Who all is sick of HDR?

[firemedic0135]

I have to agree with Woodsac.There are so many styles of photography that it is natural that not everyone will enjoy all aspects, or see them favorably.While you think that they (HDR) should Only be used when you cannot capture the full dynamic range you desire I disagree. I , Like woodsac think that it is the artist's vision and desire that dictates the final image.:thumbup:
I think the largest reason for all the HDR images being posted is due to other photogs seeing the results from artist's like woodsac and wanting to create an image that is as beautifull or more beautifull than the others they have seen.

 

[woodsac]

First, thanks for the kind words from everyone.

I think I see what you're saying now. It's not just the HDR...it's the total overuse of HDR. I was really reluctant to do any HDR's at first. Simply because of all the negative feedback on the net.

But I was determined to incorporate an artistic workflow into my HDR's, without looking like every other HDR out there. I'll be honest, it's a lot of work. I spend more time adjusting colors with HDR than any other type of shots. It's hard to find a good balance between saturation and contrast.

I do see tons of photos that don't need HDR. Simply adjusting the shadows or having a better understanding of some of PS's features would be a better alternative.

I basically feel the same way about the Liquify tool. It was so overdone when it first introduced. But then you've got guys like Kent here ^^^ that make it tasteful art. Love the new avatar Kent

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I believe HDR is a digital alternative process.

I don't usually do HDR's for light balance, but I do HDR's to achieve that effect that some of you think is 'too much'.

There is no other way that I would have been able to make this besides HDR:

I used HDR as a tool to create my creative vision. I don't' care if people agree with it or not, but i'm still going to use it.


Photographers use HDR's often to portray unrealistic interpretations of their views and there are people like yourself that simply do not agree with it. That's fine. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. (at least in the US.)

 

[Funky]

are you kidding me? who cares what post processing people use? people dont have a right to bash HDR because its just as valid as using photoshop to edit a picture. HDR is like SELECTIVE COLORING, HUGE for a while (selecive coloring=80's) and will probably be phased out of mainstream photography, but in all honesty let it have its day. people like pictures because it envokes an emotion in them, and if that means having the sky and ground both properly exposed, or a city lit to the point where it looks cartoony, who are you to tell them its not ok?. i guess i just dont get why you would creat a post like this, its ultimatly pointless because people all have their own oppinions, your not deturing anyone by saying you dont like it.

 

[gmarquez]

way too many of the pics on here are now HDR. I just don't see why?

I agree. And what's with this "color" photography? What's wrong with plain old Black and White? I mean come on, way too many of the pics on here are now color. I just don't see why? I love the look on some pics, and color has its place, but I think people are kind of ruining the effect by using it on so many images. Color should be used in tricky situations when you can't reveal everything in detail because of similar tone, but that is IT. Does anyone agree with me?

:mrgreen:

(Sorry, it was just screaming for a re-write)

You could just as easily substitute "digital post processing" (aka Photoshopping) in there and get the same results. And some people would agree with you.

To me HDR should be like make-up ... just enough to enhance .... but not enough to distract. Photography is communications.

I disagree (somewhat)...photos can also be art. And art doesn't have to be good. Yes, there are some HDR photos that are garish otherworldly displays not seen since the days of the solarization pluggin's heyday (ok, I made that last part up), but that doesn't mean that there is no place in the world for them.

Some people like Andy Warhol's soup cans print...some think it's just garish rubbish.

Or is this just another photo-as-documentation vs. photo-as-art debate?

 

[Funky]

I agree. And what's with this "color" photography? What's wrong with plain old Black and White? I mean come on, way too many of the pics on here are now color. I just don't see why? I love the look on some pics, and color has its place, but I think people are kind of ruining the effect by using it on so many images. Color should be used in tricky situations when you can't reveal everything in detail because of similar tone, but that is IT. Does anyone agree with me?

