# Who all is sick of HDR?



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

I mean come on, way too many of the pics on here are now HDR.  I just don't see why?  I love the look on some pics, and HDR has its place, but I think people are kind of ruining the effect by using it on so many images.  HDR should be used in tricky situations when you can't reveal everything in detail with a single exposure, but that is IT.  Does anyone agree with me?


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 24, 2007)

Could some images be shot in a single exposure with better exposure/highlight control? Sure. HDR is an easy way to extend your apparent dynamic range so it's here to stay. I'd say put your passions into the RAW vs. JPEG debate, you'll find more on each side to talk to!


----------



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

Haha, I don't care about RAW and JPEG.  I use both.  I know its here to stay and I'm glad, but people, why use it so much.  

We all know HDR has a very distinct effect so why wear it out so soon?  

At This Rate
If it is here to stay: We're all going to get sick of it but... be stuck with it.
Otherwise, It will be come so generic that its not worth denoting in your title.....ex:  "I had a gr8 wknd shooting Nikon! **HDR** 56k nono!"


----------



## DRodgers (Apr 24, 2007)

I don't mind it so much its just another medium to show images in but I find it hard to tell if its HDR , so I think anyone who uses it should post that its HDR ..


----------



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

But my point is that if so many people start shooting HDR regularly, it will be more common to put **not HDR** in a title than ***HDRxor!!!**


----------



## ashfordphoto (Apr 24, 2007)

I don't mind how often it is used, but rather HOW it is used.  The best HDR is when you don't know that it's been done.  Once it starts looking fake and like plastic - - then it's overused in my book.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 24, 2007)

To me HDR should be like make-up ... just enough to enhance .... but not enough to distract.  

Photography is communications.  Most of the HDRs I view say "HEY I'M AN HDR IMAGE.  Look at all the unreal high values and all the unreal detail in the shadows ... some pretty fancy post processing done here ... let me tell you ... yessiree" ... a truly great photo won't have to say a single  word ... it will pull you into the image .... hold you there ... interact with your emotions  ... and at some level of thought you think ... "I wish I had taken that shot."

The bottom line is I don't mind if it's HDR, as long as its good HDR ... and a good HDR is one that doesn't look like HDR.  Maybe we should have an HDR gallery ... or a Non-HDR Gallery (lol).

Gary


----------



## hazelwestphoto (Apr 24, 2007)

I like HDR when it's done correctly.  A lot of people think they're doing it right, but they're not.


----------



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

Seefutlung I couldn't agree with you more.  I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 24, 2007)

William said:


> Seefutlung I couldn't agree with you more.  I couldn't have said it better myself.



LOL a Nikonian and a Canonite have agreed on something. 

Gary


----------



## DSLR noob (Apr 24, 2007)

I think it looks really cool. As it has been discussed before, it might just be a fad, like oversaturation was for a while. I think it looks neat if done right. Sadly, there are pics that I can't even tell are HDR, that is where I think it is either: A) done wrong for the desired effect. or B) done so well, it acts only as a tonal balancer.


----------



## woodsac (Apr 24, 2007)

So what is "just enough"? Who decides?

Is just enough make-up that which you can see and _you _think is tastefull? Well then how much is "just enough" make-up to a high intensity fashion designer who wants bold colors and flawless skin? Obviously that is going to be over the top for you, but it doesn't make it wrong.

This is another of those never ending debates. Art is in the eye of the beholder. HDR can be used for both tonal enhancements _and _creativity. I enjoy processing my HDR's "over the top" most of the time. And I feel that I am achieving my goal. Because it's the look that I, as the artist, am trying to achieve. So it's successful regardless of what anyone else thinks. 

I also don't see the point in labeling something as HDR? Why? Do you label every color shot "Color" and every black & white "b/w"? When I first started posting my HDR work, I would put HDR in the title. It seemed like people just flocked to it. But not for the art, to see the HDR effect. That isn't what I was after. I want them to take in the entire piece and decide for themselves if they like the overall image or not.

