# A Manifesto



## amolitor (Oct 16, 2012)

I've been pondering the problem of new aesthetics, and new ways of seeing, and in general the future of photography. While I don't much like HDR, and I find the results to be often incomprehensible, it is clearly a strong candidate for truly new work. In this spirit, I offer up the following manifesto. You may not agree with it -- not all HDR need fall under _this_ aesthetic, although equally clearly _some_ HDR does fall under it.

Ignore this, mock it, ridicule it if you like. If there's something in it you can use, appropriate it and make it your own. It's yours, it's everyone's, to use, misuse, or discard as you see fit.

In this spirit:
​*MANIFESTO* 

We propose to do nothing less than to destroy light in photography. Not  to literally eliminate it, but to eliminate its tyranny over the  photographic image. We choose to reveal subjects, not to conceal. We  choose to strip away, as far as possible, the shadows and the  highlights, to nakedly reveal the structure and form of our subjects. To  reveal form by placing texture against texture, color against color,  tone against tone, rather than through the modeling effects of a  strongly directional light. 

Our ideals are the engineering drawing, the blueprint, the exploded  view, the architectural plan. Ours is an era of technology, we choose to  embrace the visual idioms of technology. We choose to fully reveal the  structure and form of our subject, and by doing so, to fully reveal the  idea of the subject, and our relationship to the subject. The form  without the idea is of no interest to us. 

The obliteration of light should never obliterate form, instead it  should reveal and clarify form. This is no easy task. It requires  careful attention to every detail, it requires a new way of seeing and  thinking about imaging. It requires careful application of technology.  The techniques of HDR are one way to realize this aesthetic, but there  are other ways. One might also choose to reveal structure and form with  many light sources, or with very long exposures, perhaps. 

In all cases, the dominance of the directional light shall be crushed.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

I would truly love to mock this. I really would. Buuuut, it hits so damned close to the mark of real truth that mocking it would only make me look like a very foolish man. You have truly hit upon the unstated goal of many practitioners of the dark art of HDR-type tone mapping of images.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 16, 2012)

I actually wrote this for my dumb blog, where I expand a little bit. I think I would hate the results of this, but I genuinely think it could be a real thing. If I was a young guy looking for an artistic voice, this is the kind of thing I'd be looking for -- and I might even DO it.

To an extent, it already exists, with the fashion/swimwear/playboy lighting model of "just stick strobes everyplace" look. I think it could be artistically interesting as an approach (although, again, I would probably hate it -- I'm old, I hate stuff, it's what I do


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

I was thinking the SAME thing: that this might actually gain some of what is called "traction" in today's vernacular!!! zOMG!!!!! The mind boggles! I have not see your blog lately, but I know in the past you have mentioned "*video game lighting*", as well as "*lighting from nowhere*", and I have to say, you make very good keen observations with regard to how lighting of that type, the type of lighting seen in both video games, and in today's (often half-assed) fashion/editorial/advertising photography, has lead us to a point where the idea of old, of identifiable sources and directions of light, has been thrown out the window.

Photography died off a long time ago, in the opinion of me and many other thinkers. Today, what we really have in the main is "digital imaging". I differentiate between the two activities at an intellectual level, but in forum and everyday conversation, I often use the older term of photography when discussing "digital imaging". The new, heavily, heavily, heavily software-centric stuff we see in so many places today has some very serious issues with light and lighting. Increasingly we see positively preposterous lighting schemes, passed off as "good lighting".

Anyway...your manifesto is a fascinating concept, and I honestly think a *very fine academic essay* could be built around your manifesto's ideas!! And...your blog is not dumb. Your HAT might be, but your blog? Uh...no...


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2012)

The problem with this is that it's an attack. It's sarcastically and ingenuously presented in the form of a manifesto. As a negative assault it isn't productive.

