Why the hostility to the "overcooked" images ?

[reaper7534]

I'm personally a fan of the slightly overdone look. I think it gives it great character along with a surreal look to it. If every photo is supposed to look the same way and supposed to follow the "rules", then they'd all look the same.

I think done either the " right way " or " wrong way " can make a boring photo look great.

 

[Dagwood56]

I don't do HDR, but I love looking at HDR images and I find that I often like the so called "over cooked" images better than the "right way" images. As you say, the over cooked ones often have a nice surreal quality to them and for me, that adds to its artistic value.

 

[sscarmack]

Because it hurts my eyes when it crosses that fine line.

The reason I don't do HDR, is simply because I do not like it. Makes sense right?

I think there are good HDR photos and then there are 99% of the other HDR photos.

One, its the god awful halos.
Two, its the god awful saturation boost.
Three, its the god awful zero highlights and zero shadows and everything is just pumped out.

Examples of BAD HDR (Of course this is just my opinion)
http://www.gadventures.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Beautiful-HDR-Photography1.jpg
http://cdn.picturecorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hdr-photos2.jpg
https://static.squarespace.com/stat...1271181560273/1000w/New tractor HDR final.jpg
http://anarchyjim.digitalanarchy.com/wp-content/uploads/hdr_hate.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7091/7278633770_d9e2847ee0_z.jpg
http://g3.img-dpreview.com/AFB07B4528284BAD9DBFB57BC79CAABF.jpg

Examples of GOOD HDR (Once again, just my opinion)
Wow, that was harder than I thought hahaha

 

[SCraig]

If you like it, that's your choice and nobody's business but your own. If I don't like it, that's my choice and nobody's business but my own.

Personally I outgrew cartoons when I was about 6 or so,

 

[photoguy99]

Local prejudices.

Every venue tends to converge on a set of stylistic choices that stand in for 'good'. TPF like sears-style portraits, oversaturated (but only a little) landscapes, and difficult to make but basically not very interesting pictures of animals.

Overcooked appears nowhere on the list, and is therefore Bad.

 

[reaper7534]

If you like it, that's your choice and nobody's business but your own. If I don't like it, that's my choice and nobody's business but my own.

Personally I outgrew cartoons when I was about 6 or so,

The first sentence of your post is perfectly acceptable and explains your stance, the second sentence is basically saying everyone who doesn't do HDR to some standard is a child.

 

[reaper7534]

Because it hurts my eyes when it crosses that fine line.

The reason I don't do HDR, is simply because I do not like it. Makes sense right?

I think there are good HDR photos and then there are 99% of the other HDR photos.

One, its the god awful halos.
Two, its the god awful saturation boost.
Three, its the god awful zero highlights and zero shadows and everything is just pumped out.

Examples of BAD HDR (Of course this is just my opinion)
http://www.gadventures.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Beautiful-HDR-Photography1.jpg
http://cdn.picturecorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hdr-photos2.jpg
https://static.squarespace.com/stat...1271181560273/1000w/New tractor HDR final.jpg
http://anarchyjim.digitalanarchy.com/wp-content/uploads/hdr_hate.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7091/7278633770_d9e2847ee0_z.jpg
http://g3.img-dpreview.com/AFB07B4528284BAD9DBFB57BC79CAABF.jpg

Examples of GOOD HDR (Once again, just my opinion)
Wow, that was harder than I thought hahaha

I will agree, those are a little overdone. I thought the ones from this post were good with the exception of the clouds being funky..

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/281645-construction-vehicles.html

 

[limr]

I'm personally a fan of the slightly overdone look. I think it gives it great character along with a surreal look to it. If every photo is supposed to look the same way and supposed to follow the "rules", then they'd all look the same.

I agree with this part of your post completely. Intellectually, I am glad that HDR exists because it gives people a creative outlet that satisfies them. Some people really like it, and so you get enjoyment from seeing these shots. Boundaries should be pushed. Variety and creativity is good.

Aesthetically? I hate HDR. I hate it like poison.

