HDR snobbery

[Antithesis]

I think HDR (specifically tone-mapping the crap out of an image until it has no shadows) is kind of like applying copious amount of gliitter to a turd in MOST situations. People use it to get oohs and ahhs from the untrained eyes of non-photographers. It's just played out because its too damn easy.

Used in the right circumstances however, it can be useful and allow you to embellish some interesting landscapes or whatever. I'm not entirely opposed to it, but when you end up with surreal, cartoony, played out junk... I am. HDR just allows some people to spend less time in the field, which is supposed to be the fun part of photography.

 

[iamacyborg]

I don't see it so much as snobbery as apathy, boredom and perhaps some dismay. Photography is almost 200 years old. There really isn't anything all that new. It's been done before, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. A lot of those accidents never really saw the light of day because they were not popular. Tastes change.

20 years ago you wouldn't see barbells in peoples eyes, ears, noses, tongues, nipples, belly button, and places I won't name. Now they are common place. Does that mean I want to see and marvel over all those barbells and other bits of body jewelry or find it fascinating or that I have too?

HDR is just another form of art. There are some that I have seen that I do like some I don't. My only complaint with it or any form of art that seems to capture the fascination of so many is if you like it great. But it doesn't mean that I have to as well.

I guess that means I don't have to worry about my wife getting me a gift certificate for nipple piercing for Christmas.

Just because you didn't hang out with the homosexual sailor crowd twenty years ago didn't mean piercing wasn't around.

PS nipple piercings are awesome, except when they rip out.

 

[5DManiac]

I think DSLR snobbery is worse. You shoot a DSLR? So what? Most people (not saying any of you guys) don't even know what they're doing or take digital for granted. They get all excited about gear and brag about how much they spent, yet they don't have a clue on basic composition. They end up selling all their gear off in a couple months cause they get bored with photography. But it's cool--that's where I come in and buy your used gear after you took a hit. hahaha

 

[Sachphotography]

I think that my main issue against it is that people who know nothing of photography jump into it and make a b_line for HDR. The same people I see posting their "supposedly" HDR work are in the beginner forums asking what ISO is or what Contrast means. They dont take the time to learn the basics and beginner stuff that is needed. They don't know what "Tone" means but they try an HDR shot which requires precise tone mapping. HDR is a FAD right now. And yes a type a HDR may have been shot a long time ago but this is different. When I see some one shot a shot outside in the sun light with very little shadows and HDR it.. I cant help but laugh. The very nature of HDR is expand the dynamic range that is not visible in a single shot. I do not shoot HDR because everybody and there mother is doing it. HDR is a fad and like all fads, when everybody is bored with it...it will fade away. The only people who will be left standing are those who did HDR right and made the images that took our breath away. My advise is this " if you do not know the difference between ISO 100 and 1000....you should not shoot HDR" "If you do not know the difference between F/2 and F/20 don't shot HDR" "If you do not know what Tone Contrast and Dynamic range means, DON'T SHOOT HDR!!!!"
Learn how to walk before you try to run.

 

[jbylake]

I agree with Epp as much as I agree with the OP.

However I don't think there is any need to be a snob about it or to be rude. There is a simple solution, don't post. The thread gets pushed to the bottom and no one is considered an HDR snob. Win-win.

Someone cares, or they wouldn't post, or have comments. Too many people let non-issues like this bug them.

If you like the subject, read..if not..move on..

J.:mrgreen:

 

[icassell]

Some people even like velvet paintings of Mr. Spock or Elvis ...

There's no accounting for taste. If someone wants C&C on an HDR, let's give honest C & C (poor technique, good compostion, etc. .... nothing wrong with saying you don't think the HDR added anything). I agree -- leave the rudeness at the door.

That said, I just bought Photomatix so I can play with it a bit. I also played with all sorts of filters when I first bought Photoshop. I had fun and, for me anyway, that's what this is all about.

 

[Randall Ellis]

There are always going to be new things happening in photography that people are going to like, and dislike.

There has been a heavy increase in over saturated and slightly over exposed images, many people like them and it appeals to them, while there are also a lot of people who like images that are extra dark, heavy shadows, etc...

There are people who photoshop and post process the hell out of their photos and get both positive and negative reviews.

There are people (even like myself) who shoot things out of focus with intention to form interesting compositions. I have met people who like the shots, and people who think they are crap.

So my question then, is why cant Overdone HDR be a new "style" ?


If that's what they want their images to look like, and it's what they're going for-- what's the harm?

I think that this technique is likely part of a style or movement, but not a style or movement in and of itself. Heavy manipulation of images is, to my eye, much like impressionism or fauvism in that it abstracts the subject greatly, but unlike those two movements it is not always implemented in a way that works to send a message to the viewer, at least as far as I can tell. Heavy saturation, heavy sharpening, or heavy use of any computerized tool for that matter falls into what I consider to be a reflection of the times in which we now live.