HDR/tone mapping is a new option that digital methods provide. It's in it's infancy and the photographic community is exploring it. That should be encouraged not assaulted. I'm also not a fan of over-processed, over-saturated, haloed and poorly executed tone mapped photos of which there are ample examples. At the same time I have seen some stunning and very exciting images come out of these new technologies. I look forward to seeing more and I'm excited by the potential and the promise of new directions. Patience will see what's valuable surface. There's lots of room in this world for different approaches and different media and modes of expression. One doesn't have to negate the other; directional light doesn't have to be crushed to make room for tone mapping. Paul Strand said it best: _Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an  etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent.  To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a  sign of impotence.
_
Joe


----------



## bs0604 (Oct 16, 2012)

I was never interested in photography until I saw my first Topaz HDR image.  HDR is just another art form.  I don't particularly appreciate Rap music but I can understand how others might, and see it as just another art form of music, not meant to replace symphonic, jazz, or rock, but simply to add to the repetoire.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 16, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> The problem with this is that it's an attack. It's sarcastically and ingenuously presented in the form of a manifesto. As a negative assault it isn't productive.



This is completely false. You might read it as an attack if you like, but it is not intended as such, and I fail to see how it can easily be construed as an attack.

ETA: Let me expand on this slightly. When I wrote this piece, I had not one iota of thought of making an attack on HDR. I felt, instead, excited and pleased that I had found a way in which I might contribute an idea, in which I might in some small way point a way forward for these new visual ideas. I recognize fully that I would probably not like the results, and said as much, but there is much in art that I simultaneously dislike, and respect as art. Nothing would please me more than to have some cadre of photographers take up my manifesto, modify and bend it to their taste, and direct their vision with clarity and power along lines slightly related to what I have said here. While I might not like their work, I would be pleased that it exists, in the same way that, for exmple, I am pleased that cubism exists.


----------



## KenC (Oct 16, 2012)

I didn't see it as an attack or as being sarcastic.  Perhaps so many people on here are heavy on the sarcasm that we look for it everywhere.


----------



## ClickAddict (Oct 16, 2012)

The first sentence "We propose to do nothing less than to destroy light in photography" is highly negative and sets the tone for the rest.  The puropose might not be negative but the statement is.  Kind of like saying "We freed all the slaves, by letting their captors meet their maker" vs "We killed all the captors to let the slaves go"  Both have the same meaning but words such as "killed" vs "free" at the beginning really changes the tone of the sentence.  "Destroy light" when Light is typically a symbol of good is almost pretty heavy on the attack side.


----------



## ClickAddict (Oct 16, 2012)

Having said that, I still agree with his manifesto.  :mrgreen:  I just see where many would read it as sarcastic / attacking.  (I did)


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 16, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with this is that it's an attack. It's sarcastically and ingenuously presented in the form of a manifesto. As a negative assault it isn't productive.
> ...



It was easy to construe it as an attack, especially in light of your response to Derrel. "Crushing and destroying" isn't positive language:

"In all cases, the dominance of the directional light shall be crushed."
"We propose to do nothing less than to destroy light in photography."
"I'm old, I hate stuff, it's what I do ;-)"

Derrel's responses also provide support that what you offered was negative in intent -- he caught it as such;  ".... you hit upon the unstated goal of many practitioners of the dark art of HDR-type tone mapping..."

I still read it as offered in a sarcastic and negative spirit.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

I did not see this as an attack either; it falls under the umbrella of photographic criticism and observation/commentary. Of course, I have been following *amolitor's blog* about photographic lighting trends,off and on, for a while now. In the posts he has done prior to this one, he has discussed multiple aspects of the many trends in photographic styles and lighting, photographic tropes, memes, and styles. Honestly, while this could be interpreted as an attack--at the very same time, it is also a VERY ACCURATE description of the net result that we see in oh-so-much HDR-type work today: a sense of light that emanates from *God-only-knows-where... *lighting that just seems to come from MULTIPLE sources..or from underneath...or which has been *hit so damned hard with the Software Hammer *that the finished results look absolutely IMPOSSIBLE given the laws of physics on this planet.

