# HDR Sucks!!!



## Jeff Colburn

You have got to read this post, it's great. HDR is stupid

Have Fun,
Jeff


----------



## Petraio Prime

Jeff Colburn said:


> You have got to read this post, it's great. HDR is stupid
> 
> Have Fun,
> Jeff



Hilarious, and on the button.


----------



## oldmacman

Yep, I chuckled a couple times and spent the whole article smiling (even through a couple grammar errors). "Friends don't let friends do HDR"... that would be a cool signature.


----------



## Bynx

I think he covered it best when he said he was an idiot.


----------



## JG_Coleman

A funny little article... I also had to take a look at the link to the "slightly mean" website (at the bottom).  Good times...

I was able to enjoy this largely because the author at least made fair mention that HDR isn't _always_ crap... just that 90% of the HDRs created by the general populace tend to be terrible photographs.... which is true.

I like HDR, really... but I am well-aware that its more _ab_used than used.  I don't like many of the HDRs I see, but I don't hate the technique, at all.  It'd be like referencing a Geo Metro and arguing that _every _automobile is junk.


----------



## manaheim

That was kinda pointless...  (the article)

It was just some dude raving.


----------



## Fate

That was a quality rant!


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging

I see he added Bynx's quote to his page.  :lmao:


----------



## AverageJoe

It's amazing how someone can have so much hate over a photographic style, I mean set aside whether or not you appreciate the aesthetics of any kind of post processing... I wonder if he works at a post office...


----------



## Mustlovedragons

OMG(osh) I laughed so much. This was awesome.


----------



## Bynx

Mustlovedragons said:


> OMG(osh) I laughed so much. This was awesome.



What did you find awesome? Please expand on this.


----------



## Mustlovedragons

Bynx said:


> Mustlovedragons said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG(osh) I laughed so much. This was awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you find awesome? Please expand on this.
Click to expand...

 
I am quite the fan of sarcastic humor, regardless of the subject. The writer reminds me of me. Sufficiently expanded?


----------



## Bynx

Well you put some words together but didnt say anything. What I want to know is whether you agree with his sarcasm or not.


----------



## ivomitcats

I'm still pretty new to photography in general, so let me see if I understand this article...

A lot of people do HDR poorly, so they should stop. 
One's left to assume the people that do HDR poorly are new to it.

So no one should ever start doing anything, ever?


----------



## JG_Coleman

ivomitcats said:


> I'm still pretty new to photography in general, so let me see if I understand this article...
> 
> A lot of people do HDR poorly, so they should stop.
> One's left to assume the people that do HDR poorly are new to it.
> 
> So no one should ever start doing anything, ever?



Truthfully, many rabid HDR-haters would tell you that HDR is a "terrible habit to get into in the first place"... like smoking or gambling or shooting guns in public.

What it really tends to boil down to is this:  beginners take many bad photographs.  That's pretty much understood and generally accepted... you need to make mistakes to get better.  As it happens, though, when a beginner tries their hand at HDR they seem to fall into this mindset that there's some overwhelming difference between an HDR and an ordinary photograph.  As if the fact that it's an HDR means that all other considerations of a decent photograph can be ignored... because, after all, "it's an HDR".

But an HDR truly NEEDS the same attention as any ordinary photograph to be good... good subject matter, good composition, good focus, good depth-of-field, etc, etc.  The mere fact that it's an HDR counts for nothing if the photo itself is garbage.  And, in a way, it's even worse than a bad photograph... since it's not just a bad shot, but a bad shot that comes off as trying to stand on the mere fact that it employs what, in this case, amounts to a processing gimmick.  For people that already think of post-processing as "cheating" in one way or another, this epitomizes their whole argument that "people take bad photos these days and think they can just process away the crappiness."

Because of this phenomenon where HDRs are produced merely for the novelty of making an HDR of some totally random, entirely uninteresting scene... the entire technique is denounced by individuals that just don't like the aesthetic.

