For the past few years there's been this mega-push to have cameras, NLE's, monitors and trans-coding hardware be HDR compatible, and it's caused quite a fuss with producers, camera-guys and editors trying to figure out HOW to shoot, edit and deliver it. Not unlike what we all dealt with when HD was just coming around.

I'm here to suggest this in short: Don't shoot, edit or try to deliver HDR. Period. Why? Good question... Let's start with the basics, which is the components of what makes any image - still or motion-picture - interesting for the audience to look at.

Having created content for the advertising industry for nearly 30 years (photo first, then film-making) I learned quickly that people are attracted to and keep looking at anything that captures their eye. And those kinds of images always include good, natural contrast, rich colors (even soft-rich as we used to call it) and a composition not possible with the human eye, whether it's telephoto compression, shallow DOF or a macro shot.

Our eyes are naturally attracted to the drama between light and shadow, and when photographically presented in the form described above, that attraction goes into overdrive.

HDR in point of fact, wants to flatten-out all those characteristics by attempting to recover details in both shadow and highlight simultaneously. It's actually become a new-fangled style in many commercial productions both in advertising and features, where colors are purposely muted and flat, contrast goes soft and often what you end up with is nearly zero delineation between light and shadow. "Milquetoast" I think fits the description.

It's unnatural to see an HDR presentation, our eyes aren't expecting it and because our minds know it's physically impossible to see such detail between the two extremes it becomes a little uncomfortable to watch. You actually get caught up in trying to suss out the details in the highs and lows and forget what the real content is supposed to be. That's disastrous when you would normally want people to have a deep emotional connection with what they see so they *stay with* the content and not get disinterested.

I've had more than a few clients ask during pre-production planning if the end result was going to look "washed out" as they've seen in so many films of late. Unfortunately in my industry that decision usually lies with the creative director of whatever agency has built the spot. And I think too many of them have lost their minds, both with the obsession for HDR and poor scripting. (ugh, don't get me started on bad scripts...)

But it's a clear indication of what I've always suspected since HDR-style productions were coming out; that the average person doesn't like it, doesn't get it and would rather see more richly involved visuals.

To me, HDR reminds me of the days when I was shooting fashion: The fashion industry is all about the fashion industry itself; there's no correlation to the real world. So too I feel is HDR: Us techno-nerds and engineering wizards LOVE this stuff, "Hey, look what we can do with all this new software!". But the viewing public is turned off by it.

And just like drone footage, it started out as a novelty tool to pull out of the kit when required and now is becoming far too overused.

To reiterate my short suggestion from above...

Just shoot your content was you would normally. If you're a fan of the HDR-look fine, create it in post with a custom LUT. (Don't waste your time buying someone else's idea of a good-looking grade - do it yourself on a per-project basis.)

But if you're in the business of creating content that your clients want to see and, their clients/customers will appreciate watching then FORGET about HDR and all the nonsensical intricacies that are required to go from shot to viewing screen.

Here's a thought to digest; Every award-winning final production whether it was a Hollywood feature or broadcast commercial that's been produced in the past 7 years... none of them were in an HDR space.

People love color and contrast, we always have. Why do you think Kodachrome and Ektachrome were so popular?

Give 'em what they want.

I'm here to suggest this in short: Don't shoot, edit or try to deliver HDR.


I agree with many of your points about HDR delivery, but I disagree about shooting and editing. The ability to capture the camera's full dynamic range and then grade each scene in post is a huge advantage for many productions. And this applies to all high-end productions. This is especially true for productions that will NOT be delivered in HDR. It is the same reason still photographers shoot RAW even though they know the image will be severely dumbed down by the time their pictures are printed or published.

Here's a thought to digest; Every award-winning final production whether it was a Hollywood feature or broadcast commercial that's been produced in the past 7 years... none of them were in an HDR space..


I don't know if that statement is factual or not (I suspect there are some exceptions) but it completely ignores that 99% of those productions were shot on RAW or LOG or film. Those productions you are talking about may not have been delivered in HDR but they absolutely were shot with HDR settings onboard the camera. You are fooling yourself if you don't think so.