I think that amolitor's manifesto would make a great central theme in a lengthy essay. Of course, the HDR-type fanatics will condemn him. And will soundly curse his audacity to condemn their *Software Hammer *based religion. THis is similar to most manifestos: when a person of an opposing political or religious faith hears something he does not like, he immediately resorts to screaming at the top of his lungs that the other party is "A Communist!", or "a Socialist!" or, "A bloody liberal!", or a "Godd82n3ed freaking _________!".

The fact is, there's a massive mine full of nuggets in his manifesto...


----------



## amolitor (Oct 16, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> I still read it as offered in a sarcastic and negative spirit.



You are, of course, welcome to continue to do so.

I assert only that I did not offer it in a sarcastic or negative spirit, and note in passing that am more familiar with my own motivations than you are.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

My opinion is this: for a HUGE majority of HDR-type practitioners, it's much more about *the process* than about *the picture*. When anybody takes note of what this "process" does to the rendering of light,shadow, and tonal and color values, as these things are viewed in relation to the 1839 to 2004 traditions in _traditional_ photography, the HDR crowd roars in disapproval, seemingly unable to comprehend that many viewers do not give two whits about how many hours they spent blending nine bracketed exposures together to make one "shot" when the picture was $h!++y to begin with...

Is my last statement an attack? Or just a deeply-held personal opinion based on having seen thousands of bad,meaningless HDR-type images slaved over by HDR fans?????

Of course, amolitor's manifesto is part of a much larger, and longer-lasting series of observations directed at SERIOUS thinking about photography and photo criticism. We'll call him the Susan Sontag of TPF...and as such, he's gonna' have a lot of people whining about what he has to say, and shouting him down...


----------



## amolitor (Oct 16, 2012)

Let me expand a little more on these ideas, to support my _bona fides_ here.

As I suggested, there is much work done with HDR which would not fall under the rubric of this manifesto. Very well. There is some work which is not HDR would would fall under the rubric of this manifesto. Very well.

For those interested in pursing these ideas with the camera and the computer, I will note that if you destroy light and eliminate its dominance in the image, then you must *find other solutions to the problems solved by the presence of light and shadow in your photograph*. It is this which renders so much HDR work a muddle -- the light IS crushed, but the result is a visual muddle since the problems solved by a directional strong light are not solved in these images. The forms and structures are not revealed, they are confused with one another. This is certainly not true of all HDRs.

I recall distinctly an HDR of one of Thomas Edison's lab in which the light was thoroughly destroyed, yet the masses of glassware, the benches, the complete sense of the laboratory was wonderfully present. I didn't *like* it, but it was a photograph with its own kind of excellence, and it surely revealed structure, it revealed form, and by GOD it revealed the idea of the laboratory, and really of all laboratories. How it managed this, I cannot really say, I don't recall it clear enough, only the impression it left is clear. If I could find it, I might present it as the archetype of the sort of thing I am talking about.

In the same way there are excellent figure studies made with "strobes all over the place" which crush light pretty thoroughly, and which have their own kind of excellence. Most of them are just cheesecake, but that's because they're just creating mass market photos of hot chicks. There's nothing about the method which precludes brilliant and powerful work.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> SNIP>ideas with the camera and the computer>>>destroy light and eliminate its dominance in the image>>the light IS crushed> result is a visual muddle>forms and structures are not revealed, they are confused with one another> SNIP>>>
> 
> SNIP>>"strobes all over the place" which crush light pretty thoroughly>>cheesecake,>>mass market photos of hot chicks.