All of the images below are HDR's.





































For me, it's not just "a look"...it's a style. When I display my work, people are more interested in the HDR work than anything else. This is right in line with IR. There are so many companies doing IR conversions now, that anyone can shoot it. But how many people can make it their own...make their work stand out in a crowd? No matter how you look at it, it's still photography


----------



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

Woodsac, I think alot of your work is pretty balanced, like the first two pictures.  But some of your HDRs are way over the top, but it works, and the people love it!  The thing I like most about your HDRs is that they aren't just your everyday HDR shot, but you've developed your own style that you are known for.


----------



## Boden (Apr 24, 2007)

As with the application of any processing, the hardest thing to do is to back off so that it doesn't scream "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M A SWEET SPECIAL EFFECT!  HEY, CAN YOU SEE ME?! RIGHT HERE!!!"

I just learned about HDR this morning, and I suddenly realized how many galleries I've seen online where everything was HDR'd to the max, and not tastefully.  I wondered what they were doing.  

I actually looked into it because of woodsac's work, which I think is amazing and a good example HDR done right in both extremes of obviousness and subtlety. 

Being able to back off on the processing is a skill not only applicable to photo editing, but in other art forms as well.  I've made a lot of audio recordings that I essentially ruined by overprocessing.  What I learned was that an effect should be applied with a purpose, and the purpose of that effect should (usually) not be the effect itself.  We all know that we're creating illusions in these mediums, but the best illusions have a very natural aspect.


----------



## Kent Frost (Apr 24, 2007)

Woodsac, you use HDR with images that can show the technique off well. Some images seemed to get slaughtered by being _over_ HDR'd, making them look like cheap airbrush images. Your images are more artsy than a majority of the snapshot equivalent photos I've seen people use HDR on. There's simply no need for it on those kinds of images.


----------



## firemedic0135 (Apr 24, 2007)

I have to agree with Woodsac.There are so many styles of photography that it is natural that not everyone will enjoy all aspects, or see them favorably.While you think that they (HDR) should Only be used when you cannot capture the full dynamic range you desire I disagree. I , Like woodsac think that it is the artist's vision and desire that dictates the final image.:thumbup: 
I think the largest reason for all the HDR images being posted is due to other photogs seeing the results from artist's like woodsac and wanting to create an image that is as beautifull or more beautifull than the others they have seen.


----------



## woodsac (Apr 24, 2007)

First, thanks for the kind words from everyone.

I think I see what you're saying now. It's not just the HDR...it's the total _overuse _of HDR. I was really reluctant to do any HDR's at first. Simply because of all the negative feedback on the net.

But I was determined to incorporate an artistic workflow into my HDR's, without looking like every other HDR out there. I'll be honest, it's a lot of work. I spend more time adjusting colors with HDR than any other type of shots. It's hard to find a good balance between saturation and contrast.

I do see tons of photos that don't need HDR. Simply adjusting the shadows or having a better understanding of some of PS's features would be a better alternative.

I basically feel the same way about the Liquify tool. It was so overdone when it first introduced. But then you've got guys like Kent here ^^^ that make it tasteful art. Love the new avatar Kent


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 24, 2007)

I believe HDR is a digital alternative process. 

I don't usually do HDR's for light balance, but I do HDR's to achieve that effect that some of you think is 'too much'.

There is no other way that I would have been able to make this besides HDR: 







I used HDR as a tool to create my creative vision. I don't' care if people agree with it or not, but i'm still going to use it.


Photographers use HDR's often to portray unrealistic interpretations of their views and there are people like yourself that simply do not agree with it. That's fine. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. (at least in the US.)