My bottom line is that anyone who ignores the trend towards HDR acquisition, and who does not develop the basic skills for handling that material in post, will fall woefully behind those people who do and therefore be doomed to a future working on low-end productions where quality takes a backseat to speed and price. Your advice may very well be exactly what is best for YOU, but don't make the mistake of thinking your needs are the same as the needs of other productions.

Your advice may very well be exactly what is best for YOU, but don't make the mistake of thinking your needs are the same as the needs of other productions.

Allowing for full dynamic range or shooting RAW is not the same as setting up HDR. Those who aren't familiar with the difference need to have clarity on this point because a true HDR workflow is massively different, and it's why companies like AJA have spent millions on creating the hardware that is becoming the pipeline for HDR live-stream delivery for the networks.

And aside from what we hear in pre-production meetings, this is why it's called an opinion, not an edict.

I knew there was a reason I stopped sharing on forums...

Allowing for full dynamic range or shooting RAW is not the same as setting up HDR.


Are you kidding??? That is the very definition of HDR. HDR is what RAW and LOG are all about. I agree with you there is no need to deliver HDR right now, but I couldn't disagree more with your advice to not shoot in HDR today. And LOG and RAW are HDR.

You can do whatever you want, but I think anyone who is about to follow your advice needs to stop and do their homework. HDR acquisition is the norm today, not the exception.

I knew there was a reason I stopped sharing on forums...

So, you stopped sharing on forums because you didn't like it when someone has a difference of opinion? You want to make broad sweeping statements but don't want anyone to offer a counterpoint? Then you should get a blog where you can say whatever you want without the risk of other people sharing a different opinion.

I'm not up to grading of any sort. But my view over the years is. Get it to as near right in-camera, unless you are shooting professionally. Then you can start to use all those other fandangled settings if you know how.

Like Doug I think Roberts view of HDR is backwards. Video is a hobby for me shooting amateur theatre. People would like to see the recording like the live production. Unfortunately current recordings cannot show the dynamic range of life. HDR is an attempt to get closer to this reality. Two things had to change. The displays need to be able to show more dynamic range and the recordings need to show more dynamic range. Currently I believe that cameras still have greater range than can be shown.

Even though my output goes to DVD or Bluray as an archive, I shoot Vlog all the time on my GH5 and GH5S. Just like I am sure most serious amateur still photographers shoot RAW. It gives me the opportunity to fit this larger dynamic range into the rec709 range for DVD or Bluray. I can include both the highlights I may have overexposed recording in rec709 and also bring up the shadows too ( that may have been crushed to protect the highlights in normal rec709 recording and lost). I do not produce a HDR output. But I could if I wanted to. More to the point I can go back to the source files in the future and produce a HDR output when there are more HDR TV's to display on from a file.

To me HDR gives the sparkle of highlights and the deep rich colour so not sure what HDR you have seen. Maybe a poorly graded film or more likely a TV that was not set up for the file it was playing.

But my view over the years is. Get it to as near right in-camera, unless you are shooting professionally.

I agree with your message, but why would you exclude professionals? As a professional it is even more critical to get things as close to perfect in-camera as possible. And that goes for HDR just as much as SDR. Our income, careers, and reputations depend on it.

"unless you are shooting professionally." That's what I meant. Professionals should use all the tools at their disposal as I would expect them to know how and when to use them.

I guess I just don't understand what your point is. It sounds like you are saying professionals can shoot sloppy and then fix it in post because they are professionals and therefore must have the tools that allow them to work that way. But I hope that is not what you mean, because that is not at all the purpose of LOG or RAW.

There are basically two workflows someone can choose, and it has nothing at all to do with being an amateur or a professional:

1) Grade in-camera by choosing certain paint menu settings, white balance settings, and exposure settings that will provide a nearly final image at the time of shooting. I call this WYSIWYG shooting.

2) Shoot with LOG or RAW settings in-camera to capture the maximum dynamic range and leave as much leeway as possible for determining the final look in post.

Both of those workflows are perfectly valid and capable of producing excellent results. But both of them, even #2, require precision and attention to detail at the time of shooting. Neither one is more professional than the other or better suited for shooting sloppily and fixing it in post. In other words, everyone needs to get things as close to "right" in-camera.