Why the hostility to the "overcooked" images ?

[nzmacro]

I think this looks fantastic....granted I don't have the eye that some of you do, but this is very pleasing to me. To me, this photo is initially boring.....nothing different than everything else out there, after HDR, outstanding.

where did all that orange on the water come from?

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

Reflection from the sun, orange building behind him, artificial ? Who knows, only the photographer does. Regardless, does it take a way from he picture. If people want to argue why a picture has this and that, we should all just remove Adobe from our computers and shoot JPEG.

Edit: It's obvious when I look at it, he bumped up the orange to bring out the rooftops which brought the orange in the water out. Does that make it bad ?

Yes, the orange makes it look bad.

to each their own I suppose, I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.

To each their own for sure, but what you just said there .....

I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.

is that you don't actually want it to look the way it did at all, you don't want it to look real, you want it to look fake. Or am I missing something with HDR.

Danny.

 

[scotts2014se]

To each their own for sure, but what you just said there .....

I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.

is that you don't actually want it to look the way it did at all, you don't want it to look real, you want it to look fake. Or am I missing something with HDR.

Danny.

That same argument could be used for B&W photos.

 

[robbins.photo]

To each their own for sure, but what you just said there .....

I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.

is that you don't actually want it to look the way it did at all, you don't want it to look real, you want it to look fake. Or am I missing something with HDR.

Danny.

That same argument could be used for B&W photos.

Only if you want to start a holy war.. lol

 

[nzmacro]

To each their own for sure, but what you just said there .....

I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.

is that you don't actually want it to look the way it did at all, you don't want it to look real, you want it to look fake. Or am I missing something with HDR.

Danny.

That same argument could be used for B&W photos.

Or colour, or HDR, or slide vs digital, or Canon vs Nikon colours, lightroom vs Corel, etc, etc. Its never ending, but I do have a fair idea of what my eyes see as real. Otherwise I just go nuts and cheat like crazy anyway http://www.birdsinaction.com/index.php/Reality-meets-fantasy

All the best.

Danny.

 

[fokker]

I've always used HDR to what, I feel, is good effect without the cartoonish look. Examples: (feel free to tear them apart if that's your thing)

 

[Life]

Someone teach me how to edit photos like that lol.

 

[The Barbarian]

Point is that HDR is a very flexible tool that can do all sorts of things for you. It can merely increase dynamic range to the point that everything you want visible in your image is visible (these are the ones that critics say "don't really need HDR" or "it doesn't even look like an HDR.") Or you can use it to point up something gaudy, in which case, it's "overcooked."

Use it when it helps you get the image you want.
Doesn't even look like HDR:



Halfway or so:


Overcooked:


Not everyone is going to like everything. If you want to do better photographs, work to please yourself, and be relentlessly critical with yourself about how well you do that.

 

[Tailgunner]

HDR has it's uses. Example is photographing an object with an overly bright background. This tends to darken up the object and foreground. I generally don't use flash and even if I did, it probably wouldn't be strong enough for a landscape scene. So I use HDR to help capture more dynamic range. I have also had good look with free hand HDR imaging in areas that doesn't allow tripods.

 

[Vince.1551]

Personal preferences I supposed or crowd programming. As much as people who don't feel a need to follow general photography standards and techniques but follow other standards.

 

[The Barbarian]

What are 'general photography standards and techniques?'

No rule in photography, including this one, is universally applicable.

 

[Vince.1551]

What are 'general photography standards and techniques?' No rule in photography, including this one, is universally applicable.

If you can critique a good image from a bad image you are following some preconceived standards and rules.

 

[The Barbarian]

I often wondered how many images are in magazines that are HDR'd?

I'm guess a LOT, why? I dunno....

Because, if you have decent control of the process, you can set the dynamic range where you want it to be. Same reason Ansel Adams used the zone system. (for which he was reviled by many "real photographers" who objected to the "unnecessary" and "cultish" processing of the zone system)

 

[manaheim]

 

[molested_cow]

I now only do manual HDRs. I have never used light room before. Can it do layers?

 

[Vince.1551]

Because, if you have decent control of the process, you can set the dynamic range where you want it to be. Same reason Ansel Adams used the zone system. (for which he was reviled by many "real photographers" who objected to the "unnecessary" and "cultish" processing of the zone system)

Isn't this some standard?