I took the liberty of removing a mass of connecting words, and distilling a few critical ideas that amolitor has discussed in his blog, and touched upon here. Note that it begins with *camera and computer. *Emphasis added by me. A second topic, his "Strobes all over the place" concept is a second aspect, not originally discussed here, in the manifesto, but dealt with elsewhere. Both these methods, the camera AND computer manipulation of images using HDR and tone-mapping software, and totally re-arranging tonal relationships, and 2) the use of a bazillion strobe heads in so,so much advertising photography these days, represents a HUGE, a positively HUGE sea change in the way photography is being "done", on the part of many people.

Also, the use of the word "crush" seems to be causing some friction...

The fundamental issue as I see it is that bringing computers and massive software to bear on real-world situations has created an entirely new type of imaging; one where the clues that light, and lighting, and light direction, and tonal values (whites, blacks, grays,etc,etc) are now just freely rendered, willy-nilly by some people, in ways that look positively, well, "Fake", for lack of a better word. It is a NEW STYLE. It is indeed a sea change. The fact that somebody is trying to call it to our attention is a positive. Of course, those who enjoy tone-mapping images heavily, and who enjoy creating HDR type image, and who like the *Software Hammer*  (that is a Derrel-ism that I have created and use in my own thoughts...) approach seem to take umbrage...

I wonder if Manet and Monet enjoyed it when the traditionalists dismissed and ridiculed their work, and denied them entrance to the European salon exhibitions...hmmm...probably not...but did the critics who DESCRIBED how the new Impressionist painters's renderings differed from those of the prior traditions have Impressionist Fanboys call them *"impotent"*?? Come on...bring it up a little, Joe...

I use the above analogy because the rise of *Impressionism in painting* marked a positively huge sea change in painting; I submit that HDR imaging is similar in its magnitude.


----------



## panblue (Oct 16, 2012)

amolitor said:


> This is completely false. You might read it as an attack if you like, but it is not intended as such, and I fail to see how it can easily be construed as an attack.



Until I scrolled down, I also thought you were taking the p*ss..
because the opening premise is one asserted negatively.

_We propose to do nothing less than to destroy light in photography. 
​_More like a communique from the Angry Brigade. 
Ulrike Meinhof with a bootlegged copy of Artizen (mocking now..)

_Our ideals are the engineering drawing, the blueprint, the exploded view, the architectural plan. Ours is an era of technology, we choose to embrace the visual idioms of technology. We choose to fully reveal the structure and form of our subject, and by doing so, to fully reveal the idea of the subject, and our relationship to the subject. The form without the idea is of no interest to us. 
​_Full-marks for the tone! ;-)  
you'd have fit right in, during that turn-of-the-20th-century furore for new kinds of art. 

Cartier-Bresson is better remembered than Marinetti but both were important.

I endorse your manifesto! 

..................__
............/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........./'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.......('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
........\.................'...../
.........'\............. _.·´
...........\..............(
............\..............\
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


----------



## amolitor (Oct 16, 2012)

Manifestos are not traditionally polite documents, they exist to crystallize ideas and movements!

You don't say "to temper the dominance of the key light as it is traditionally used in photography" because a) that's weak, b) it sounds like you just want to use a lot of fill and c) it's not exactly something you can get excited about.


----------



## panblue (Oct 16, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Manifestos are not traditionally polite documents, they exist to crystallize ideas and movements!


 I agree.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

As far as amolitor wants to talk about new aesthetics: I want to go back to my excerpts of his very own words, as I posted above in post #16. Specifically: 

"SNIP>>destroy light and eliminate its dominance in the image>>the light IS crushed> result is a visual muddle>forms and structures are not revealed, they are confused with one another>

Oh-My-GAWD Gladys!!!! Changing the way light was represented---that is what Impressionist painters did!! Rembrandt's old-timey, traditional lighting was thrown out the window! The strong shadowing and highlights were "crushed", in a *visual muddle. *Oh my Gawd--those damned Impressionists painted things in a fuzzy, non-traditional way, and all their figures and skies and people all formed* a visual muddle! *The new Impressionist painters, why those crazy bastards, they painted in a way in which "forms and structures" were not clearly revealed! Things kind of became "confused with one another". Those damned Impressionists painted like crap!!! Right??? Almost everybody said they did!


