is HDR "real" photography (Discuss)

[er111a]

what are you thoughts?

 

[JeffieLove]

there is some pretty heavy PP to do with it, but you still ahve to compose the shot, make it pleasing to the eye, and it still tells a story in most situations...

The only thing that differs from HDR and "regular" photography is the amount of PP that is done...

 

[PhotoXopher]

Is B&W conversion real photography?
Is cropping real photography?
Is selective coloring real photography?

Why is HDR such a hard thing to understand? It's a form of processing a photograph to get the look the photographer was after.

 

[camz]

I know this has always been up for discussion but why is there always a need to define what photography and what not photography is? I think it is what it is and boxing and categorizing the arts doesn't make sense to me....but I'll bite :thumbup:

I personally think any work that is in need of a still camera is (if we must categorize) is still considered photography. Post processing is nothing but adding layers to the root of it that's all...it depends on how far you want to bring it.

 

[C-Towner]

HDR is as real as anything else here. I like it as a way to show a scene that would be impossible to expose all of it properly with one shot. Its a way to present a scene that can more closely resemble what your eye saw, prevent loss of detail in both highlights and shadows at the same time, and it can be a way to present a scene that is far beyond what you saw when you took the photo.

Its like saying adding a texture isnt real photography, or selective color, or any other photographic processing technique we have available to us. What is the point in shooting digital if you cant take full advantage of it?

 

[Live_free]

Photography is described as taking a picture. HDR photo is a picture. Thus yes.

 

[reznap]

I think the controversy makes me like it more. It looks cool (or 'appealing' or 'interesting') isn't that all this business/hobby is about?

 

[fokker]

HDR is as real as anything else here. I like it as a way to show a scene that would be impossible to expose all of it properly with one shot. Its a way to present a scene that can more closely resemble what your eye saw, prevent loss of detail in both highlights and shadows at the same time, and it can be a way to present a scene that is far beyond what you saw when you took the photo.

Its like saying adding a texture isnt real photography, or selective color, or any other photographic processing technique we have available to us. What is the point in shooting digital if you cant take full advantage of it?

Adding a texture isn't real photography :meh:

 

[er111a]

btw just was wondering what you all think, I think it is but someone told me they didnt think it was so just wondering

 

[adversus]

Photography: the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.

By the normal definition of photography, HDR is photography. Nearly all photography goes through some kind of processing, the level of which doesn't make it any less photography.

But that's just me

 

[pbelarge]

Photography is a form of art.
Photography has many different forms.
B&W, Sepia, HDR, Landsape, portrait, etc... are just some of the forms of photography.

Each artist sees/feels something different, sort of like the difference between impressionism and abstract art.

 

[rufus5150]

It's comping on a per-pixel level.

 

[Tiny]

Art is art and it dosent matter how you made it.

 

[Derrel]

Is white zinfandel a "real wine"? Many wine snobs would say no, it's not.

Is McDonalds a "real restaurant"? Many restauranteurs would say no, it's not.

Is The National Enquirer a "real newspaper"? Many newspaper editors would say no, it's not.

Is......you know....

 

[clbd39]

i love HDR photography when it's done "correctly"

Blown out and overcooked is cool when you're going for that look, but normally if you can hardly notice it, it's done properly in my opinion