----------



## Funky (Apr 24, 2007)

are you kidding me? who cares what post processing people use? people dont have a right to bash HDR because its just as valid as using photoshop to edit a picture. HDR is like SELECTIVE COLORING, HUGE for a while (selecive coloring=80's) and will probably be phased out of mainstream photography, but in all honesty let it have its day. people like pictures because it envokes an emotion in them, and if that means having the sky and ground both properly exposed, or a city lit to the point where it looks cartoony, who are you to tell them its not ok?. i guess i just dont get why you would creat a post like this, its ultimatly pointless because people all have their own oppinions, your not deturing anyone by saying you dont like it.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 24, 2007)

William said:


> way too many of the pics on here are now HDR.  I just don't see why?



I agree.  And what's with this "color" photography?  What's wrong with plain old Black and White?  I mean come on, way too many of the pics on here are now color.  I just don't see why?  I love the look on some pics, and color has its place, but I think people are kind of ruining the effect by using it on so many images. Color should be used in tricky situations when you can't reveal everything in detail because of similar tone, but that is IT. Does anyone agree with me?

:mrgreen:

(Sorry, it was just screaming for a re-write)

You could just as easily substitute "digital post processing" (aka Photoshopping) in there and get the same results.  And some people would agree with you.



Seefutlung said:


> To me HDR should be like make-up ... just enough to enhance .... but not enough to distract.    Photography is communications.



I disagree (somewhat)...photos can also be art.  And art doesn't have to be good.  Yes, there are some HDR photos that are garish otherworldly displays not seen since the days of the solarization pluggin's heyday (ok, I made that last part up), but that doesn't mean that there is no place in the world for them.

Some people like Andy Warhol's soup cans print...some think it's just garish rubbish.

Or is this just another photo-as-documentation vs. photo-as-art debate?


----------



## Funky (Apr 24, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> I agree. And what's with this "color" photography? What's wrong with plain old Black and White? I mean come on, way too many of the pics on here are now color. I just don't see why? I love the look on some pics, and color has its place, but I think people are kind of ruining the effect by using it on so many images. Color should be used in tricky situations when you can't reveal everything in detail because of similar tone, but that is IT. Does anyone agree with me?
> 
> :mrgreen:
> 
> (Sorry, it was just screaming for a re-write)


 

lmao!that post made my day, i think gmarquez said it perfectly. thank you :cheers:


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 24, 2007)

I dont understand the idea of HDR that doesn't look like HDR... if you make an HDR correctly its going to look like HDR simply because a normal camera sensor wont record that much dynamic range. Take away that extra range to make it look like less HDR, and you've got a plain image.

woodsac, I love image number 4.  the picture with the bike is a little too much for me, but they are all nice works.

Switch, what did you do to create that image?  Im guessing HDR off of one raw image?  simply because subject movement would make multiple exposures difficult.


----------



## Funky (Apr 24, 2007)

once again, someone has it right, HDR is infact as valid as everything else. even when done "wrong"


----------



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

I appreciate all the feedback and opinions.  

I think what I originally said is being misconstrued.  Everyone  has a right to do whatever they want in the editing process.  But in some cases, I don't see the point of an HDR.

Relating colour to HDR is ridiculous.  Are you such a revolutionary because from now on HDR is here to stay.  Everyone is going to start doing every image in HDR.....Well I guess your right, or maybe your not.  Thats another topic.

Sw1tchFX:  You did HDR there to get such great textures and to achieve the full dynamic range, right?  That is the effect, right?  This is what I'm saying, use it for the effect of a large (high) dynamic range, throughout the frame.  I guess that is an effect in itself?

The EFFECT of HDR, is a dynamic range that would allow for more detail and so you can "see" a larger portion of the frame. So I guess the conclusion is, using HDR for 'effect' and using it for an 'HDR' is the same.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 24, 2007)

William said:


> Well I guess your right, or maybe your not



Heh heh, old Jedi mind trick...these aren't the droids you are looking for.


