# 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

SCraig said:


> 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

sscarmack said:


> 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

reaper7534 said:


> 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

reaper7534 said:


> 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

reaper7534 said:


> 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

reaper7534 said:


> 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

Derrel said:


> reaper7534 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## reaper7534

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.


----------



## robbins.photo

Derrel said:


> 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.


I say if folks really want stuff to look like a black light poster more power too them.  Same thing if they want to glue shag carpet to the dashboard of their car..  lol 

I think one issue might be that for those of us who really dont care for overcooked images that well done hdr to us is something you wouldn't know is hdr unless someone said upfront its hdr.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack

reaper7534 said:


> 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


----------



## reaper7534

Derrel said:


> 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.



We can play with words all day..... don't confuse Can with Will.  No, you can't take a photo that wasn't properly framed and no sharpness and make it great.  The basic fundamentals have to be there to work with, HDR can't magically make a bad photo great and I know that.


----------



## reaper7534

Braineack said:


> reaper7534 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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 ?


----------



## IzzieK

What Robbins said ^^^ I agree with him. Not hostile, just not my preference, just like milky water. Can't have milk. I am allergic to it. Does this make me bad?


----------



## limr

Yes, the orange makes it look bad.


----------



## reaper7534

limr said:


> Yes, the orange makes it look bad.



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


----------



## astroNikon

reaper7534 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reaper7534 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel,
> 
> If you look at my post above, I " agreed " that in those instances, they are indeed overdone, even referring to that exact picture.
Click to expand...


I even think that one is totally overdone.

I think last year someone posted HDR photos, in particular of a couple airplanes and conversely had the non-HDR images.  I thought the HDR images would have made a kewl poster.  Whereas the regular one would have made a nice photo.

So I think it can go either way.  But some can be overcooked like the above example ... IMHO


----------



## limr

reaper7534 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the orange makes it look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *to each their own I suppose*, I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, isn't that the point? So you like it, others don't. So what? This is not a matter than can be settled by going back and forth about, "Well, this is why it's crap," followed by, "Well, this is why it's great." Folks can throw up as many examples as they want of either good or bad, but I'm still going to hate it and you're still going to really like it.

These discussions are as overcooked as the pictures are.


----------



## Derrel

reaper said:
			
		

> 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.


[/QUOTE]

So, you say you do not have the eye that others have. Fair enough. Here's what my "eye" and my brain say:  "It looks clownish to me, with a heavy-handed, cheezy looking, oddly-shaped four-stop vignette on the sky, cartoon clouds, and for some reason, the dome on the building now looks like a red Idaho potato in color, and the water has an ORANGE cast to it. The water reflects blue, then green, then orange."

Yeah... "great photo!" Not.

What you admit you are liking is a type of digital image that has long been called "eye candy". It's a cheap thrill for the senses. Print a picture like that out and hang it in your living room or office for a full month. You'll look at it a lot, and soon come to realize it looks cartoonish. It's a matter of visual taste and experience. The ridiculous water, in three colors, is a pretty good starting place for one's disillusionment, but then your attention will turn to the bright sky tones to the immediate right of the building, and you'll soon learn to appreciate the ages old saying,"Light advances, dark recedes." The sky's color and its tonal values are totally whacked in this shot!

The last thing about this shot is what Andrew Molitor called, "*The light from nowhere effect*." You know, where there appears to be no definable point of origin for the lighting...the shadows have been lifted soooooo much that in many HDR pictures that are overcooked, all of the cues about size, and depth, and distance, have been removed, because the shadows have been "lifted" up to mid-tone brightness values. The light on the scene in many HDR shots seems to emanate from...everywhere! And yet, from nowhere! After a period of looking at this type of rendering, people start to accept that bright, sunny day scenes can have shadow areas that look like mid-tones, and then they start to think, "Hey--this looks pretty great!" Everything is equally visible! THe deep shadows are brightened up so much that I can see every detail in the shadows as if it were a mid-tone!

Imagine if you watched a color TV set that had a picture like that. Where the lighting on EVERY scene looked like San Diego on the 4th of July. Night scenes, dawn scenes, twilight--ALL brightened up to a nice, uniform, fake light level, with no shadows, no midtones, and dull highlights; now THAT is overcooked tone-mapping, in a nutshell. Most things perfectly equalized and normalized to "fit" the widest possible range of values into one, big, normalized tone-mapped shot, but then ridiculously out of character colors and tones in places like the sky, or the water.