The other problem is that a badly-processed HDR usually looks ten times worse than an ordinary photograph that isn't very good.  You see the ugly, pronounced halos, the exaggerated ghosting artifacts, the poorly balanced exposure blending... it's just horrendous.  It makes you look at the photo and think," If that were just an ordinary photo of the same scene... it'd still be a bad photo... but it's even WORSE when it looks ridiculous like this."

Granted, it's all generally in the name of education.  Ideally, people learn from their failed attempts and eventually get better and produce impressive HDRs that really make the most of the technology.  But, in the meantime, the HDR haters (people that just don't like the aesthetic for reasons of taste or principle) find a whole lot of justification and leverage for arguing that the technique is universally awful.  Thus, the article mentioned by the OP...


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging

The real problem is that people just getting started in photography should learn how to take good pictures looooooooooong before they should even think about HDR.


----------



## Bynx

Arkanjel Imaging said:


> The real problem is that people just getting started in photography should learn how to take good pictures looooooooooong before they should even think about HDR.



Im not sure if I agree with this. There are people doing photography for years and cant take a decent picture. While there are some who pick up a camera and are born naturals creating great stuff from the getgo. Whether taking a single 'regular' shot or 5 bracketed shots with HDR in mind the picture still has to be in focus, have good composition, and proper exposure. Saying newbies shouldnt try HDR is a bit silly. I think that everyone trying HDR should learn to use the sliders better. But its just a technique that anyone should give a try. Its not elitist or snobbery to try HDR. Its just takes a basic understanding of exposures that cover a range of light values. With your way of thinking perhaps new photographers should stick with black & white? Then move on to color using a very cheap photo editor. Then when they finally get good after how long? they can move up to Photoshop and really go to town until their photos ooze with creativity. Only then are they ready to tackle HDR. I dont think so.


----------



## ann

starting with black and white is not a good thing as most folks are clueless about the greyscale and how it relates to color 

learning how to use the proper techniques is critical beginner or advanced..


----------



## skieur

Bynx said:


> Arkanjel Imaging said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is that people just getting started in photography should learn how to take good pictures looooooooooong before they should even think about HDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure if I agree with this. There are people doing photography for years and cant take a decent picture. While there are some who pick up a camera and are born naturals creating great stuff from the getgo. Whether taking a single 'regular' shot or 5 bracketed shots with HDR in mind the picture still has to be in focus, have good composition, and proper exposure. Saying newbies shouldnt try HDR is a bit silly. I think that everyone trying HDR should learn to use the sliders better. But its just a technique that anyone should give a try. Its not elitist or snobbery to try HDR. Its just takes a basic understanding of exposures that cover a range of light values. With your way of thinking perhaps new photographers should stick with black & white? Then move on to color using a very cheap photo editor. Then when they finally get good after how long? they can move up to Photoshop and really go to town until their photos ooze with creativity. Only then are they ready to tackle HDR. I dont think so.
Click to expand...

 
I agree with Bynx.  There is nothing wrong with any photographic or postprocessing technique.  It is a matter of how well or how badly it is utilized by the photographer.

It is the guy or gal behind the camera, NOT the technique that is the problem.

skieur


----------



## SrBiscuit

Bynx said:


> Well you put some words together but didnt say anything. What I want to know is whether you agree with his sarcasm or not.


 
calm down. is she not allowed to find humor in something?
we all know you are die-hard HDR. whether she likes or dislikes HDR is not important in my eyes. your need for justification is silly.


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging

skieur said:


> I agree with Bynx. There is nothing wrong with any photographic or postprocessing technique. It is a matter of how well or how badly it is utilized by the photographer.
> 
> It is the guy or gal behind the camera, NOT the technique that is the problem.
> 
> skieur


 

True.  But it is an ADVANCED pp technique.  And IMO unless you have an ADVANCED grasp of photography you are doing things backwards.  One of the first and most important things I learned about art (at about 8 years old) was work from general to specific.  Painters dont start with the details.


