A serious lack of originality

[Bravotwofive]

Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me.

Cutting negatives is not the same as getting a few auto bracketed pics and plugging them into automatic software like photomatix.

For the most part, it's a cheesy fad.

We used to plow the field with beast of burden. Now we use modern machinery. Does that mean it is not farming any more, or are tractors just a cheesy fad?

I am not trying to be rude here, but there are many people that like this work, and honestly it is somewhat advanced of what a newbie with a PS would produce normally. I think it represents uncommon results in an on going effort to grow.

 

[patrickt]

When I was in college, 1959, I took an art class. The professor mentioned frequently that he painted with acrylic on rice paper. One day I asked why. He said, "No one else is doing that. It will make me famous." Well, if I gave you his name, I guarantee you never heard of him.

Having a unique and obvious style, or gimmick, is nothing. Mastering the craft is all. Keep working and you might develop a subtle, here it comes, "style" that people recognize and appreciate.

I went to an exhibit and the photographer did nothing but IR photos. One for effect can be interesting. A room full is ridiculous. The same goes for HDR or a current fad where I live of blurry pictures with obvious camera movement.

I love Hitchcock movies. I think he has a style I enjoy. His being in every movie isn't a style though. It's a gimmick. It's a gimmick I, and others, enjoy but it is still a gimmick.

 

[Bravotwofive]

Thinking that originallity will make you famous is a bit narcissistic.

"Mastering the Craft" is a journey, and not a final destination. This would presume that there is finite goal to achieve, and once there you can go no further.

Were Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs a gimmick? What about Henry Ford?
Is signing a work of art a gimmick? It can be if you believe that your signature will somehow make the work more important.

Gimmick is a word we use when we don't buy into something. If that "gimmick" becomes a huge success we call it innovation.

I use a beam of light as a paint brush. does that make it a gimmick, or an artist choice of tools?

 

[PhotoXopher]

Who cares.

Get out and shoot, however you feel is the best for you and what makes you smile at the end of the day.

Whether that's with an iPhone, a Kodak Disc, Canon or Nikon, film, digital, whatever... and any post processing or lack of YOU desire.

Sorry you hate to see it, but why bother trying to pursuade people to do what you think they should do? It's photography - an art, profession, hobby and just pure enjoyment for most people here in some form or combination - let it go. They'll discover themselves soon enough, don't worry.

 

[MBasile]

Ya know, Holgas are an accepted style of photography, yet the quality is lightyears from Hasselblads. Photography is an art, and the quality lies in the mind of the creator AND the viewer, therefore no one piece of art is definitively better than another piece.

 

[BTilson]

This sort of attitude really bugs me. You say you refuse to shoot HDR because so many other people are doing it. That is simply short minded and petty. I've always been big in the local music scene, and it's always pained me to no end to hear scene kids prattle on about how band X suck because "they sold out" or "everybody else listens to them" when in fact they haven't even given that band a shot. It's just a childish and rather pathetic attitude.

 

[Sleepy_Sentry]

I am a beginning photographer and have to agree with the original poster. HDR is simply out of this world when done properly, but it's overdone.

I took a black and white course at my high school and feel like it was a much better way to start photography. Whether I had the intention to or not, my professor told me that I took a subtle approach to all my photos. This may be my style or it might not, but I'd much rather carve my own niche than copy cheap effects from Photoshop tutorial sites.

 

[Bravotwofive]

snipped for bandwith
... This may be my style or it might not, but I'd much rather carve my own niche than copy cheap effects from Photoshop tutorial sites.

Whoa, lets be clear here. This is something that was done as far back as the 30's on film. This is not just a "cheap effect from Photoshop". My guess is that if you had to drive a model A Ford you would have a renewed appreciation for your modern vehicle.

If the photographers from the day had our modern tools, how much better would they be?

 

[manaheim]

Let's see what other things I've heard called "silly fads"...

- Microwave ovens
- The Internet
- Blue jeans
- Autofocus cameras
- Digital cameras
- Photoshop

In truth, all of these things are tools... but when they first "hit the scene" they tend to get used and overused... people try to see how much they can push the given technology or item because it's new and interesting and they want to see where it fits in. At some point in time or another, excitement around the item dies down and some of the more ancillary or extreme applications die off.

For example... when the microwave came out, my Mom tried to make everything from hot dogs to cakes in the stupid thing. Nowadays most folks know that making a cake in a microwave is generally a disaster, but boy does that sucker cook vegetables!

Right now people are going gaga making all kinds of wonky images with HDR (and/or tone mapping)... (and what really cracks me up is when people make HDRs when there's no reason to) but there are actually some REASONABLE applications for this method.

For example...

(ignore the sensor dust, I keep forgetting to fix that )

There's absolutely nothing wonky about that image except that it would have been technically impossible to capture the blue sky in the windows and still be able to see the interior... other than that, it looks almost completely as you would expect to see it if you were standing there.

As time goes by, I expect more people will use HDR/tone-mapping for this kind of application and the funky crazy stuff will become more of a side thing that people do more occasionally like they do with IR today.

Whatever the case, I think your sitting there and saying that [para] "everyone should explore and find their own way", and then dictating what ways are unacceptable is pretty silly. Maybe someone's style is all HDR all the time... who are you to say that's wrong?

 

[Sachphotography]

Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me.

Cutting negatives is not the same as getting a few auto bracketed pics and plugging them into automatic software like photomatix.

