HDR is overused?

[|)\/8]

There can be a fine line between photography and digital art. In many cases a photograph is used for the base of what becomes digital art. Even before digital photography photographs were manipulated, overlaid, and combined in darkrooms. I think that there are a lot of people creating HDRs (attempting) that do not have a good idea of when this technique should be used. Then again I have seen many awesome HDRs.

 

[Lacey Anne]

Eh, I think cameras are overused.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I think this issue will become increasingly important as camera sensors increase in dynamic range. I have no doubt in my mind that eventually, sensors will have a dynamic range equal to or beyond the human eye - creating "HDR" shots right out of the camera. I don't think this is a bad thing, because I'm sure it will be look much more natural than the faked and stitched HDR images we see now. It just has to look more natural, because that's how our eyes see the world.


This is a prediction that I am making now: Once these super sensors become available and popular, a new feature will appear on cameras allowing you to put an upper and lower limit on the dynamic range(Will probably be a colour space option or something). This would allow you to emulate the "limited" ranges of film or current DSLRs. I'd bet all the money in my bank on that one.

Yup, I agree.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I don't think HDR is overused.


I just think that you're seeing alot of bad HDR's.

HDR is still an immature process that hasn't been tweaked enough yet. HDR opens up a world of creative possibilities that were otherwise impossible. Does it need to be used for everything? No. There are alot of circumstances where HDR would be the last thing the shooter should be considering.

I enjoy well executed HDR's, I loath poorly constructed ones.

Its' all a matter of personal opinion.

 

[DigiJay]

I think HDR is to Electric Keyboard as Single shot is to Piano..
They are both similar, but completely different. I consider an HDR to be an art in it's own sense.

 

[D-50]

Simpy running three exposures through photomatix and saying your done is not enough. creating a HDR photo takes a decent amuont of skill and knowledge with editing programs. Many people create fake looking HDRs that at first glance look wild and interesting but quickly become boring. Its the skill of balancing reality and sureality when using HDR editing that will create a photo that is great. HDR is not overdone, Porr HDRs are overdone but thats how people learn.

 

[deudeu]

So far 98% of the HDR i have seen looks like those old black and white movies that have been coloured recently. I don't really care for it, but if people get a kick out of it, good for them.
The 2% that I did like made me want to try it out though. It might happen one day, but right now, I feel like there is a lot of stuff I need to learn before i start messing around with this kind of post processing.

 

[Speedy]

HDR is fascinating to me. I have a set of pictures I'm going to run though the HDR process and see what becomes of it, just because I can. However, most of mine will probably never see the light of day. I'm one of those people who never edits their photos except to resize and watermark it. The one picture that I have doctored and published, while very vivid in colors, everybody has always thought that it was undoctored and looked real.

 

[CanonSnob]

Definitely over used! I'm happy to see others say this for once. I thought I was going to go crazy watching post after post of HDR images. I feel that it is a crutch that a lot of photographers use to make their photos more appealing rather than learning proper exposure technique.

And before the flaming starts... yes there are people who use it and make great images from it. But it seems the vast majority do not fall into that class. I laugh every time I see a well toned HDR image with absolutely no composition what so ever. And then come all the positive feedback... drives me up the wall.

 

[djacobox372]

I have nothing against dabbling with a little single exposure, but I notice now there are some photographers who use it exclusively, as opposed to HDR. It seems that due to the cool effect they give, anyone with a bit of exposure knowledge can be a great photographer.

I acknowledge that it does take skill to find a single exposure suitable subject and there is a difference between a good and a bad single exposures, but there is no doubt that it is easier to make a photo look good with single exposure than HDR, due to the cool effect it gives....

Is single exposure overused and how do you respect "single exposure-only" photographers in relation to "normal" ones?



My advice is to do your own photography and not to worry about what everybody else is doing... art is subjective. Your perspective may be opposite of another photographer and neither is wrong.

And seriously... how many bad exposures have you seen in your day? bad work comes in all shapes and forms.