----------



## Bynx

SrBiscuit said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you put some words together but didnt say anything. What I want to know is whether you agree with his sarcasm or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down. is she not allowed to find humor in something?
> we all know you are die-hard HDR. whether she likes or dislikes HDR is not important in my eyes. your need for justification is silly.
Click to expand...


Who do you think you are telling me what to do or what not to do? I never said anything about the humor she found. And do you think Im concerned whats important in YOUR eyes? I didnt ask whether she likes HDR or not, now did I? I asked for clarification on what she meant by "awesome". I asked her once and didnt get an answer. So I asked again. I only wanted clarification because while its been known that I can be sarcastic at times, I didnt find the article "awesome" at all and wondered what she meant by it. Seeking information or clarification for understanding is not being something other than calm. Its your budinsky attitude that makes me uncalm. Unless my comments are made to you then I suggest you remain calm, sit back, light up a smoke and keep your remarks to yourself.


----------



## Bynx

Arkanjel Imaging said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Bynx. There is nothing wrong with any photographic or postprocessing technique. It is a matter of how well or how badly it is utilized by the photographer.
> 
> It is the guy or gal behind the camera, NOT the technique that is the problem.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But it is an ADVANCED pp technique.  And IMO unless you have an ADVANCED grasp of photography you are doing things backwards.  One of the first and most important things I learned about art (at about 8 years old) was work from general to specific.  Painters dont start with the details.
Click to expand...


I dont know about anyone else but I dont think using Photomatix is advanced pp technique. Its a lot easier to put together an HDR than to do some things you might think are simple in Photoshop. Photomatix has a very very short learning curve. Id say about 10 minutes as long as you stick with the default setting and stay away from playing with the sliders. The default setting I find gives a fairly good rendition of the scene shot.


----------



## ivomitcats

Arkanjel Imaging said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Bynx. There is nothing wrong with any photographic or postprocessing technique. It is a matter of how well or how badly it is utilized by the photographer.
> 
> It is the guy or gal behind the camera, NOT the technique that is the problem.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But it is an ADVANCED pp technique.  And IMO unless you have an ADVANCED grasp of photography you are doing things backwards.  One of the first and most important things I learned about art (at about 8 years old) was work from general to specific.  Painters dont start with the details.
Click to expand...


Lol what? Bracketing an HDR image isn't any harder than basic RAW edits.


----------



## SrBiscuit

Bynx said:


> SrBiscuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you put some words together but didnt say anything. What I want to know is whether you agree with his sarcasm or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down. is she not allowed to find humor in something?
> we all know you are die-hard HDR. whether she likes or dislikes HDR is not important in my eyes. your need for justification is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think you are telling me what to do or what not to do? I never said anything about the humor she found. And do you think Im concerned whats important in YOUR eyes? I didnt ask whether she likes HDR or not, now did I? I asked for clarification on what she meant by "awesome". I asked her once and didnt get an answer. So I asked again. I only wanted clarification because while its been known that I can be sarcastic at times, I didnt find the article "awesome" at all and wondered what she meant by it. Seeking information or clarification for understanding is not being something other than calm. Its your budinsky attitude that makes me uncalm. Unless my comments are made to you then I suggest you remain calm, sit back, light up a smoke and keep your remarks to yourself.
Click to expand...

 
just looked like you were badgering is all. my bad. clearly i misunderstood your cynical persistence. ill just sit back and shut my mouth as you so politely demanded.


----------



## JG_Coleman

ivomitcats said:


> Arkanjel Imaging said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Bynx. There is nothing wrong with any photographic or postprocessing technique. It is a matter of how well or how badly it is utilized by the photographer.
> 
> It is the guy or gal behind the camera, NOT the technique that is the problem.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But it is an ADVANCED pp technique.  And IMO unless you have an ADVANCED grasp of photography you are doing things backwards.  One of the first and most important things I learned about art (at about 8 years old) was work from general to specific.  Painters dont start with the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol what? Bracketing an HDR image isn't any harder than basic RAW edits.
Click to expand...