----------



## William (Apr 24, 2007)

Funky said:


> . people like pictures because it envokes an emotion in them, and if that means having the sky and ground both properly exposed, or a city lit to the point where it looks cartoony, who are you to tell them its not ok?.



Properly exposed?  That is what an HDR is.. that is when it is needed.  Did you even read the posts above this?

Maybe I'll just add "HDR= ewwwwww" to my sig. and be done with it.


----------



## Funky (Apr 24, 2007)

did you look over the second part of that sentance? they were meant to compliment each other. you took one part of  and focused on it. and it would make me smile if you added "HRD=eww" to your sig, you know what they say, imatation is the greatest form of flattery


----------



## bytch_mynickname (Apr 24, 2007)

HDR has its place and time and whenever the photographer says it is the place and time, then that is how it should be. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean that there aren't people who love it. If you see a shot you don't like, move on.

I also wanted to say that I love Woodsac's work and log on everyday just to see if he posted any new HDRs :heart: I only pray to someday be able to make a picture be so awesome. I would love to know what the workflow is :hint hint:


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 24, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> I disagree (somewhat)...photos can also be art.  And art doesn't have to be good.  Yes, there are some HDR photos that are garish otherworldly displays not seen since the days of the solarization pluggin's heyday (ok, I made that last part up), but that doesn't mean that there is no place in the world for them.
> 
> Some people like Andy Warhol's soup cans print...some think it's just garish rubbish.
> 
> Or is this just another photo-as-documentation vs. photo-as-art debate?




*Sign* ... we are speaking in general terms.  There are always the exceptions.  If we start arguing the exception then all you will have is a forum full of those who wish to argue.  The OT was a generality and my answer was in the same genre.

Photography is communications ... there are many types/forms of communications one of which is art.

Once again, I am not arguing that it isn't Kosher to use photography and HDR as an art form.  It is my opinion that those photographers who use HDR as an enhancement to documentary photography should do so in a manner which does not detract from the principle image.

Gary


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 24, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> Switch, what did you do to create that image?  Im guessing HDR off of one raw image?  simply because subject movement would make multiple exposures difficult.


Nope, that was 3 exposures 2EV apart. One RAW couldn't do it. 



William said:


> Sw1tchFX: You did HDR there to get such great textures and to achieve the full dynamic range, right? That is the effect, right? This is what I'm saying, use it for the effect of a large (high) dynamic range, throughout the frame. I guess that is an effect in itself?
> 
> The EFFECT of HDR, is a dynamic range that would allow for more detail and so you can "see" a larger portion of the frame. So I guess the conclusion is, using HDR for 'effect' and using it for an 'HDR' is the same.



Right, but it's still completely over the top.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 24, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> It is my opinion that those photographers who use HDR as an enhancement to documentary photography should do so in a manner which does not detract from the principle image.




OK, I think I get it.

Artistic photo + Artistic HDR = :thumbup:

Documentary photo (including 'not-so-great' photos of random things with bad composition) + Artistic HDR = :thumbdown:

Documentary photo + restrained use of HDR = :thumbup: if the original photo is 'good', and :thumbdown: if the original photo is 'blah' or 'bad'.

Hmmmm, I can see your point.


----------



## Kent Frost (Apr 24, 2007)

This is a simple way that I've been considering HDR: Use it as an enhancement tool or a tool to achieve the results you're after. Do NOT use it as a corrective tool. Also, learn how to do it without the ugly halos. ;-)

Oh and Woodsac...thanks for the compliment on the avatar. I had one guy tell me it looked like I was struggling on the toilet.


----------



## Torus34 (Apr 25, 2007)

Try replacing 'HDR' with 'Photoshop' or 'High Key' or 'Selective Focus' or 'Filter' or ... 

And the rant goes on.

It began with the first pictures which used a new technique and it will continue with the next new thing.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 25, 2007)

Bah. I hate all of this hating. People do what they like... if you don't want to do it, find your niche and move on.