So, that's part of the reasoning underlying *my* feelings about overcooked images that have been tone-mapped hard, and put on display wet. ;-)


----------



## CAP

Eeek some of those are quite treble.

Question? 

*How are those HDRs done ?  Because i have HDR Settings and modes in 5D Mark III and my 1DX and they never look like that.  Is that Photoshop tool?
*
I use CS5 and Portrait Professional, Some Light Room stuff.  But i would be neat to do it with Photoshop, I am just not sure how. Any know a good guide on how to make images like http://cdn.picturecorrect.com/wp-co...would like to know how to create that effect.


----------



## Designer

Braineack said:


> where did all that orange on the water come from?



It was included with his "artistic license".  

Obviously not a real reflection from anything, but the photog-artistse wanted to have orange in the photo to compliment the overlyblue and vignetted sky.


----------



## Designer

My opinion is that in SOME photographs, an over-cooked HDR effect COULD enhance the computer operator's "vision".

Furthermore, without being over-baked, HDR can work.


----------



## reaper7534

Points taken and they make great sense from a technical point of view and you may be right, let me hang it up for a couple of months and I may hate it, but initially it is pleasing to me.   What is the opinion on the tone mapped hdr directly to he left of the processed one ?


----------



## Derrel

reaper7534 said:


> Points taken and they make great sense from a technical point of view and you may be right, let me hang it up for a couple of months and I may hate it, but initially it is pleasing to me.   What is the opinion on the tone mapped hdr directly to he left of the processed one ?



Looks flat and dull. The tone-mapped HDR shot to the left of the processed one suffers from the aforementioned, "Light from nowhere" syndrome in a very significant way. This scene was captured on a day with strong side-lighting, but the shadows are so bright that hundreds of thousands of years' worth of human brain evolution screams, "FAKE!" The front of the building is in full sunlight, but the left side of the building is about 3/4 of a stop dimmer....which looks utterly,totally IMPOSSIBLE to "see" in the real world. The shadowed side of the building is far too light...we can literally SEE strong, sidelighting on the front of the building, and yet...the entire side of the building that ought to be in shadow, because of a blue sky and DIRECT sunlight, looks....faked...off...impossibly too bright...implausibly bright...

"The light from nowhere syndrome," is the main issue when we take hundreds of thousands of years of human perception and human brain development, and start re-inventing the rules of how light behaves.


----------



## sonicbuffalo

Not a fan of HDR.........just a toy to play with.


----------



## Trainwizard

I absolutely love using HDR. It is just my thing. I love surreal photography, as it is candy to the eyes for me. The photo of the Golden Gate Bridge linked in one of the "BAD" photos is one of my new favorites in this forum. To each their own, I'm just an HDR lover, while others may not like the overcooked look. 

Here's an "overcooked" HDR I took. If it makes your eyes bleed, tough beans!


----------



## sscarmack

Exactly, you like it. I don't. I think it looks like crap. Who cares? I don't. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

IzzieK said:


> What Robbins said ^^^ I agree with him. Not hostile, just not my preference, just like milky water. Can't have milk. I am allergic to it. Does this make me bad?


lets see...  you don't like milk.  zombies don't like milk.  hmmm..

purely coincidental I'm sure...lol 

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## agp

I don't like overdone images. I think overdone ones are too cartoonish.

I think the best ones are borderline HDR and single exposure. Similar by comparison, passionate driving is the most fun to me at the point right before I lose control of I rear tires.


----------



## nzmacro

I know very little about HDR, but I do know what my eyes see. Personally most I've seen don't look real, nothing like a photograph. That's the issue I have with it. Nope, not all is like that at all, but the majority seems to be. I remember when it first became popular and I agree with Scott, a lot seem to mimic cartoons for some reason. It is an outlet and fair enough, its amazing what it can do, just not for me is all. 

All the best and just a personal opinion and of course, each to their own. We all like and take different things.

Danny.


----------



## sscarmack

What's funny to me is "good" examples of HDR can be done with a single RAW exposure 99% of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## photoguy99

Photographs don't look real except by social convention.


----------



## Derrel

photoguy99 said:


> Photographs don't look real except by social convention.



