Why the hostility to the "overcooked" images ?

[Derrel]

Points taken and they make great sense from a technical point of view and you may be right, let me hang it up for a couple of months and I may hate it, but initially it is pleasing to me. What is the opinion on the tone mapped hdr directly to he left of the processed one ?

Looks flat and dull. The tone-mapped HDR shot to the left of the processed one suffers from the aforementioned, "Light from nowhere" syndrome in a very significant way. This scene was captured on a day with strong side-lighting, but the shadows are so bright that hundreds of thousands of years' worth of human brain evolution screams, "FAKE!" The front of the building is in full sunlight, but the left side of the building is about 3/4 of a stop dimmer....which looks utterly,totally IMPOSSIBLE to "see" in the real world. The shadowed side of the building is far too light...we can literally SEE strong, sidelighting on the front of the building, and yet...the entire side of the building that ought to be in shadow, because of a blue sky and DIRECT sunlight, looks....faked...off...impossibly too bright...implausibly bright...

"The light from nowhere syndrome," is the main issue when we take hundreds of thousands of years of human perception and human brain development, and start re-inventing the rules of how light behaves.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

Not a fan of HDR.........just a toy to play with.

 

[Trainwizard]

I absolutely love using HDR. It is just my thing. I love surreal photography, as it is candy to the eyes for me. The photo of the Golden Gate Bridge linked in one of the "BAD" photos is one of my new favorites in this forum. To each their own, I'm just an HDR lover, while others may not like the overcooked look.

Here's an "overcooked" HDR I took. If it makes your eyes bleed, tough beans!

 

[sscarmack]

Exactly, you like it. I don't. I think it looks like crap. Who cares? I don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

What Robbins said ^^^ I agree with him. Not hostile, just not my preference, just like milky water. Can't have milk. I am allergic to it. Does this make me bad?

lets see... you don't like milk. zombies don't like milk. hmmm..

purely coincidental I'm sure...lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[agp]

I don't like overdone images. I think overdone ones are too cartoonish.

I think the best ones are borderline HDR and single exposure. Similar by comparison, passionate driving is the most fun to me at the point right before I lose control of I rear tires.

 

[nzmacro]

I know very little about HDR, but I do know what my eyes see. Personally most I've seen don't look real, nothing like a photograph. That's the issue I have with it. Nope, not all is like that at all, but the majority seems to be. I remember when it first became popular and I agree with Scott, a lot seem to mimic cartoons for some reason. It is an outlet and fair enough, its amazing what it can do, just not for me is all.

All the best and just a personal opinion and of course, each to their own. We all like and take different things.

Danny.

 

[sscarmack]

What's funny to me is "good" examples of HDR can be done with a single RAW exposure 99% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[photoguy99]

Photographs don't look real except by social convention.

 

[Derrel]

Photographs don't look real except by social convention.

And by mimicking the things the eye sees...like you know...shadows....light...the direction the light emanates from, highlights...colors, hues, shades, and tonal or color relationships between the sky and other objects in the scene...you know, stuff like that. There's a whole field called visual perception.

 

[photoguy99]

And don't forget color!

 

[jake337]

One of my favorite HDR panoramas but most people probably would say "That doesn't look like "HDR"!"

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cemusakligil/6902298787/


"HDR" or exposure/aperture/ISO bracketing is a tool to be used as each individual artist sees fit. I like the when it isn't overdone but to each their own.

 

[Derrel]

I remember back in 2005, when the Shadow/Highlight tool hit the market. Oh man! I found that if I applied really extreme shadow/highlight adjustment, I could get something that looked like these images did. At the time, this was way before Photomatix hit the scene, and wayyy before the HDR craze swept the hobby photo world.

I thought this image above looked simply incredible.

And I also thought this shot below looked incredible. It was a brand-new way of processing images, made possible by a NEW software tool, used to an extreme degree.

 

[SDB777]

I often wondered how many images are in magazines that are HDR'd?

I'm guess a LOT, why? I dunno....


HDR is just another 'tool', sort of like those images where photo's of people have their eye's whitened(removing blood-shot streaks), or perhaps removing a 'zit' from a persons cheek. Or another way of putting it....I like them. I certainly wouldn't bash someone for "cartoon looking photo's"....I just wouldn't look or comment.





Scott (sort of like saying you don't like clouds) B

 

[robbins.photo]

Yes, the orange makes it look bad.

to each their own I suppose, I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.

Well, yes, isn't that the point? So you like it, others don't. So what? This is not a matter than can be settled by going back and forth about, "Well, this is why it's crap," followed by, "Well, this is why it's great." Folks can throw up as many examples as they want of either good or bad, but I'm still going to hate it and you're still going to really like it.

These discussions are as overcooked as the pictures are.

Great. Marvelous. Do you have any idea how long it's going to take me to get all that shag carpet off the dash of the Eldorado?

Lol