Why the hostility to the "overcooked" images ?

[molested_cow]

Impressionism and cubism were considered out casts by the traditional art community of their times. Marcel Duchamp's and pretty much most of modern design movements were reactions to the status quo of how the society perceived as "correctness", but most of them are now considered significant because they serve as a mirror and critic of our history in constructive ways.

HDR is a reaction to what traditional photography isn't via technology. Actually, it's possible to achieve HDR images in the darkroom, with lots of patience and skill. To me it's more like the argument of "original vs photoshopped" which is meaningless. We have the means and it does no harm to humanity for using it, so why not see it as a form of exploration and expression?

It's not like we live in N.Korea where people are "strongly encouraged" to like their supreme leader's hairstyle(and adopt it). No one is forcing you to like over-cooked HDR images.

 

[407370]

HDR / Tone mapping is just another tool. Some pics suit being processed to lesser and greater degrees. I dont discount any process when I decide what a pic needs to end up looking like.

I have a rule that I dont clone out anything from any picture. If there is a portable toilet in a forest landscape it stays in. People will agree or disagree with that principle but in the end I dont really care. The rules I apply to photography vary from universally accepted principles to deliberate photographic heresy. I really enjoy the freedom of photography so to hear " I dont like HDR...." just sounds like a closed mind.

 

[limr]

HDR / Tone mapping is just another tool. Some pics suit being processed to lesser and greater degrees. I dont discount any process when I decide what a pic needs to end up looking like.

I have a rule that I dont clone out anything from any picture. If there is a portable toilet in a forest landscape it stays in. People will agree or disagree with that principle but in the end I dont really care. The rules I apply to photography vary from universally accepted principles to deliberate photographic heresy. I really enjoy the freedom of photography so to hear " I dont like HDR...." just sounds like a closed mind.

Really? Someone who simply doesn't like the aesthetic has a closed mind?

 

[Browncoat]

Really? Someone who simply doesn't like the aesthetic has a closed mind?

Not sure how you gathered that from that post. Sounds more to me like they're saying just the opposite.

 

[manaheim]

Just replace HDR with screwdrivers.

"I dont like screwdrivers...." just sounds like a closed mind.

The point is that HDR is a tool. Not liking it universally is stilly. The tool can be used when the tool is needed.

The slightly more rational argument is "I don't like using a screwdriver as a hammer", though many will argue that works just fine.

 

[limr]

Okay, HDR is a tool, but people also use that term to refer to a picture. "Hey, is that HDR?" they say about a picture that is posted. So I get the point that saying I don't like the tool is silly because I have nothing against the tool. But I still don't like the images it produces because I don't like that aesthetic. If someone says they don't like HDR pictures, does that still seem like a closed mind to you, 407370?

 

[keyseddie]

I don't like that aesthetic. If someone says they don't like HDR pictures, does that still seem like a closed mind to you, 407370?

It does seem so to me Leonore, simply because you are dismissing something that will and is constantly evolving, and that doesn't sound like you.

 

[limr]

I don't like that aesthetic. If someone says they don't like HDR pictures, does that still seem like a closed mind to you, 407370?

It does seem so to me Leonore, simply because you are dismissing something that will and is constantly evolving, and that doesn't sound like you.

But...not liking something isn't the same as dismissing it. "Dismissing" implies a lack of thought, a reaction rather than a considered decision. And you're right, it's not like me to simply dismiss ideas or tools or anything, really. And I do appreciate that you noted that. But I'm not dismissing HDR. I'm only saying that I don't like the look of the images it produces. It's not pleasing to my eye. It's a matter of taste, and I think it's just as valid as someone who does like the way HDR images look.

When I was a little girl, I didn't like a lot of foods. As I grew older, I tried certain foods again and realized that my tastes had changed and now I do like spinach, for example. I also lost the taste for certain flavors that I liked when I was younger, like sugar in my coffee. I still hate Brussels sprouts, though. Always have, and I imagine I always will (well, there's this one restaurant near me that deep fries them in truffle oil...those are acceptable. Because truffle oil.)