And by mimicking the things the eye sees...like you know...shadows....light...the direction the light emanates from, highlights...colors, hues, shades, and tonal or color relationships between the sky and other objects in the scene...you know, stuff like that. There's a whole field called visual perception.


----------



## photoguy99

And don't forget color!


----------



## jake337

One of my favorite HDR panoramas but most people probably would say "That doesn't look like "HDR"!"

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cemusakligil/6902298787/


"HDR" or exposure/aperture/ISO bracketing is a tool to be used as each individual artist sees fit.  I like the when it isn't overdone but to each their own.


----------



## Derrel

I remember back in 2005, when the Shadow/Highlight tool hit the market. Oh man! I found that if I applied really extreme shadow/highlight adjustment, I could get something that looked like these images did. At the time, this was way before Photomatix hit the scene, and wayyy before the HDR craze swept the hobby photo world.






I thought this image above looked *simply incredible*.

And I also thought this shot below looked incredible. It was a brand-new way of processing images, made possible by a NEW software tool, used to an extreme degree.


----------



## SDB777

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

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


HDR is just another 'tool', sort of like those images where photo's of people have their eye's whitened(removing blood-shot streaks), or perhaps removing a 'zit' from a persons cheek.  Or another way of putting it....I like them.  I certainly wouldn't bash someone for "cartoon looking photo's"....I just wouldn't look or comment.





Scott (sort of like saying you don't like clouds) B


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> reaper7534 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the orange makes it look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *to each their own I suppose*, I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, isn't that the point? So you like it, others don't. So what? This is not a matter than can be settled by going back and forth about, "Well, this is why it's crap," followed by, "Well, this is why it's great." Folks can throw up as many examples as they want of either good or bad, but I'm still going to hate it and you're still going to really like it.
> 
> These discussions are as overcooked as the pictures are.
Click to expand...


Great.  Marvelous.  Do you have any idea how long it's going to take me to get all that shag carpet off the dash of the Eldorado?

Lol


----------



## nzmacro

reaper7534 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reaper7534 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 ?
Click to expand...




reaper7534 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the orange makes it look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to each their own I suppose, I prefer it to the muddy brown water look.
Click to expand...



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

nzmacro said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## robbins.photo

scotts2014se said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same argument could be used for B&W photos.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## nzmacro

scotts2014se said:


> nzmacro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same argument could be used for B&W photos.
Click to expand...


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

The Barbarian said:


> 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

The Barbarian said:


> 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?


----------



## SpikeyJohnson

molested_cow said:


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



Lightroom can not do layers but you can tweak things individually with brushes. Sadly though, if you want true layer blending you need Photoshop.


----------



## keyseddie

I have enormous respect for the guys like nzmacro and coastalconn, who shoot moving critters with such precision and have the technical know how to produce great images. As for HDR there surely is some poor images out there and also some excellent artwork employing HDR. I like that reaper is trying to push boundaries and I like what barbarian and fokker have posted. They exhibit good composition and that's why it works. The general photography standards and techniques comment reminds me of the comments made by the prevailing artists when the Impressionist painters came upon the scene in the 1860s. Although I've been doing it for a lifetime, I''m probably not a great technical photographer. I look at the photoshop/lightroom thread and it all seems foreign to me. I don't really have a workflow, I suppose. I'm more of an artist too lazy to paint or sculpt. I have a camera instead and I've been able to make it say what I feel and for me, most importantly, I've been able to sell what I make. One of my students who has been on a couple of my workshops does HDR. He knows the technical aspects because that's his personality and talent. He's slowly coming to terms with his artistic talents as well, which means we both are finding success in our efforts. I don't have a clue how to do HDR. Perhaps I'll learn. But for me, the most satisfying element of this debate is seeing others attempting to circumvent convention for the sake of art.


----------



## fokker

keyseddie said:


> circumvent convention for the sake of art.



Now that's quote-worthy.


----------



## Vince.1551

molested_cow said:


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



This is one great example of good HDR. Whoever thinks ALL HDRs are bad probably haven't SEEN enough HDRs or can't produce a GOOD HDR!!!


----------



## The Barbarian

> Isn't this some standard?



No, the zone system is a method.  You can use it in various ways.   For example, although Ansel Adams used it so that the darkest spot in a photograph was pure black and the lightest spot in the photograph was pure white, you could do a high key image if you chose. ( I did learn the zone system from someone who made Adams' practice into a rule, but then every free notion eventually becomes orthodoxy for someone)  The method merely allowed you to pick what the tones would look like on the negative.