I think that the logic in saying the HDR is an advanced post-processing technique is just that... if you take can't a half-way decent, ordinary photograph, you _definitely _can't make a good HDR.  Whereas if you can make a genuinely good HDR, you've probably got a sufficient handle on what it takes to make a good ordinary photo.

Using that logic, one sort of precedes the other.  Just one way of looking at it, though.


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging

Bynx said:


> Photomatix has a very very short learning curve.


 

Pfft. Then why arent 99% of the images awesome. If you cant comprehend how to properly compose/expose one shot then why bother with 5? Because you are depending on using the computer software as a crutch later. Bad habits are hard to break. If HDR buffs spent more time practicing their photography they might find themselves using software less. 


Edit:   can anyone name *one* internationally known, professional photographer thats famous for HDR?


----------



## Bynx

The HDR images you say are less than awesome have little to do with the photographic skills of the operator, but visual skills using the software. That could be attributable to a badly calibrated monitor or more likely poor computer skills. I wonder how many people agree with your last statement about practicing photography more and using software less. For me taking the picture is just the first step. What I decide to do with it is where the fun starts. Id like to think of it as a 50-50 partnership between my photographic and software skills. All fun for me. My results arent always pleasing to others, or even to me. But I have fun trying and always pushing the envelope. I dont think anyone will ever become famous as an HDR photographer because there are so many of us. Some will be more consistent in creating awesome shots while others will remain mediocre to terrible. But no small handful will become famous because the software is too readily available so there is no mystery in the beauty of a well done HDR shot. Both the photographic and software skills will shine through on some. And they should be recognized.


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging

*Ahem* there are a lot of people with camers.  But few photographers.  

/fin


----------



## SrBiscuit

Bynx said:


> The HDR images you say are less than awesome have little to do with the photographic skills of the operator, but visual skills using the software. That could be attributable to a badly calibrated monitor or more likely poor computer skills. I wonder how many people agree with your last statement about practicing photography more and using software less. For me taking the picture is just the first step. What I decide to do with it is where the fun starts. Id like to think of it as a 50-50 partnership between my photographic and software skills. All fun for me. My results arent always pleasing to others, or even to me. But I have fun trying and always pushing the envelope. I dont think anyone will ever become famous as an HDR photographer because there are so many of us. Some will be more consistent in creating awesome shots while others will remain mediocre to terrible. But no small handful will become famous because the software is too readily available so there is no mystery in the beauty of a well done HDR shot. Both the photographic and software skills will shine through on some. And they should be recognized.


 
i have to agree with you 100% bynx. taking the pic is fun...as fun as figuring out what im going to do with it later and exciting to think of what the outcome might look like.
the pics that i have that i like the best are the ones where ive spent time manipulating them. many of the pics in my stream have tonal changes, film effects, etc...some are more subtle, but some are heavy handed. ive never taken a picture and said "perfect...it's done". i always want to add what i think will really make it pop. some may think that means im less of a photog than a designer, but i like to believe that i have a fair balance of both. im my biggest fan. :blushing:


----------



## JG_Coleman

SrBiscuit said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The HDR images you say are less than awesome have little to do with the photographic skills of the operator, but visual skills using the software. That could be attributable to a badly calibrated monitor or more likely poor computer skills. I wonder how many people agree with your last statement about practicing photography more and using software less. For me taking the picture is just the first step. What I decide to do with it is where the fun starts. Id like to think of it as a 50-50 partnership between my photographic and software skills. All fun for me. My results arent always pleasing to others, or even to me. But I have fun trying and always pushing the envelope. I dont think anyone will ever become famous as an HDR photographer because there are so many of us. Some will be more consistent in creating awesome shots while others will remain mediocre to terrible. But no small handful will become famous because the software is too readily available so there is no mystery in the beauty of a well done HDR shot. Both the photographic and software skills will shine through on some. And they should be recognized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have to agree with you 100% bynx. taking the pic is fun...as fun as figuring out what im going to do with it later and exciting to think of what the outcome might look like.
> the pics that i have that i like the best are the ones where ive spent time manipulating them. many of the pics in my stream have tonal changes, film effects, etc...some are more subtle, but some are heavy handed. ive never taken a picture and said "perfect...it's done". i always want to add what i think will really make it pop. some may think that means im less of a photog than a designer, but i like to believe that i have a fair balance of both. im my biggest fan. :blushing:
Click to expand...