SNIP>>"strobes all over the place" which crush light pretty thoroughly>>cheesecake,>>mass market photos of hot chicks."

Oh-My-Gawd, Gloria!!! This new-fangled mass-market, cheap printing of the 1880's and 1890's, and this mass-market advertising in these *penny press* newspapers and all these newfangled weekly magazines and these 5-Cent silent movies at the Nickelodeons has spawned a new kind of imaging--it's called "*kitsch*"...it's not fine art, it is low-brow cheesecake, low-brow Hollywood movies for the unwashed masses...it's not Moliere, it's The Office....it ain't Shakespeare, it's Jersey Shore....

Impressionism...kitsch...Abstract Expressionism...Post-Modernism...avante garde...HDR imaging...These are ALL real aspects of art or *art-like*-works, and all were the subject of many hotly-debated articles and essays in the field of *artistic criticism*. Historical movements. Each one WILDLY unpopular with traditionalists, and gobbled up by a certain opposing group or groups. This is the reason I so often harp on art history and studying it.


----------



## panblue (Oct 16, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ..but did the critics who DESCRIBED how the new Impressionist painters's renderings differed from those of the prior traditions have Impressionist Fanboys call them *"impotent"*?? Come on...bring it up a little, Joe...
> 
> I use the above analogy because the rise of *Impressionism in painting* marked a positively huge sea change in painting; I submit that HDR imaging is similar in its magnitude.



Honestly, it's worth considering for a moment whether they DID consider their Salon
 critics 'impotent'. Incidentally, those critics DID regard the 'non-conformists' ("Impressionists")
 as _dilettante.. _sound familiar? ;-)

I would submit that photography was a fellow-traveller of Impressionism and they together 
besieged the Bastille! HDR I would compare to something much further along the road, after 
the fact.. 

scratching around for an equivalent..

Warhol's mechanical Pop Art maybe; but that doesn't nail it convincingly IMO.


----------



## panblue (Oct 16, 2012)

Derrel said:


> A
> Oh-My-Gawd, Gloria!!! This new-fangled mass-market, cheap printing of the 1880's and 1890's, and this mass-market advertising in these *penny press* newspapers and all these newfangled weekly magazines and these 5-Cent silent movies at the Nickelodeons has spawned a new kind of imaging--it's called "*kitsch*"...it's not fine art, it is low-brow cheesecake, low-brow Hollywood movies for the unwashed masses...it's not Moliere, it's The Office....it ain't Shakespeare, it's Jersey Shore....
> 
> Impressionism...kitsch...Abstract Expressionism...Post-Modernism...avante garde...HDR imaging...These are ALL real aspects of art or *art-like*-works, and all were the subject of many hotly-debated articles and essays in the field of *artistic criticism*. Historical movements. Each one WILDLY unpopular with traditionalists, and gobbled up by a certain opposing group or groups. This is the reason I so often harp on art history and studying it.



I agree with you but there were two battles being fought. Maybe this is why I can't credit HDR
 as deserving of the Impressionist analogy. There was the struggle for the freedom to render
 things emotionally. But also the struggle to paint 'non-salon' subjects..everyday scenes. 
This was 'not on!'. This actually was what half the incensed public were shocked by.

Not only were these cats painting like children, they were painting every day scenes..
trains, haystacks, prison yards, alcoholics.

So HDR to me is only going as far as colour, cloissonist style and so on. The major league
 fight was 'subject' not 'rendering'.

Hence my off-the-cuff comparison of Warhol. Not his Campbell's soup, but his split-tone
 portraits.

Edit: And Warhol maybe wouldn't have gone there, if Die Brücke hadn't already broke the ice.