I do a lot of selective color work, and guess what? It's REQUESTED from my clients. Sure you can say that they don't know art, or they just like the effect and it's not about a good photo and blahblahblah... but the simple fact is that some people are going to like it.

Same with HDR, or heavily filtered photos. Some people are going to like and some hate it. I personally like it, even if I am still not convinced that motorcycle pic is real! LOL

HOWEVER I think saying things like "selective color = eww" is rude and confrontational. If you don't like it, you don't like it, you don't need to poke fun at someone elses work constantly in your signature. Great, your not a fan, but if you hate it enough to post it on your signature you have a non-healthy obsession with not liking it!

lol

There are entire boards dedicated to photoshopping existing pictures, hundreds if not thousands of people talking about it, as much as we are talking about taking pictures if not MORE. It's their hobby and for some their job, just like here.... to each his own!


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 25, 2007)

Oh and because I want to, here is a selective color picture and a terrible attempt at HDR... you know, totally "eww".


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 25, 2007)

there are so many HDR images floating around where you do not see that they are HDR ...  What about those? Anyone sick of them too? 


I think a forum has some dynamic to its own... and if someone shos a HDR which intentionally has the plastic HDR look with lots of detail everywhere, then people like it or think it interesting and so they want to try it by themselves in the process of still trying to find their own style. In that way HDR avalanches can be started. 
I gues now there is a certain HDR hype going on, which will later settle down to normal levels and will only be applied to situations where it helps the image.


----------



## Funky (Apr 25, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> Oh and because I want to, here is a selective color picture and a terrible attempt at HDR... you know, totally "eww".


 

i just think selective coloring died in the 80's, apparently not. :mrgreen:

edit: oh and im like 80% sure that this months photo contest winner was an HDR.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 25, 2007)

Well Funky considering selective coloring is a lot easier with newer digital graphical programs, and I was age 1 - 10 in the 80s I really wasn't do much of it then.

Also, on flickr doing a search for selective and color gets you 3,595 results... of course a large part of them I don't consider great, but that's the case with any photograph, wouldn't you say?

Hardly dead.

Oh and for comparison's sake, HDR gets a whopping 155,677 results.

Current fad? Of course!


----------



## Funky (Apr 25, 2007)

thats true, but i think i already said something about the fact hrd was just as valid as selective coloring, selective coloring is just a step behind. the thing is, hdr is cool. maybe not always but when needed its fairly amazing. even when someone creates a crap hdr its like someone taking a bad photo we on the forums shouldnt have a thread saying were sick of it. if there was a sudden uproar of selective coloring, i wouldnt be posting about the fact i didnt like it, its in my siggy  . i guess that was what im trying to get at. its a trend that will probably die off when camera companys make better ccd's, untill then i say let it have its day.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 25, 2007)

Funky I don't know. To me much of HDR is more than just capturing a range the human eye can see but the camera's sensor cannot normally... it's about making things a little unlrealistic... give it an edge to make you go "woah". Will larger/better sensors ever give it that edge? Maybe.

In the meantime, I still think your mean for saying selective color = eww. I wonder if it's ever caused someone to NOT post a picture in fear of harsh comments? 

I like selective color myself... when used correctly. In the above example, I used it to emphasis the tattoo... and to be perfectly honest I am planning an entire tattoo book using selective color.

Thanks for the add on Flickr and the comment. my pictures are woefully free of comments.


----------



## Funky (Apr 25, 2007)

the thing is, hdr captures a range greater than the eye. if your in a dark room your eye had to focus between the bright washed out window and the dark inside of the room. so hdr is in a way made to make things look unrealistic, but its not always used that way.

and im not mean, i just feel fairly strongly about selective coloring, i can see its use in a tatoo book, but when you have a kid holding a flower and its selective colorised, i wont like it. and i changed my sig.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 25, 2007)

I think one has to differentiate:

- i think HDRI-like-techniques (multiple exposures) can be used to compensate for the limited dynamic range of today's ccd and cmos sensors. Future sensors might not require this anymore. Today good sensors are similar in dynamic range to slide film. In the future they might be more like negative film ... and even better. In that way they might better resemble the capabilities of the human eye/brain combination.