Now Brussels sprouts aren't really the same thing because they don't evolve into different flavors over the years. My tastes evolve, but the food doesn't, so it's not a fair comparison. So let's talk about music. I also don't like a lot of pop music. Sure, maybe some of the less objectionable songs are kinda catchy or have a good beat, but most of it is just not pleasant to me. It has certainly evolved over the years and pop songs these days don't sound like the pop songs of the early 80s, but even though I might think a few individual songs are okay, as a genre, I don't like it. Intellectually, I understand it's place in music history, and I understand the various talents and skills that go into making a hit pop song (song writing, production, singer, performer, marketing...) I get it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying that the sound of it doesn't suit my tastes.

That is not the same as dismissing pop music as rubbish and leaving it at that. And that's what I'm saying about HDR. I get that it's a tool, and I get that it's evolving and allowing creative outlets for photographers. I also appreciate that it's pushing the boundaries between "pure" photography and graphic design. I like that it exists. I just don't like to look at the images produced with the tool because the look just doesn't suit my tastes.

I don't see how any of this means I have a closed mind.

"I don't like HDR" - yes, that could mean the person believes there is no value to the HDR tool. Language being imprecise much of the time, and people being lazy most of the time, it's possible that they actually mean to say "I don't like HDR images" which is a reflection of their tastes. Given that sentence alone, it's not possible to tell if someone is indeed dismissing HDR images out of hand, or if they don't feel like explaining further. But either way, it's still a matter of taste. No matter how many nutrients are in Brussels sprouts, my throat will still close up if I try to eat one. If someone just doesn't like the way something looks, they just don't like how it looks. I can have the most open mind in the world but I'll never enjoy the music of Justin Bieber.

 

[manaheim]

Okay, HDR is a tool, but people also use that term to refer to a picture. "Hey, is that HDR?" they say about a picture that is posted. So I get the point that saying I don't like the tool is silly because I have nothing against the tool. But I still don't like the images it produces because I don't like that aesthetic. If someone says they don't like HDR pictures, does that still seem like a closed mind to you, 407370?

What aesthetic?

I do HDRs now and again...

Saying you don't like the images that HDR produces is equivalent to saying you don't like images with color. I mean... ok... I guess you COULD say that... but would you?

HDR is a tool. The application of that tool varies significantly with the artist, their tastes, and their purpose. If you can honestly tell me that every HDR image you've seen you dislike... well... I guess you just don't like dynamic range. But then I'd ask you... are you going to complain when they come out with sensors that can see as much of a dynamic range as the human eye?

To be fair, I think you're just oversimplifying. You probably don't like the "nuked" images, and that's fine... but there are a lot of images that are not nuked.

 

[runnah]

I think it sucks when you can look and instantly know it's HDR.

I use bracketing for shots that I know I can't get right in a single exposers. I then try to blend them as seemlessly as possible.

Nuked HDR images are garbage.

 

[limr]

Saying you don't like the images that HDR produces is equivalent to saying you don't like images with color. I mean... ok... I guess you COULD say that... but would you?

HDR is a tool. The application of that tool varies significantly with the artist, their tastes, and their purpose. If you can honestly tell me that every HDR image you've seen you dislike... well... I guess you just don't like dynamic range. But then I'd ask you... are you going to complain when they come out with sensors that can see as much of a dynamic range as the human eye?

To be fair, I think you're just oversimplifying. You probably don't like the "nuked" images, and that's fine... but there are a lot of images that are not nuked.

I'm really really struggling to understand why it's such a bad thing that I don't like HDR images. I never said ALL of them. Never said that. The image you posted above is well done. Do I like it? Sure it's fine. But have you taken a look at my flickr feed? I'm not exactly the poster child for uber-sharp clean images

Wooden pinhole camera:

Wasting film by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Polaroid negative:

Fitch negative by limrodrigues, on Flickr

There IS an aesthetic. Even the good ones DO look differently from other styles of photography. HDR is a tool, but it's a tool that serves particular styles better than others. And yes, even the ones that are not obviously overcooked still have a tell-tale mark that looks cartoonish to me.