I have some rules for myself, knowing what different settings are likely to do to get the look I want.   But they are merely rules of thumb which I almost always adjust later to get the image exactly right.


----------



## Browncoat

HDR: Giving keyboard warriors something to whine about on photography forums since 2006.


----------



## Didereaux

HDR has its place and uses.  But at present most of the HDR stuff reminds a person of what you would get if you gave a room full of 7 year olds several cans of florescent paint and walked out of the room.


----------



## molested_cow

Didereaux said:


> .......what you would get if you gave a room full of 7 year olds several cans of florescent paint and walked out of the room.



Having worked with kids, I'd expect the result to be nothing short of spectacular.


----------



## The Barbarian

> Having worked with kids, I'd expect the result to be nothing short of spectacular.



Precisely.   I think it was Picasso who observed that all kids are great artists, but lack technique.   The trick, he said, was to gain technique without losing the child.


----------



## molested_cow

The Barbarian said:


> Having worked with kids, I'd expect the result to be nothing short of spectacular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.   I think it was Picasso who observed that all kids are great artists, but lack technique.   The trick, he said, was to gain technique without losing the child.
Click to expand...


As a designer who has a fair share of art work, technique is over rated. I ran a program with a kindergarten and was constantly being inspired by the kids' works. It's not the colors or the crayon strokes what inspire me, it's the contents and motivations that are enlightening.


----------



## dweazel

HDR?... more like HDarrrgh. Heh heh.

Actually it don't bother me that much... no-one's putting a gun to my head to look at a picture. Like many techniques it can be way overdone but then there are times when you suspect HDR was used but you can't be sure...and for me they are the 'good' ones.


----------



## gsgary

reaper7534 said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


A turd is a turd no matter how much you polish it


----------



## The Barbarian

> but then there are times when you suspect HDR was used but you can't be sure...and for me they are the 'good' ones.



For me, too.   In fact, a lot of what I do, is never recognized as HDR, because I only used it to lighten up some shadows or to tone down highlights a bit.  Perhaps because my only formal training in photography was in using the Zone System for B&W, I was drawn to the possibilities of HDR to adjust tonal range.  

It's worth exploring:
HDR and the Zone System | Stone Rose Blog


----------



## Browncoat

Threads like this make me wonder what would happen if Ansel Adams were still alive. Clearly, he would be doing HDR photography. Would all the zealots still be so anti-HDR, or would they jump on a different bandwagon?


----------



## The Barbarian

The purists would be castigating him now, as they did then.  

_Zone System is Analogue HDR_
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/guest/digital_analogue.html


----------



## 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

407370 said:


> 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

limr said:


> 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

limr said:


> 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

keyseddie said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

limr said:


> 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

manaheim said:


> 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.


----------



## manaheim

vintagesnaps said:


> 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.
> .



Uhhhh...  Go look again. The human eye can see way more dynamic range than a camera... And yes... You absolutely can see the bright blue sky and a well lit interior. In total extremes... Like staring at the sun from in a cave? No. Otherwise...  Yes. 

And as far as hdr fading away... Folks said the same thing about color photography.


----------



## 407370

vintagesnaps said:


> ......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.



What Look??

Both examples of HDR:
HDR                        
 
HDR + TONE MAPPING

Not a great picture to start with but very distinct styles of PP. Does the second one represent " the look" you are referring to?

Does it look good or bad is up to the person viewing it.

To me there are an unlimited number of ways to process that picture. To some other people there is a very limited number of ways to process that picture. Thats the point I am making.


----------



## limr

407370 said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Look??
> 
> Both examples of HDR:
> HDR                        View attachment 80808
> HDR + TONE MAPPINGView attachment 80809
> 
> Not a great picture to start with but very distinct styles of PP. Does the second one represent " the look" you are referring to?
> 
> *Does it look good or bad is up to the person viewing it.*
> 
> To me there are an unlimited number of ways to process that picture. To some other people there is a very limited number of ways to process that picture. Thats the point I am making.
Click to expand...