Styles of art, any art, tend to reflect societal trends, sentiments, or feelings, and in our technology-rich society, where speed is king and subtlety seems an outdated concept, strong visuals like those produced by the heavy use of these techniques reflect (I believe) our society. I often don't care for images created using these techniques because, to my eye, they only seem to send one message 'look what I can do!' (perhaps with even more exclamation points.) and I think that art should appear more about a message that about a method of it's creation, but that's just my opinion.

As others have already stated when these techniques are used on an image that appears to be intended remain 'realistic', again in my opinion, the results often appear contrived and meaningless because of the heavy application of technique, hence the 'look what I can do!' sentiment. The originators of these images often appear to have no regard for how others will see the image, focusing only on the technique rather than what they wish to say.

However, I do not consider myself a 'snob' when it comes to these techniques, for when they are used to create visions that do not exist in reality they seem to me to be wonderful uses of those tools. I've seen some amazing alterations that began life as a real world image and ended up as a view into a fantastic world of imagination, often times conveying strong messages or feelings.

For my part, I think that the reason much of the work done with these techniques gathers comments from 'snobs' is not so much because people don't like new ideas (the ideas are really far from new), rather because the application of that idea does not compliment the subject or the intended message...

- Randy

 

[icassell]

Let's make an analogy to music ...

There are many (successful) bands out there that have built their reputation on the use of electronic effects rather than art.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Since this is bumped to the top again I have to say I haven't seen this issue come up in a while.

 

[5DManiac]

Amen to that. B-line to multi-thousand dollar DSLRs and they haven't a clue what SLR stands for or how it works. ZOMG I NEED SPENSIVE KAMERUHS TO TAKE OUTSTANDING PHOTOES!

A skilled photographer using a disposable 35mm film cam can outgun a n00b using a 5D2 or D700

I think that my main issue against it is that people who know nothing of photography jump into it and make a b_line for HDR. The same people I see posting their "supposedly" HDR work are in the beginner forums asking what ISO is or what Contrast means. They dont take the time to learn the basics and beginner stuff that is needed. They don't know what "Tone" means but they try an HDR shot which requires precise tone mapping. HDR is a FAD right now. And yes a type a HDR may have been shot a long time ago but this is different. When I see some one shot a shot outside in the sun light with very little shadows and HDR it.. I cant help but laugh. The very nature of HDR is expand the dynamic range that is not visible in a single shot. I do not shoot HDR because everybody and there mother is doing it. HDR is a fad and like all fads, when everybody is bored with it...it will fade away. The only people who will be left standing are those who did HDR right and made the images that took our breath away. My advise is this " if you do not know the difference between ISO 100 and 1000....you should not shoot HDR" "If you do not know the difference between F/2 and F/20 don't shot HDR" "If you do not know what Tone Contrast and Dynamic range means, DON'T SHOOT HDR!!!!"
Learn how to walk before you try to run.

 

[shed301]

Anyone can come and take a hdr photo and consider themselves a expert. BUT it takes a lot of technical skill to make a good HDR photograph.
As it being a fad?.. i don't think so. sure everyone will get bored with it and it will die down a bit but won't completely die out, The technique has been around far to long for it to become extinct. It's like swine flu.. was big news at the start and now you only hear about occasionally. Its not dead and buried but it has been pushed back into everyday society now

My 2.5 cents worth.. ( i'm cheap )

cheers

 

[robertwsimpson]

Anyone can come and take a hdr photo and consider themselves a expert. BUT it takes a lot of technical skill to make a good HDR photograph.
As it being a fad?.. i don't think so. sure everyone will get bored with it and it will die down a bit but won't completely die out, The technique has been around far to long for it to become extinct. It's like swine flu.. was big news at the start and now you only hear about occasionally. Its not dead and buried but it has been pushed back into everyday society now

My 2.5 cents worth.. ( i'm cheap )

cheers

I'm sure some people are still wearing slap bracelets. Doesn't mean it wasn't a fad.

 

[epp_b]

Exactly. Fads, by definition, slow down to lesser use after an initial explosion of over-popularity.

 

[Chiller]

I still dont see why people get their sheeit in a knot over stuff like this. Everyone has their own visions, whether it is photography, music, painting or whatever. I have never understood why people get down on others for using the tools available to create whatever they wish.
That is what makes the world unique. We can create an endless ammount of art, with whatever is provided.
Personally I have only done 2 HDRs, but if there is something in my peanut that says...."hey, this might look cool in hdr", Im going to do it. It is my vision, and I will use the tools provided for me to get that vision to come alive.
Photography/art has come a long way, and this growing technology will grow more. Just enjoy it...cause we are only here for a short time.

 

[epp_b]

What bothers us is that HDR doesn't usually involve vision or imagination. What it usually involves is carelessly snapping three or five shots on a tripod and dropping an H-bomb on the pictures to make them look radioactive.