I'm sure there are photos that used the HDR tool, like the one you posted above, that don't have the tell-tale look to them. They look clean and sharp and you can see every little detail. I appreciate the skill that goes into them and I recognize the talent of the person who created the photo. But my personal tastes lean in a different direction. Take this for example: Light and Stone | ANDREJ KUTARNA PHOTOGRAPHY

or this: ipernity: End of days - by Paul Mitchell

or this: Boxes & Bellows: Boatist.

These images use different tools and have a completely different aesthetic and I love them. HDR is a tool that creates a certain aesthetic that I find to be incredibly ugly when overdone and okay when they're well done. They're not horrible, but they're okay. They don't excite me, though, the way those others do.

What on earth is closed-minded or oversimplified about that? My not liking something doesn't mean I just have to be educated about it and then I'll be a convert.

Besides, dynamic range? I know all about that. Film does it better, remember? :greenpbl:

(Oh relax, I was just being snarky. You know I am not the one who gets on the film high horse!)

 

[manaheim]

on film.

What I don't get is you're saying two things at once.

"I don't like HDR"
"That HDR you did there lacks all the things that I don't like about HDR"

I'd like to translate into "I like that HDR", but I think that would be pushing it.

I won't beat this anymore after this, but you're saying you don't like the results that the tool generates, when the results are obviously pretty varied... and at one extreme end (an end I believe you acknowledge that my photo represents), all the tool generates is a relatively sharp and useful image. If you don't like relatively sharp and useful images... ok... I guess... but then you should be making the same arguments about images that are taken with proper focus using high quality lenses and equipment. Maybe you DO say that... but I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm done.

Later.

 

[407370]

I have been out digging fossils in the desert or I would have joined into a great discussion.

The point I made in my last post is that several people on here simply dismiss HDR and TONE MAPPING as tools altogether. That is a closed mind!!!

Notwithstanding certain styles of photography adopted by individuals, no tool should be dismissed when deciding what a digital image should look like when the processing is finished.

Someone mentioned that there is a fine line between digital photography and graphic design. This line only exists in a closed mind wanting to separate the art of photography from graphic design. A digital image is a digital image no matter what software produced the image.

Look at my avatar (here is a bigger version):



Does that look like it came out of a camera?

Actually it did. All the textures used on the various elements of this 3D scene are photographs that I have taken and manipulated into textures that I could use to create this image. What you are looking at took about 100 hours to create. The animation this frame is extracted from is 3 minutes long and involves a lot of spaceships with custom coded algorithms to control the movement of each of the elements. But it is all meaningless to someone looking at the head in the water and that is a good thing.

Here is what it looks like in the software:



Its not Lightroom or Photoshop but is just another image manipulator.

This image could not be created without photography, video and a lot of hard work. It crosses artificial boundaries created by closed minds to justify the purity of photography as an individual art form.

As a famous man once said " free your mind"

 

[vintagesnaps]

I have hardly seen anything done in HDR that I've liked because it looks too overprocessed and too overdone to me. I find that I see the processing, not the photograph.

It does seem to get into being more like graphic design using a photographic image rather than being a photograph. Earlier on I remember seeing photos referred to as photo illustrations which seems to describe it better I think.

The 'Light and Stone' photo linked is one that I actually like and wouldn't have necessarily thought it was HDR. I think it's often the light - it sometimes just doesn't look real or believable in HDR images.

Something doesn't look right in an interior shot where the lighting inside looks comparable in brightness to light coming thru a window from outdoors, I just don't think the light looks like that, it ends up all looking too bright to be believable. People may like that look especially if it makes the interior look super bright, but I wonder if when people see the reality of the place if they might not be disappointed to find it doesn't look like that after all. Seems to be a more recent trend and I don't know how long it might stay popular or how soon it might run its course.

I'd be surprised if years from now any of the significant or well known photos that come out of this era will be ones that were HDR. I don't know that the look will stand the test of time or if it might end up being more of a fad or trend that was popular for a time.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have hardly seen anything done in HDR that I've liked because it looks too overprocessed and too overdone to me.

Hard to find an HDR that is recognizable as an HDR, but not "overprocessed." (Barbarian checks his images)

Maybe this. The girl was in sunlight, and the foliage not. But I wanted the ivy to be just a bit there, albeit darker than the primary interest. So HDR.



Clearly HDR, but not so much as to be the most salient thing in the picture.