- the other thing people do is create images with a high dynamic range though the whole spectrum, which is different from what our way of seeing, and hence looks "unrealistic / fake". If done carefuly, it can create nice images, almost impressionist like, or painting-like. consider it a form of art. But this can also easily overdone. What one considers overdone and what not is a very personal thing and depends on taste.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 25, 2007)

Funky,

I understand that (about HDR)... but you asserted the sensors of the future will do the same. I doubt they will.

As far as selective color... you dont have to change your sig dude, it's all good.

Hate this pics of mine now. mua ha ha


----------



## BoblyBill (Apr 25, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> I think one has to differentiate:
> 
> - i think HDRI-like-techniques (multiple exposures) can be used to compensate for the limited dynamic range of today's ccd and cmos sensors. Future sensors might not require this anymore. Today good sensors are similar in dynamic range to slide film. In the future they might be more like negative film ... and even better. In that way they might better resemble the capabilities of the human eye/brain combination.
> 
> - the other thing people do is create images with a high dynamic range though the whole spectrum, which is different from what our way of seeing, and hence looks "unrealistic / fake". If done carefuly, it can create nice images, almost impressionist like, or painting-like. consider it a form of art. But this can also easily overdone. What one considers overdone and what not is a very personal thing and depends on taste.


 
That's exactly why I use it myself. I want people to see as close to what I saw, and in the world of storm chasing and photographing clouds you almost always either overexpose the sky to get the ground or underexpose the ground to get the sky... Clouds are tricky.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Apr 25, 2007)

I peronally cant stand 90% of the hdr's that I see, but what woodsac does with them I really like.. its more of an airbrushed alternate reality that he adds to them, 
  I think its a great tool for the interior real estate industry, but its a little weird of a tool. simulating something like shadows for interiors is never as good as getting it right in camera. 

Still, to each his own,... its just a tool...


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 25, 2007)

THORHAMMER said:


> I peronally cant stand 90% of the hdr's that I see, but what woodsac does with them I really like.. its more of an airbrushed alternate reality that he adds to them,
> I think its a great tool for the interior real estate industry, but its a little weird of a tool. simulating something like shadows for interiors is never as good as getting it right in camera.
> 
> Still, to each his own,... its just a tool...



well if you can go into a room that has a window and outside its daylight, take the picture to expose the room AND get the window lit right in camera, Kudos to you.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 25, 2007)

BoblyBill said:


> That's exactly why I use it myself. I want people to see as close to what I saw, and in the world of storm chasing and photographing clouds you almost always either overexpose the sky to get the ground or underexpose the ground to get the sky... Clouds are tricky.



that is my idea of it as well 

however I do like what some people do when they use hdr to create something new... (some!  And I admit woodsac is one of them  )


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 25, 2007)

I like HDR.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 25, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> I like HDR.



I agree.

I learn from the good ones as well as the not-so-good ones.

Whatever it takes for me to become better at expressing myself. I have no fear when it comes to ruining the effect by using up more HDR electrons than I probably should(?).

I see no sense in either disregarding work based entirely on the use or non-use of a technique.


----------



## William (Apr 25, 2007)

abraxas said:


> I see no sense in either disregarding work based entirely on the use or non-use of a technique.



Thats not at all what I'm doing.  I'm not disregarding HDR at all, I judge them by the individual photo.  I love alot of HDR's (like woodsac's).  Also, alot of shots _need_ HDR.  But some shots don't need it, and it makes the shot look like crap.  I think I've finally found the point of my rant.  