There's absolutely nothing wrong with having fun with HDR, of course.  But if, in the process of having fun, you make some arguably terrible HDR photos... you're work may just wind up on an internet webpage (similar to the one posted by the OP) that cites your photograph as an example of how terrible HDRs can be.  That's all...

Clearly... that still doesn't really constitute a good reason to hate the HDR technique altogether... but for people that are just out looking for an excuse to hate HDR, the terrible beginner HDRs fit the bill.

It's an issue of context.  We are still in the midst of a drastic shift in the field of photography from film to digital.  The vast range of digital effects, touch-ups, and corrections that are possible these days still have yet to be entirely accepted by that portion of the public that have strong views on photography that were influenced by past decades of experience (or principles inspired by those decades).

All relatively new techniques in any kind of visual art form tend to come up against a whole lot of resistance in the beginning.  It's really part and parcel to how society "regulates" its artistic traditions.  There's a certain "gauntlet" that new approaches must endure to ensure that not just any wacky, nonsense "technique" is allowed to dilute the overall quality of society's art.  If a technique makes it through those tough, introductory years with enough unwavering support in the face of adversity... then, in a sense, it has cleared the gauntlet.

HDR looks like it will survive, prevail, and eventually be more widely accepted in the future... but it's not really through the gauntlet yet.  Harsh criticisms are still to be expected.


----------



## SrBiscuit

i agree with you there too. and perhaps i should have prefaced with the fact that i dont do HDR...i was speaking just in general terms of processing.

i think the statement "shit in...shit out" holds true.
no amount of processing with save a garbage photo.


----------



## ann

the phase garbage photo brings back a memory. i was at a workshop for capture nx2, the young man from Nikon said the following, this is great software; however, it can't turn a cow pattie into a good photo, it can make a good photo better, and a terrfic photo , great.

I thought, how honest of him, because it has been my experience that a lot of folks think pp will turn anything into great "art" (please don't let PP know i said that )


----------



## Bynx

Arkanjel Imaging said:


> *Ahem* there are a lot of people with camers.  But few photographers.
> 
> /fin



By definition A *photographer*, from the Greek &#966;&#969;&#964;&#972;&#962;, "light" and &#947;&#961;&#940;&#966;&#969;, "I write", is a person who takes photographs using a camera. A _professional photographer_ uses photography to earn money whilst amateur photographers take photographs for pleasure and to record an event, emotion, place, or person.

So whether you like some people's efforts or not if they took a picture with a camera they are the photographer of that picture. Now if you said few PROFESSIONAL photographers I would have to agree with you. And unless you take consistent pictures that others wish to purchase then you are a hack like the rest of us, hopefully, striving to always be better.

JG Coleman -- thats a good point of the gauntlet. The whole revolution of film to digital has been a big issue the same as analogue sound to digital. In the beginning there were purists who said digital sound is no good and cant dupicate analogue. Well how much analogue is there floating around these days? In the printing industry the jump from continuous tone film/haltone to digital was thought at first not to fly. People wouldnt accept the inferior quality of digital images in print. Well price considerations made people accept the lower quality, which rose fairly quickly as the pixel count of cameras got better. The point is that there are always going to be people who will talk down about the new ways of doing things. Its these people that form the gautlet. They are the sand in the ointment that prevents smooth transition. But they are a minor irritant if you just ignore them and do your own thing. HDR is not only not going away, but cameras are coming out with an HDR feature. 

And finally while HDR wont make a terrific picture from a lousy one, it has many times made an interesting picture from a boring one. The sheer clarity, and almost 3D quality of a well done HDR makes looking at the otherwise boring scene interesting to look at. Ive often seen pictures here that were very boring, but looked so touchable that it was nice to just look at the processing done. Now replace that boring sandy beach shot with an interesting scene that really shines after HDR treatment and thats a picture you can hang on any wall.