For the most part, it's a cheesy fad.

It is a fad. People can do a things a lot easier now than they did in the 50's Film took skill. Whe people did things, if the messed up they would have to re-shoot.
Now just CTRL-Z and your good. The HDR that 80% of the people create is crap. The shoot scenes that have no need of an HDR shoot. The final products turn out into an oversaturated out of focus looking piece of crap. If you want to say that HDR is your style then fine. DO IT RIGHT. I developed my own style to represent my artistic look. I label it Ethereal because I enjoy making pictures with a dream like wispy soft feel. People only do HDR because it is the COOL thing to do not because it is their style.

And HDR is a new thing. They have not been doing it since the 30's

 

[manaheim]

^^^ Frankly, I think you should strip "The Pact" out of your signature or you should rethink your approach... not just in this post, but in this forum as a whole.

In that post you basically just said that anyone doing an HDR doesn't have any skill and are generating crap.

Did you even read my post? Or are you just here to insult people?

 

[Chris Stegner]

Seems to me some are acting "Holier Than Thou". Comments about what others are doing that you disagree with? Why? I understand you wanting to inspire... but this seems to be an odd way of doing that.

As for the Photoshop comment someone made... You'd be hard pressed to not use PS (or software in general). Don't freak out everyone... I know we could all shoot film, but face facts. I understand the "basics" of many photographic processes. I've shot film, processed film & E-6, print B&W and color. Done all sorts of photographic processes, right now in my life I'm choosing to use Photoshop in my process. Yes there are aguements in both directions, but I'd dare say I'm a better photographer (digital) because of Photoshop. Let's not get into the "Get the shot in the camera" arguement because again I'd bet very few "Get the shot" each and every time.

WOW... didn't think I was going to go off like that. I just think if your happy with what you're doign with you photography... share it with others, even share your knowledge with others. Don't spend your time expressing how bad others are.

 

[Bravotwofive]

And HDR is a new thing. They have not been doing it since the 30's

Oh Ok....
High dynamic range imaging was originally developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Charles Wyckoff. Wyckoff's detailed pictures of nuclear explosions appeared on the cover of Life magazine in the mid 1940s. The process of tone mapping together with bracketed exposures of normal digital images, giving the end result a high, often exaggerated dynamic range, was first reported in 1988 by Zeevi, Ginosar and Hilsenrath.[1] Later introduction in 1993[2] resulted in a mathematical theory of differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter that was published in 1995 by Steve Mann and Rosalind Picard.[3] In 1997 this technique of combining several differently exposed images to produce a single HDR image was presented to the computer graphics community by Paul Debevec.

 

[MBasile]

Let's see what other things I've heard called "silly fads"...

- Microwave ovens
- The Internet
- Blue jeans
- Autofocus cameras
- Digital cameras
- Photoshop

In truth, all of these things are tools... but when they first "hit the scene" they tend to get used and overused... people try to see how much they can push the given technology or item because it's new and interesting and they want to see where it fits in. At some point in time or another, excitement around the item dies down and some of the more ancillary or extreme applications die off.

For example... when the microwave came out, my Mom tried to make everything from hot dogs to cakes in the stupid thing. Nowadays most folks know that making a cake in a microwave is generally a disaster, but boy does that sucker cook vegetables!

Right now people are going gaga making all kinds of wonky images with HDR (and/or tone mapping)... (and what really cracks me up is when people make HDRs when there's no reason to) but there are actually some REASONABLE applications for this method.

For example...

(ignore the sensor dust, I keep forgetting to fix that )

There's absolutely nothing wonky about that image except that it would have been technically impossible to capture the blue sky in the windows and still be able to see the interior... other than that, it looks almost completely as you would expect to see it if you were standing there.

As time goes by, I expect more people will use HDR/tone-mapping for this kind of application and the funky crazy stuff will become more of a side thing that people do more occasionally like they do with IR today.

Whatever the case, I think your sitting there and saying that [para] "everyone should explore and find their own way", and then dictating what ways are unacceptable is pretty silly. Maybe someone's style is all HDR all the time... who are you to say that's wrong?

Great example of the proper application of HDRI.

An 8-bit image can only capture .05% of the dynamic range that the human eye can, HDR gives us a step towards capturing what is seen. Yes, proper skill can increase the efficiency of that 8-bit image, but it still has it's limitations.

 

[MBasile]

Anyone have August's issue of Popular Photography? If so, I suggest checking out page 62, where they discuss two new P&S's on the market that (waaaaaaait for it... waaaaaaaaaaait for it) DO HDR IMAGING!

Both the Fujifilm F200EXP and the Ricoh CX1 produce, although not top quality, HDR shots by capturing two images and combining them into one shot automatically.

Also briefly mentioned is the Pentax K-7 as just coming onto the market with similar technology.

The short article doesn't go into how the Pentax technology works (both P&S's capture two frames and merge them), but the Sony Alphas have had a "Dynamic Range Optimization" feature since the A100. (EDIT: This review goes into the K-7's HDR function).

Here's part of the article (I couldn't find it online, so I'm just typing it)

Doesn't Pop Photo have, um, issues with HDR?
It's just that we see too many images taken to the Fakey McPhake level. When done subtly, HDR looks like a finely gradated but natural photo.

CN:Someone should tell Fujifilm, Ricoh, and Pentax that HDR is just a fad.