And the point *I* was trying to make was that you can process your photos in any way you want to. Bend the rules, make new rules, completely ignore rules...do whatever the heck you want. If I don't like the look of most of those photos, that doesn't mean I'm saying *you* should limit how you process them. That's also *not* saying I think those tools are bad or worthless. It's simply saying that I don't get enjoyment out of looking at the product of the processing. That's not a closed mind; that's just an opinion on how something is or isn't pleasing to my eye.

Am I going to use HDR? No. Once again, that is not the sign of a closed mind. It's the sign of a person who recognizes that using that tool would create an image that is not pleasing to her eye. Am I limiting myself? Of course I am. _*Everyone* limits themselves_. No one can use every single processing tool all the time. You pick and choose the ones that suit the things you like to look at or create. I'm not using HDR, but then again, you probably aren't using instant film and physically manipulating the emulsion. And yet, here I am, *not* accusing you of having a closed mind.

For the last time, having an intellectual appreciation of a tool that creates a certain look and also not liking that look are *two different things*. 

And now I'm well and truly over it.


----------



## BenjaminJ

People hate hdr cause it aint what they are used to. Some come to like it (as well as its well done) and some will hate it no matter what for no valid reason at all. Plenty of us make a fine living off hdr photos, while those criticizing it make nothing off their photos. You need to think about the reasons a person would aggressively attack hdr photographers. If it didn't affect their living, they wouldn't care. So their whole argument is defeated by their protest.


----------



## Scatterbrained

BenjaminJ said:


> People hate hdr cause it aint what they are used to. Some come to like it (as well as its well done) and some will hate it no matter what for no valid reason at all. Plenty of us make a fine living off hdr photos, while those criticizing it make nothing off their photos. You need to think about the reasons a person would aggressively attack hdr photographers. If it didn't affect their living, they wouldn't care. So their whole argument is defeated by their protest.



I would say people hate "obvious" HDR because it tends to look like crap.   

When you say "plenty of us make a fine living off hdr photos" I would ask you what you are making off of your HDR images, and what you consider a "fine" living.  Also know that people who make the most off of HDR tend to make images that don't rely on "the HDR look"  to sell.  Their images sell because of the _content_.  Oftentimes you may see their images and not even know it's HDR.   Of course, this excludes internet photocelebs who make their living selling their schtick to noob photogs. 

People don't attack HDR because it effects their livelyhoods or lifestyles.  That assumption is a bit egotistical. They have a negative opinion of it and are sharing that opinion.  This isn't any different than a fashion designer "hating" to see people walk around with their pants hanging off their backsides.  It doesn't effect them, but it does offend their personal aesthetic.   Their "protesting" doesn't defeat their argument.  

HDR that is "obvious' tends to put the process before the image.  If creating images that are more reliant on a processing gimmick than vision is your thing than so be it.   Personally, if you look at one of my HDR images and the first thing that jumps out is "HDR!", then I have failed.  I never want my processing to overshadow my images.


----------



## Justmpo

reaper7534 said:


> 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.



I couldn't agree more...... which is why Reaper, you came to the wrong forum. Don't let the forum section name fool you. Half or more of these guys do not even like HDR in the first place. Most of the rest feel that only their way of super lightly done, hard to tell its even an HDR, types of photos, are correct. Yours, mine, and every other artists train of thought is simply wrong, because its not the same as theirs.

Ef' all of those close-minded @$$holes.


----------



## astroNikon

Justmpo said:


> reaper7534 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more...... which is why Reaper, you came to the wrong forum. Don't let the forum section name fool you. Half or more of these guys do not even like HDR in the first place. Most of the rest feel that only their way of super lightly done, hard to tell its even an HDR, types of photos, are correct. Yours, mine, and every other artists train of thought is simply wrong, because its not the same as theirs.
> 
> Ef' all of those close-minded @$$holes.
Click to expand...

You're gonna get yourself banned.


I like HDR photos ... in a post from last year (I think I said this already in this thread) someone had HDR of an airplane.  I think it looked great and would make a great poster.  Of course, many anti-HDR ppl stipulated it wasn't a good "photo"

each people has a particular look that they like.  I think that's about it.  There are "pure" photographers then everyone else who uses HDR< or photoshop, etc.


----------



## manaheim

astroNikon said:
			
		

> You're gonna get yourself banned.



Your predictive powers are astonishing, astro. 

The dude was using some fake IP, logged into the forum and his only two posts have been inflammatory... oh and one nasty PM to me just disparaging the forum to the nth degree.