----------



## Mully (Oct 16, 2012)

e e cummings said it best " since feeling is best, who pays attention to the syntax of things"


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 16, 2012)

I will not get into an argument about it and only post once in this thread but,

*This thread is whack!!! *:chatty:


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2012)

Some folks might enjoy reading the actual blog post from which this manifesto came. Photos and Stuff: October 2012

It is the October 16 entry.


----------



## Parker219 (Oct 16, 2012)

OP- Why dont you SHOW us a picture of an HDR that you have done. As you know, a picture says a thousand words.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 17, 2012)

Oh, I thought it was clear? I don't do HDR and don't even much like it.

My goal is to in the first place try to make sense of it as an aesthetic (not a technology) and in the second place to share any sense I can make of it as such. I don't write novels either, or make sculpture, but I try to make sense of those as well.


----------



## Parker219 (Oct 17, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Oh, I thought it was clear? I don't do HDR and don't even much like it.
> 
> My goal is to in the first place try to make sense of it as an aesthetic (not a technology) and in the second place to share any sense I can make of it as such. I don't write novels either, or make sculpture, but I try to make sense of those as well.



This made my day ( and it is only 8:59am ) thank you. Let me get this straight...You are trying to tell others how a certain type of photography should be done, yet you dont even like that style and wont show us an example of your work, so your manifesto might actually carry some weight?

How is anyone supposed to take your advice if you dont even take your OWN advice?


----------



## manaheim (Oct 17, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with this is that it's an attack. It's sarcastically and ingenuously presented in the form of a manifesto. As a negative assault it isn't productive.
> ...



When I started to read it, it sounded like a bit of a sarcastic attack as well, but as I read further I got the impression you were more serious... so I think it sounds sort of right on the edge.  I think a lot of that is in your first sentence.  Few photographers would truly endeavor to "destroy the light", or however you put that.

Perhaps if you re-wrote it a bit from a positive angle... think in terms of not so much "destroying light" as "liberating the shadows"?  Something along those lines... "We feel that shadows are harshly neglected by traditional photographic means, turning darkened details into utter blackness.  As technologists and photographers of a new age, we feel... we _know_... that this is an unecessary sleight.  We aim to bring those details out of the abyss and back into the realm of the visible."

While a bit over the top, I think that comes across as more genuinely positive.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 17, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Manifestos are not traditionally polite documents, they exist to crystallize ideas and movements!
> 
> You don't say "to temper the dominance of the key light as it is traditionally used in photography" because a) that's weak, b) it sounds like you just want to use a lot of fill and c) it's not exactly something you can get excited about.



mmm... yeah I suppose your point about them not being polite is true, but something tells me even an HDR photographer would disagree with destroying the light.

And you don't NEED to be hostile to incite the masses.  Political revolutions and photographic ones may be very different audiences.

Not sure, but it's an interesting thing to consider.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 17, 2012)

amolitor said:


> You may not agree with it -- not all HDR need fall under _this_ aesthetic, although equally clearly _some_ HDR does fall under it.
> 
> Ignore this, mock it, ridicule it if you like. If there's something in it you can use, appropriate it and make it your own. It's yours, it's everyone's, to use, misuse, or discard as you see fit.
> 
> In this spirit:​


​ 
Just to review, here, let me provide a snippet from the original post, above. I am explicitly and clearly not telling anyone how to do anything. I am explicitly and clearly not claiming that everything in HDR falls under this rubric. If you think I am attempting to dictate to anyone, or that I am attempting to characterize all of HDR, you simply fail reading comprehension. I'm sorry, that sounds mean, but there's no other explanation, I put the words right in there to be read.

Many, most, almost all photographers are happy with their work. They're doing work that suits and pleases them. GREAT! You guys are awesome, you have my love and respect. You don't need or want a revolution, you don't need or want to start a movement. Manifestos are not for you.