Just because I feel there should be variety doesn't mean I have to like what people come up with

 

[molested_cow]

I used to over cook my images when I was learning about HDR, but after a while, it got old. Here are some reasons I can come up with:

1. It's really predictable, and predictability gets boring fast. HDR softwares often provides a certain style of processing, and most people will tend to stick to a preferred style. At first you may find the style interesting, but after a while, you realize it makes all of your images look the same. So why even try? You already know how it will turn out!

2. It's no longer challenging. A part of photography is its technicality. For example, to be able to over come difficult lighting conditions to bring the most out of a shot. HDR kinda takes that away. I remembered thinking "heck, I'm just gonna take 9 exposures and it's gonna be fine". Back then, my unhealthy assumption was because of HDR softwares. It's like a cure for all badly taken images. Now I still take multiple exposures when I come across a tricky lighting condition, but I no longer rely on HDR softwares to get what I want. I compose them manually to make the decision on exactly how I want the final image to look. Often, it looks way more natural than what HDR softwares can give me.

3. HDR software makes my images more "noisy" than it should be. No need to explain this further.

4. I now have learned to embrace natural light more than before.

5. I use the D700 and already I am good with the dynamic range it gives me. I can't imagine how much more I can get out of a D610 or D800. So HDR software kinda becomes less meaningful.

I have more fun with panoramic photos than HDR now especially with landscape photos. No longer am I bound by my lens capability, or even the MP of my image sensor. It actually requires more photoshop skills to make a good pano image and of course, a lot more patience.

 

[Derrel]

I'm personally a fan of the slightly overdone look. I think it gives it great character along with a surreal look to it. If every photo is supposed to look the same way and supposed to follow the "rules", then they'd all look the same.

I think done either the " right way " or " wrong way " can make a boring photo look great.

THis overcooked HDR shot has far too much character: https://static.squarespace.com/stat...1271181560273/1000w/New tractor HDR final.jpg

In fact, it has so much character that it looks like crap. This is a boring photo. There's no way a simple technique can make a boring photo as you call it, "great", because photography doesn't work that way.

 

[Overread]

I'm personally a fan of the slightly overdone look. I think it gives it great character along with a surreal look to it. If every photo is supposed to look the same way and supposed to follow the "rules", then they'd all look the same.

I think done either the " right way " or " wrong way " can make a boring photo look great.

There are so many "rules" which are really conventions and theories of composition and exposure that you can never follow them all in the same photo. In fact you'll never follow them all - they are so varied and different that you can chop and change and work with them to be really differently creative.



As for the whole HDR thing its mostly a reaction to the fact that the overcooked look is what a LOT of beginners do the first time they do it. They get that far and never experiment further unless they are pushed toward it. So its seen as an entry level mistake or problem that needs to be fixed - ergo the photographer has to LEARN diversity within the method before settling upon the use of that method in itself.

Also some people just don't like it - a TINY number loath it and an even smaller number think that if they can stop people doing over-cooked photography won't degrade and be devalued or something like that.

 

[Braineack]

I like magic eye posters.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

 

[SCraig]

The first sentence of your post is perfectly acceptable and explains your stance, the second sentence is basically saying everyone who doesn't do HDR to some standard is a child.

No, it says that I personally view overcooked HDR as cartoonish. Once again, my choice and nobody's business but my own.

 

[reaper7534]

I'm personally a fan of the slightly overdone look. I think it gives it great character along with a surreal look to it. If every photo is supposed to look the same way and supposed to follow the "rules", then they'd all look the same.

I think done either the " right way " or " wrong way " can make a boring photo look great.

THis overcooked HDR shot has far too much character: https://static.squarespace.com/stat...1271181560273/1000w/New tractor HDR final.jpg

In fact, it has so much character that it looks like crap. This is a boring photo. There's no way a simple technique can make a boring photo as you call it, "great", because photography doesn't work that way.

Derrel,

If you look at my post above, I " agreed " that in those instances, they are indeed overdone, even referring to that exact picture.

 

[Derrel]

You also stated that HDR done either "right" or "wrong" can, and I quote, "make a boring photo look great."

Oh, but if that were actually true, that slapping an HDR process onto a boring shot would make said boring shot, "great".

I'm not actually hostile toward HDR images. I just think that 90% of them look clownish, but hey, whatever people want to do. "There is no accounting for taste" is an old, old saying goes back to ancient times. If people like HDR, then that's cool.