My HDR Rant

Bynx, I didn't read further than his initial post and I was responding solely to that. I do agree with you about HDR vs. Tone Mapping however. I also really like the example pic you added.

As far as my own personal growth, you will rarely see me contribute to the "HDR is this or that" type threads because they do not serve me. How does asking the question contribute to my personal growth you ask? I get the impression that the OP has a lot to offer the community here in a more positive sense. If asking my questions challenges him/her to find those elements and offer them up, then we all benefit. Just my thoughts....
 
What I was getting at Over Exposed was the problems created when people dont just stay on topic. If there is nothing to contribute then just read and move on. Questioning why the existence of the thread at all, while it may not be interesting to you, might not be so to others. I hope I understand HDR enough that while Im not getting much out of this thread, Im hoping that those who dont understand HDR and tone mapping will pick something up and start producing better final images. Any correct info that gets passed on makes this a worthwhile thread. Im noticing more and more people who "brag" about producing HDR from a single jpeg image. They are the ones who should be paying close attention.
 
Overexposed, the 'rant' was originally written as sort of a tongue in cheek description of what I believed was an issue in contemporary photography, namely an entire genre of images that were often driven by the process, more so than the subject. I believed that there had become a sameness about many of the images presented in competitions and in forums like this; and the common element was grunge processing.

However, the essence of my discomfort was that grunge had become synonymous with HDR in the eyes of many who were new to the subject, and I thought there was a problem with that. When I heard people commenting on so-so images that 'maybe it would look better as an HDR," it recalled similar comments relating to simply desaturating images and presenting them in 'black and white.' I view techniques such as these as art forms of their own and not as fixes for mediocre photography.

Far be it for me to judge what is art and what is not, but I've seen numerous portfolios which consist of badly tone mapped images in the guise of HDR; and while I don't want to take anyone's toys away, I felt at the time I wrote about it that grunge images had, for many, become simply just another filter to be applied in Photoshop, or in this case Photomatix.

But please remember, it was not grunge that had me most alarmed, it was how it has become interchangeable with HDR in the minds of many people.
 
Why do people care so much about labels. Its all about the final pic, and there is no right or wrong way to get there. All you can hope for is your processing skills allow you to achieve your vision for the photos you take. Not everyone is going to agree on what is quality
 
Myshkin, labels are important so that people understand what others are talking about. HDR is one thing, grunge is another.

You're right, achieving your vision is most important. My only concern is that sometimes, technique is used as an end unto itself, rather than in service to a vision for a particular image.
 
labels are useful for reference but people get caught up in labeling and categorizing everything. People begin to judge based on the category and process instead of just looking at the image and deciding how it impacts them.
 
I don't do that. The image is the thing. I've seen some grunge images I really like, but a lot more that I don't. Tone mapping to achieve a look that complements the image is great, but tone mapping that doesn't work is not unlike a badly exposed image, in my opinion.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top