Manifestos are for the artist who's mastered HDR or some other set of techniques and stands back and says "What now? It looks great, but what the **** am I saying here?" Manifestos are for the landscape photographer who wakes up one say and says "Oh God, all my stuff looks like imitation Galen Rowell, and that makes me sad" (many people are overjoyed when all their stuff looks like Galen Rowell -- if this is you, again, you don't need or want a revolution, and you have my love, go forth and enjoy your photography!). If you're one of those people, then maybe my manifesto will speak to you. Or, even better, what would be TRULY awesome, is if my writing inspired you to say "SCREW YOU MOLITOR, YOU FOOL!" and caused you to write you OWN manifesto, to crystallize your own aesthetic around your own preferred technologies, to stomp my ideas into the dirt and crush them with your own, much better ideas. To break past the 'what am I truly DOING here?' barrier and create a new vision.

Statistically, it won't be you guys. Movements like this are a couple dozen people, and given that there are 7 billion of us seething around on the planet, the odds are you won't be in any new Light-Secession, you won't be in the Group HDR/64. That's ok -- pretty much everyone here is happy with their own work as it is, or if they're not happy, they're learning how to make work that pleases them. Be happy, you have my love. I might hate your work, but who cares what some jerk on the internet thinks about your work.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 17, 2012)

You don't do HDR... Yet you're writing a manifesto for it.

You post it here, but you insult those who criticize it.

I really don't understand your motivations.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 17, 2012)

manaheim said:


> You don't do HDR... Yet you're writing a manifesto for it.



Sure. I wouldn't say it's "for HDR" per se, but that's a quibble. What's the problem with that, now?



manaheim said:


> You post it here, but you insult those who criticize it.



Wait, where did I insult people? I stipulate that it's possible I did, I do that sometimes, but I don't recall where I insulted anyone.

ETA: This thread is extremely weird to me. It feels like many of the responses are very defensive, which would make sense if I was attacking anyone or anything, but I am not, so, Anyways. Mysterious.


----------



## panblue (Oct 17, 2012)

Parker219 said:


> This made my day ( and it is only 8:59am )


----------



## panblue (Oct 17, 2012)

Got to be a few Dos Equis Man memes coming out of this thread! 

"I don't always shoot HDR, but when I do..."


----------



## panblue (Oct 17, 2012)

I haven't noticed or sensed any insults from you amolitor AT ALL. Surely the debate can survive a bit of bruhaha


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 17, 2012)

The Manifesto makes some sense.   At first, there were two camps; the guys using HDR to make better images that looked real, and the guys making images that screamed "HDR!" 

Over time, the overcooked look has been refined and a kind of aesthetic sensibility has developed.   And Topaz portraits don't always remind one of Max Headroom anymore.   Which is great.   A new genre of imaging isn't a threat to existing ones.  I look forward to seeing how it goes, even if I'm not necessarily going that way.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 17, 2012)

amolitor said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > You don't do HDR... Yet you're writing a manifesto for it.
> ...





amolitor said:


> If you think I am attempting to dictate to anyone, or that I am attempting to characterize all of HDR, you simply fail reading comprehension. I'm sorry, that sounds mean, but there's no other explanation, I put the words right in there to be read.



Right there.

You've always had a bit of an odd (to me) nature to your posts... I guess I'll just lump this in with the rest, shrug my shoulders, wish you well, and move on.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 17, 2012)

this is all well and good, Marinetti.

just don't let the fascists run amuck like last time.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 18, 2012)

(on the subject of where I insulted anyone)


manaheim said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > If you think I am attempting to dictate to anyone, or that I am attempting to characterize all of HDR, you simply fail reading comprehension. I'm sorry, that sounds mean, but there's no other explanation, I put the words right in there to be read.
> ...



I think a sound argument could be made that I'm not being insulting here, but that's a quibble and I will simply let your point stand. Fair enough.


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 18, 2012)

"A critic is a eunuch writing a sex manual."   Don't know why that came to me just now...


----------



## runnah (Oct 18, 2012)

My overall feeling is that HDR is like chili powder. Too much in a dish and it is all you can taste. Just a dash will add that little something...


----------