:mrgreen:

(Sorry, it was just screaming for a re-write)

lmao!that post made my day, i think gmarquez said it perfectly. thank you :cheers:

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I dont understand the idea of HDR that doesn't look like HDR... if you make an HDR correctly its going to look like HDR simply because a normal camera sensor wont record that much dynamic range. Take away that extra range to make it look like less HDR, and you've got a plain image.

woodsac, I love image number 4. the picture with the bike is a little too much for me, but they are all nice works.

Switch, what did you do to create that image? Im guessing HDR off of one raw image? simply because subject movement would make multiple exposures difficult.

 

[Funky]

once again, someone has it right, HDR is infact as valid as everything else. even when done "wrong"

 

[William]

I appreciate all the feedback and opinions.

I think what I originally said is being misconstrued. Everyone has a right to do whatever they want in the editing process. But in some cases, I don't see the point of an HDR.

Relating colour to HDR is ridiculous. Are you such a revolutionary because from now on HDR is here to stay. Everyone is going to start doing every image in HDR.....Well I guess your right, or maybe your not. Thats another topic.

Sw1tchFX: You did HDR there to get such great textures and to achieve the full dynamic range, right? That is the effect, right? This is what I'm saying, use it for the effect of a large (high) dynamic range, throughout the frame. I guess that is an effect in itself?

The EFFECT of HDR, is a dynamic range that would allow for more detail and so you can "see" a larger portion of the frame. So I guess the conclusion is, using HDR for 'effect' and using it for an 'HDR' is the same.

 

[gmarquez]

Well I guess your right, or maybe your not

Heh heh, old Jedi mind trick...these aren't the droids you are looking for.

 

[William]

. people like pictures because it envokes an emotion in them, and if that means having the sky and ground both properly exposed, or a city lit to the point where it looks cartoony, who are you to tell them its not ok?.

Properly exposed? That is what an HDR is.. that is when it is needed. Did you even read the posts above this?

Maybe I'll just add "HDR= ewwwwww" to my sig. and be done with it.

 

[Funky]

did you look over the second part of that sentance? they were meant to compliment each other. you took one part of and focused on it. and it would make me smile if you added "HRD=eww" to your sig, you know what they say, imatation is the greatest form of flattery

 

[bytch_mynickname]

HDR has its place and time and whenever the photographer says it is the place and time, then that is how it should be. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean that there aren't people who love it. If you see a shot you don't like, move on.

I also wanted to say that I love Woodsac's work and log on everyday just to see if he posted any new HDRs :heart: I only pray to someday be able to make a picture be so awesome. I would love to know what the workflow is :hint hint:

 

[Seefutlung]

I disagree (somewhat)...photos can also be art. And art doesn't have to be good. Yes, there are some HDR photos that are garish otherworldly displays not seen since the days of the solarization pluggin's heyday (ok, I made that last part up), but that doesn't mean that there is no place in the world for them.

Some people like Andy Warhol's soup cans print...some think it's just garish rubbish.

Or is this just another photo-as-documentation vs. photo-as-art debate?

*Sign* ... we are speaking in general terms. There are always the exceptions. If we start arguing the exception then all you will have is a forum full of those who wish to argue. The OT was a generality and my answer was in the same genre.

Photography is communications ... there are many types/forms of communications one of which is art.

Once again, I am not arguing that it isn't Kosher to use photography and HDR as an art form. It is my opinion that those photographers who use HDR as an enhancement to documentary photography should do so in a manner which does not detract from the principle image.

Gary

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Switch, what did you do to create that image? Im guessing HDR off of one raw image? simply because subject movement would make multiple exposures difficult.

Nope, that was 3 exposures 2EV apart. One RAW couldn't do it.

Sw1tchFX: You did HDR there to get such great textures and to achieve the full dynamic range, right? That is the effect, right? This is what I'm saying, use it for the effect of a large (high) dynamic range, throughout the frame. I guess that is an effect in itself?

The EFFECT of HDR, is a dynamic range that would allow for more detail and so you can "see" a larger portion of the frame. So I guess the conclusion is, using HDR for 'effect' and using it for an 'HDR' is the same.

Right, but it's still completely over the top.