Just a troll, most likely.


----------



## astroNikon

manaheim said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna get yourself banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your predictive powers are astonishing, astro.
> 
> The dude was using some fake IP, logged into the forum and his only two posts have been inflammatory... oh and one nasty PM to me just disparaging the forum to the nth degree.
> 
> Just a troll, most likely.
Click to expand...

Yup.  Hostile and Nasty words even with the (&%  tend to not be overlooked.

I nearly replied to his other post but I decided not too.  Then you locked it.


----------



## JimMcClain

I got to spend a little time at Hot August Nights in Reno, NV last week. Didn't see any pictures I wanted, but I did run across a booth where some lady was selling HDR images of custom cars and images from races. I've seen some HDR I like, but my taste has changed, probably matured, since joining TPF and other photo related sites the last few months. The thought that ran through my mind when I first saw that HDR booth was, HRD is the black velvet paintings of the 21st century. At least those were. But they were selling because people liked them.

I like a large variety of photography styles, but I'm not interested in learning how to shoot or develop all types of photography. I am glad TPF exists to help me create better pictures. But it also exists to help photographers with different interests than mine. I don't like certain types of photography though, so I just don't go into those specific forums or get involved in discussions related to them. I like the phrase, "to each their own." If it's not "my own," I'm happy to let others own it unconditionally.

Jim


----------



## manaheim

omg please let this thread die.

There is one and only one answer to "Why the hostility towards xxx?" ... and that is SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE CHANGE... AND ...OTHER PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGE ISN'T GOOD JUST BECAUSE IT'S CHANGE.

It's the same crap all the time. Color photography. Autofocus. Digital photography. Microwaves. Cars. Eating tomatoes. 

MOST of these things eventually become widely accepted and then become the new norm that everyone stands on when someone introduces some other new thing and they feel the need to shout it down.

The world is full of change. Embrace it, accept it, don't accept it, whatever. Who cares. Just please *god *don't whine about it on the internet.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Jim that analogy gave me a laugh. I don't usually look at the HDR section but kept seeing this thread pop up so finally looked to see what it was about - and still it continues on! 

 HDR to me overpowers the photo and that's what stands out more than the composition or anything else about a photo when the technique is used. Maybe if it was more subtle it would enhance a photo and I might find it more interesting or appealing, but I can't say I've seen HDR that I liked. Maybe because it isn't usually subtle is why people tend to react to it (just often not in a good way!).


----------



## Scatterbrained

vintagesnaps said:


> Jim that analogy gave me a laugh. I don't usually look at the HDR section but kept seeing this thread pop up so finally looked to see what it was about - and still it continues on!
> 
> HDR to me overpowers the photo and that's what stands out more than the composition or anything else about a photo when the technique is used. Maybe if it was more subtle it would enhance a photo and I might find it more interesting or appealing, but I can't say I've seen HDR that I liked. Maybe because it isn't usually subtle is why people tend to react to it (just often not in a good way!).



I can just about garuntee that you've seen HDR images you liked, it's just highly likely that you didn't know it was HDR.   That's the whole thing.  When we talk about people not liking HDR what it usually boils down to is the overcooked, tonemapped look.  Done well you don't even know it, which was my point before.  It shouldn't overpower the image.     Meanwhile some people think that HDR is just the greatest way to polish their turds, and then get pissy when people point out that it's still a turd.


----------



## manaheim

Again... you CAN do an HDR subtly... it's just that many people do not. Saying you don't like HDR is like saying you don't like cookies just because you don't like chips ahoy.


----------



## limr

Really truly, can we let it die?


----------



## W.Y.Photo

I like my pictures smooth and fluid rather than hard and crunchy.


----------



## scotts2014se

Why let it die? If somebody else has the desire to give their 2 cents about the topic, they should be able to. You cant give yours and tell everyone to drop it. Nor are you forced to read the replies if you are tired of the topic. It is still a _forum_.


----------



## runnah

scotts2014se said:


> Why let it die? If somebody else has the desire to give their 2 cents about the topic, they should be able to. You cant give yours and tell everyone to drop it. Nor are you forced to read the replies if you are tired of the topic. It is still a forum.



Cause the topic has been discussed to death.

Some like it, some hate it. This all that needs to be said on the issue.