It seems today that the thinking is: * "If I make my shot an HDR, it will look good."* Alot of people think that HDR makes a shoot good IN ANY SITUATION.  I find this thinking ridiculous and sorrowfully incorrect.  On alot of shots, HDR takes away, and it makes shots look unrealistic and thus, but not always, unartistic.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 25, 2007)

William said:


> ... I think I've finally found the point of my rant.
> 
> It seems today that the thinking is: * "If I make my shot an HDR, it will look good."* Alot of people think that HDR makes a shoot good IN ANY SITUATION.  I find this thinking ridiculous and sorrowfully incorrect.  On alot of shots, HDR takes away, and it makes shots look unrealistic and thus, but not always, unartistic.



Now that's what I found out by by trying out HDR on a lot of different kinds of shots before I found out what I think works for me.  Sometimes I like pushing the 'realistic' envelope.  I also like shooting single exposure RAW.  Sometimes I can get what I want from RAW.  I haven't yet got what I want from using multiple exposure RAW for HDR.

I'd think that if someone labels a shot as HDR, one way or another they are calling attention to it and could use some diplomatic criticism rather than no one letting them know their 'shirt' stinks. Good grief, if no one tells them their HDR sucks, everyone will think they're as good as Woodsac and the pain will never end. Either help them get better or help them understand that medicine would be a better hobby.

An 'HDR = Ewww...'  just ain't right-


----------



## William (Apr 25, 2007)

abraxas said:


> An 'HDR = Ewww...'  just ain't right-



If you've seen Funky's signature, you would understand.  Just read some of the above posts.


----------



## Funky (Apr 25, 2007)

maybe you should have thought before posting blah! but honetly i dont think theres anything else to draw from this. weve all concluded that

1. HDR can look cool but doesnt always
2. HDR will die off like selective coloring 
and 3. woodsacks HDRs look damn sexy

anyone wanta add anything to the list?

edit: oh theres a page 2, theres nothing wrong with my siggy, just my oppinion. i still think selective coloring is useless.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 25, 2007)

Funky said:


> maybe you should have thought before posting blah! but honetly i dont think theres anything else to draw from this. weve all concluded that
> 
> 1. HDR can look cool but doesnt always
> 2. HDR will die off like selective coloring
> ...



4. If a thread is labeled HDR, take the time to offer a critique or comment- good or bad.

BTW- William, thanks for the comment on my HDR (I bet you knew that  ).

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79365


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 25, 2007)

abraxas said:


> 4. If a thread is labeled HDR, take the time to offer a critique or comment- good or bad.
> 
> BTW- William, thanks for the comment on my HDR (I bet you knew that  ).
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79365


 
to add on to number 4, saying "there was no reason to do HDR here" or "HDR is so over done" isn't a critique.  Explain yourself.


----------



## William (Apr 25, 2007)

Now there are things a photographer can take away from this too, not just the critiquer. (?)

5.  HDR won't always make your shot 'better' nor will it make more people respond to your thread.
6.  If you have a crappy HDR shot, its better to keep it hidden away in your workflow than to post it.  Posting it will only speed up the unavoidable downfall of the mighty HDR.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 26, 2007)

William said:


> If you have a crappy HDR shot, its better to keep it hidden away in your workflow than to post it.  Posting it will only speed up the unavoidable downfall of the mighty HDR.




In that vein, if you get a chance, please critique *my* first attempts at generating HDR images :mrgreen::

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79427

(It was this thread that got me thinking "maybe I should actually try to make some HDR images myself to see what the fuss is all about")


----------



## THORHAMMER (Apr 26, 2007)

you have to just shoot them at the magic hour.  thats when you see them in catalogues looking richly dark blue/purple sky through the window.... its like prob evening outside., also they sell a static cling tint that you can apply to the window in a few minutes. awsome results. 

I just can always tell when something is overly hdr, or overly shadowed or highlighted and it looks so bad when you can tell... thats all..

a little planning in the first hand and you dont need to "fake it"

Am I just oldschool ?


----------