----------



## AverageJoe

JG_Coleman said:


> HDR looks like it will survive, prevail, and eventually be more widely accepted in the future... but it's not really through the gauntlet yet.  Harsh criticisms are still to be expected.



I think all new emerging mediums go through this, think of what the painting community thought of what early photographers were doing? I know it's a stretch but the concepts are similar.


----------



## skieur

Bynx said:


> The HDR images you say are less than awesome have little to do with the photographic skills of the operator, but visual skills using the software. That could be attributable to a badly calibrated monitor or more likely poor computer skills. I wonder how many people agree with your last statement about practicing photography more and using software less. For me taking the picture is just the first step. What I decide to do with it is where the fun starts. Id like to think of it as a 50-50 partnership between my photographic and software skills. All fun for me. My results arent always pleasing to others, or even to me. But I have fun trying and always pushing the envelope. I dont think anyone will ever become famous as an HDR photographer because there are so many of us. Some will be more consistent in creating awesome shots while others will remain mediocre to terrible. But no small handful will become famous because the software is too readily available so there is no mystery in the beauty of a well done HDR shot. Both the photographic and software skills will shine through on some. And they should be recognized.


 
I take the view that photographic skills and software skills are strongly integrated together.  Visual skills are transferable.  You need to recognize photgraphically that the colour balance is off, before you start adjusting it with software and you need to know the correct colour in order to know when to stop adjusting.  That is both a photographic and software skill.

You need to recognize visually that there was more detail and less strong shadows in the scene that you shot versus the digital image before you can start adjusting it in software....and of course again you need the visual skills to know when to stop.

HDR is just one technique for working with an image.  The challenge with this or any other technique is to make the technique invisible and the shot appear natural.

skieur


----------



## Derrel

Pretty funny article the OP referred us to. HDR does attract a lot of Digital Adams, looking to create silk purses out of sows' ears. Of course, that always results in a miserable FAIL! Occasionally though, somebody will photograph a scene that's good enough a source to create an HDR-type photo that has some real merit.


----------



## Bynx

Derrel said:


> Pretty funny article the OP referred us to. HDR does attract a lot of Digital Adams, looking to create silk purses out of sows' ears. Of course, that always results in a miserable FAIL! Occasionally though, somebody will photograph a scene that's good enough a source to create an HDR-type photo that has some real merit.



That can be said of every technique besides HDR. Havent you ever taken a lousy shot and thought it could be 'fixed' if it was in B&W or sepia or cropped or some plugin used, etc. Im amazed that HDR and the users are centered out in particular and that HDR is considered by the ignorant as a means to cover up a lack of photographic skills. I dont think HDR has ever made a photo look worse than its original untouched image. On the contrary, I have seen boring shots that looked interesting by the application of HDR. What HDR does for me is make me think whether I want to take a single shot of the scene or multiple exposures. Later I can decide what approach I will take. Its nice to have the option.


----------



## Derrel

Bynx said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny article the OP referred us to. HDR does attract a lot of Digital Adams, looking to create silk purses out of sows' ears. Of course, that always results in a miserable FAIL! Occasionally though, somebody will photograph a scene that's good enough a source to create an HDR-type photo that has some real merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That can be said of every technique besides HDR. Havent you ever taken a lousy shot and thought it could be 'fixed' if it was in B&W or sepia or cropped or some plugin used, etc. Im amazed that HDR and the users are centered out in particular and that HDR is considered by the ignorant as a means to cover up a lack of photographic skills. I dont think HDR has ever made a photo look worse than its original untouched image. On the contrary, I have seen boring shots that looked interesting by the application of HDR. What HDR does for me is make me think whether I want to take a single shot of the scene or multiple exposures. Later I can decide what approach I will take. Its nice to have the option.
Click to expand...


Answer: NO....if I want B&W I shoot in B&W in-camera. I do not use "plug-ins". None. If a shot I do is crap, I do not try and salvage it...I do not shoot that way...I'm not interested in "digital photography", but in straight photography.