----------



## scotts2014se

runnah said:


> scotts2014se said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why let it die? If somebody else has the desire to give their 2 cents about the topic, they should be able to. You cant give yours and tell everyone to drop it. Nor are you forced to read the replies if you are tired of the topic. It is still a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause the topic has been discussed to death.
> 
> Some like it, some hate it. This all that needs to be said on the issue.
Click to expand...


So,... You're done discussing it, so that means everyone else is too? New members with their own opinions join here everyday. Are they suppose to not participate in the forums because some of us are tired of the same dead horse?
I'm not trying to start a debate about this now, I have seen this sort of thing on many forums, I just never understood why something should be dropped just because some dont want to hear it anymore, even though they sure had alot to say about it in the first place. I dont walk down the hall at work and hear a conversation in one of the rooms that I'm tired of listening to, and tell whoever is having the conversation to shutup. I just dont go into that room.

I will state however that I dont see what could be accomplished by disussing this particular topic, but it is a forum, and those that wish to, should be able to.


----------



## manaheim

I will personally give a free camera to the first person who presents a NEW argument on this forum... on this topic.

Go ahead.

Make my day.


----------



## scotts2014se

manaheim said:


> I will personally give a free camera to the first person who presents a NEW argument on this forum... on this topic.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Make my day.



Sweet! I just won a camera!!! Or is that starting now?


----------



## runnah

manaheim said:


> I will personally give a free camera to the first person who presents a NEW argument on this forum... on this topic.  Go ahead.  Make my day.



HDR has been shown to cause impotence and incontinence.

Debate the pros and cons of this.


----------



## The Barbarian

> HDR has been shown to cause impotence and incontinence.



[snark]That would explain some of the posts on this thread.[/snark]


----------



## herde

Hi ! 
Indeed, overcooked images can add a great dramatic effect and transmit feelings you would not be able to feel with a limited treatment. Which is, in my opininon, what art is all about...
Here is an example of my works on this :



If you like it (or not...) and want to see more of my picture, here is my website : www.herdephotos.fr

Thanks for your visits ! 
Herdé


----------



## greybeard

HDR is to photography what AUTOTUNE is to sound recording.  A little goes a long way.


----------



## chuasam

manaheim said:


> omg please let this thread die.
> 
> There is one and only one answer to "Why the hostility towards xxx?" ... and that is SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE CHANGE... AND ...OTHER PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGE ISN'T GOOD JUST BECAUSE IT'S CHANGE.
> 
> It's the same crap all the time. Color photography. Autofocus. Digital photography. Microwaves. Cars. Eating tomatoes.
> 
> MOST of these things eventually become widely accepted and then become the new norm that everyone stands on when someone introduces some other new thing and they feel the need to shout it down.
> 
> The world is full of change. Embrace it, accept it, don't accept it, whatever. Who cares. Just please *god *don't whine about it on the internet.



Just like bell bottoms, Hypercolor tshirt, twilight movies, slavery, and Justin Bieber


----------



## chuasam

manaheim said:


> I will personally give a free camera to the first person who presents a NEW argument on this forum... on this topic.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Make my day.



What kind of camera?


----------



## Browncoat

Ken Rockwell doesn't understand HDR, therefore it must suck.


----------



## chuasam

Browncoat said:


> Ken Rockwell doesn't understand HDR, therefore it must suck.



Ken Rockwell doesn't understand photography


----------



## astroNikon

chuasam said:


> Browncoat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Rockwell doesn't understand HDR, therefore it must suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Rockwell doesn't understand photography
Click to expand...

Oh boy, let's start another Bash Ken Rockwell thread.

oh wait, we're still bashing HDR ...


----------



## chuasam

astroNikon said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Browncoat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Rockwell doesn't understand HDR, therefore it must suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Rockwell doesn't understand photography
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh boy, let's start another Bash Ken Rockwell thread.
> 
> oh wait, we're still bashing HDR ...
Click to expand...


Ken Rockwell and HDR - both worshipped by newbies and reviled by those who know better.


----------



## chuasam

That's like slapping a tie dye paint job on a Toyota Camry. Will that make it an exciting car? Nope.
How about putting lipstick on a pig?


----------



## Overread

Since the thread is sort of limping on in a crazed drunken waltz its time to lock it up and let it have a well deserved rest.


----------

