sure that they would sell well here. Not too much use for editorial, or textbook or even a magazine article, but might make a good cover for CD/DVD or a novel perhaps.  A niche product perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First impression is that it does rather knock the stuffing out of the image. Though my office might not be the best subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use HDR all the time for night photography, where properly applied, it can have a wonderful softening effect.  Sadly don't have a single example on Alamy to post.

 

I don't use any plugins or additional software but do it all in LR and PS, usually using three files and combining them with selective masks.

 

I found that with Nikon cameras (D800 and D7000) the range is sufficiently good at a low ISO, that in less demanding shooting conditions (harsh sunlight for example), you can use two or more 'exposures' from the same file.

 

However, one of my editors just made me redo a whole batch of images because they had a washed-out look.  So it's not just about what appeals to me is it?

 

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to watch out for artefacts for Alamy but having just acquired a camera that purports to do HDR on its own I'm tempted to have a go.

If the a55 is anything like the NEX cameras (probably is), the auto HDR effect is pretty mild, hardly noticeable in some instances. Also, you have to watch out for noise being made more visible IME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not much of an HDR fan myself. But there are lots of HDR images for sale on Fine Art America and other POD print websites. People seem to buy them.

 

Extreme HDR strikes me as a fad. It too shall pass IMO, like lava lamps and chia pets (for those who remember the 60's and 70's).

 

I don't think it's HDR that's selling on FAA. What's selling is landscapes and landmarks, and that's where you find most HDR. 

 

 

HDR on FAA is quite popular actually. Its just that there is a lot of rubbish HDR on FAA, done by people who dont know how to do HDR. Biggest mistake is halos and black clouds. But people still buy it as they dont know what a proper HDR is either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of HDR as last resort in very high contrast situations.  I gave up trying to get these pictures without using it.  I would never use it for a landscape, even for FAA.

CWPJNR, CWK27B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My philosophy is that an HDR image should let you see what your eyes could see at the scene if you kept looking around at the lighter and darker areas, and thereby adjusting your eyes' aperture, er, iris. So many of the examples you see are more like cartoons--but apparently cartoons that are hanging on many buyers' walls.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shock of the New!

 

I guess that those who are unfamiliar with the process will be knocked out by it (one way or another :D ). I have to confess that I was at first (~ 5 years ago?)  So some members of the public not 'into' photography will still be taken aback by the images - which is why they still sell?

 

Personally, I am in agreement will (nearly?) everyone else here: if you can see it, it's generally overdone - unless it is part of a deliberate process of exaggeration as an Art form.  In this instance then nothing is out of bounds!

 

I'd say that obvious examples sell as art prints to the public; those done with a deal of subtlety will sell as stock.  Is it worth the effort for stock?  Dunno - I wouldn't bother!  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just looking for images taken with the new Sony RX10 on Flickr and I came upon an endless bunch of really bad HDR pictures.  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, when looking at HDR images, they look great at first. Then as you see more such images, it starts slowly feeling unrealistic. I used to create HDR originally, but am now back to shooting as I used to, no HDR anymore. 

However, I do admire the images by this guy - http://500px.com/mypixelmagic

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a project for university on the HDR Toning Adjustment. Though not something I would use a lot, some images would benefit from a slight HDR adjustment. 

 

I really dislike people calling Tone Mapping or Pseudo HDR (over the top cartoon look), true HDR when it's not. There's some wonderful HDR images out their that maintain the realistic photograph appearance, which is what High Dynamic Range is all about.... Bringing out the tonal detail in the darks/lights (shadows/highlights) that cannot be captured in a single shot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do HDR images sell or are they dead in the water from the outset? Has anyoje h ad any success with HDR? The reason I am asking is that I have started to experiment with some HDR type presets in Lightroom and they do an OK ish job some of the time. Are HDR images difficult to 'place' in publications due to their quite different appearance/look etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.