If you've never seen an HDR attempt that was worse than the original image, you haven't seen the same hack work I have seen...

A crap shot is always a crap shot. Garbage in, garbage out. Many HDR practitioners are newbies who are enthralled with the technology,and try and put garbage in and come up with something decent. There are a **handful** of HDR photos I have seen that have been good, but the majority are as cliche and boring as the old sabattier effect (aka 'solarization' of the 1970's...


----------



## Bynx

I stand behind my statement that HDR is always an improvement over any of the shots which made it up. What you are calling bad HDR is actually bad Tone Mapping. I agree Ive seen many images that looked like they were done by blind monkeys let loose in a paint factory. 
Im curious about something Derrel. You, being interested in straight photography,  not interested in digital photography? Never use plugins? You actually shoot B&W in camera? Do you still shoot with film? If not, why not? Why are you in the HDR section? Shouldnt you be in your darkroom processing your prints? Ive spent many an hour in the darkroom and thoroughly enjoyed it. But not nearly as much as when Im in my digital darkroom with Photoshop doing things I could only dream of in the film world. You are really missing out on a lot. I hope for your sake you can climb down off your high horse and enter the digital world and enjoy yourself. I honestly dont know anyone who is proud to be able to just point and click.


----------



## manaheim

You don't "fix" an image by making it an HDR, any more than you do by making it black and white. If an image is suitable to HDR, a skilled photographer will identify that at the point of capture and has every inention of execution on that treatment during processing.

In these cases, the HDR image was never intended to be anything else.

For those images that appear to be "fixed" by HDR, all that really happened is the photographer realized after the fact that the image should have been hdr in the first place.

HDR isn't "liquid awesome". You can't just pour it all over image and make it better. You can pour it over any image and give it more dynamic range, sure... but dynamic range alone does not an good photo make.


----------



## Bynx

Well what's a good photo? What's a bad photo? If there is an image, its somewhat in focus, and its got enough light to see something, some are going to consider that a good photo. I keep hearing that you cant "fix" a bad photo with HDR. Well what the hell does a bad photo look like? Ive seen lots of photos I thought were bad. The same photos others thought were good. So who is it here who is deciding whats good or bad? I have seen lately quite a few images that I thought were very boring to look at, until the HDR was applied and they became very interesting to look around at to see the clarity and detail -- clarity and detail of an otherwise boring scene.

Some might find this interesting
Scott  Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography  Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More  Blog Archive  Special  Friday Guest Post: How HDR Saved RCs Star Wars Celebration


----------



## manaheim

A "good" photograph is obviously pretty hard to define, but they are pretty easy to call out when you see them.

There is some amount of "what people like" involved in each interpretation... there are photographs that I know aren't great, but I still love them... there are photos that I know are great, and I don't care for them.

That, however, is the subjective element of art... it isn't, however, an interpretation of execution of the image so much as whether or not something about the image appeals to someone.

I would suggest that may well be the case with you adoration of things HDR.  Details, colors, and things you cannot usually see in photos really appeals to you on some level... regardless of whether or not the subject or composition is good.


----------



## Bynx

Bingo. I finally agree with you.


----------



## manaheim

Someone mark it on a calendar!


----------



## skieur

manaheim said:


> A "good" photograph is obviously pretty hard to define, but they are pretty easy to call out when you see them.


 
Not really, photographic associations define it as representing the best in technique or the technical side as a means of creating the best in the artistic side to create visual impact and with it possibly communicate an idea, concept, emotion, humour, feeling, etc. to the viewer.

The best photographic art is that which is both technically excellent and that which encompasses the personality, style, thoughts, and feelings or the artist through his/her choice of subject and photographic technique used in its portrayal.  Technique plus composition to put it another way.

Not hard to define at all. 

skieur


----------



## manaheim

Well... that's still pretty vague.  I completely agree, and I considered typing up something similar to that, but it's not a definition one can just run out and copy and *whamo! art!*


----------

