←back to thread

What is HDR, anyway?

(www.lux.camera)
791 points _kush | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
gyomu ◴[] No.43984462[source]
As a photographer, I get the appeal of (this new incarnation of) HDR content, but the practical reality is that the photos I see posted in my feeds go from making my display looking normal to having photos searing my retinas, while other content that was uniform white a second prior now looks dull gray.

It's late night here so I was reading this article in dark mode, at a low display brightness - and when I got to the HDR photos I had to turn down my display even more to not strain my eyes, then back up again when I scrolled to the text.

For fullscreen content (games, movies) HDR is alright, but for everyday computing it's a pretty jarring experience as a user.

replies(8): >>43984624 #>>43984641 #>>43984694 #>>43984803 #>>43985865 #>>43986070 #>>43993667 #>>43994385 #
sandofsky ◴[] No.43984641[source]
While it isn't touched on in the post, I think the issue with feeds is that platforms like Instagram have no interest in moderating HDR.

For context: YouTube automatically edits the volume of videos that have an average loudness beyond a certain threshold. I think the solution for HDR is similar penalization based on log luminance or some other reasonable metric.

I don't see this happening on Instagram any time soon, because bad HDR likely makes view counts go up.

As for the HDR photos in the post, well, those are a bit strong to show what HDR can do. That's why the Mark III beta includes a much tamer HDR grade.

replies(8): >>43984892 #>>43985603 #>>43985943 #>>43986273 #>>43986614 #>>43986673 #>>43987025 #>>43988076 #
1. dheera ◴[] No.43985603[source]
> because bad HDR likely makes view counts go up

Another related parallel trend recently is that bad AI images get very high view and like counts, so much so that I've lost a lot of motivation for doing real photography because the platforms cease to show them to anyone, even my own followers.