# HDR as an art and not an enhancement



## liltimmy1313 (Aug 3, 2009)

There had been some upset over HDR's purpose. Maybe it's ballsy, maybe it's not but I am going to put up an extremely tonemapped, over-the-top, vibrant HDR. I just want to see what people think of this style because I find it rather stunning even though it's not realistic. Sometimes photo's don't have to realistic. But that's just the surrealistic speaking...







Enjoy, Tell me what you think of this sorta style and the picture in general. 

Handheld, at something like 1/200, f/8 ?? 

I don't really remember. I know I was at 20mm, though.

Russ-O-Vision, HOORAH by ~liltimmy1313 on deviantART       <--original link


----------



## KmH (Aug 3, 2009)

To me it looks like 2 images mashed together. The colors of the building are plausable but not the sky.

The composition works.


----------



## liltimmy1313 (Aug 3, 2009)

I like the illogical surreal sky and believe it or not that is the real sky.

So you're saying the sky doesn't work here?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 3, 2009)

It's a really good example of some of the extreme results you can get, which is certainly interesting.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 3, 2009)

liltimmy1313 said:


> Enjoy, Tell me what you think of this sorta style and the picture in general.



Every style has it's place.

I think this picture, specifically, would look really cool with an ominous looking sky...  The bright, vibrant, colors of the building contrasting with a dark, ominous, and threatening sky.  ...Just an idea.  Not sure if it would work, but it would be interesting to see.


----------



## Dao (Aug 4, 2009)

Sometimes, things need to cross the line.  In this example, I will not consider it is a photo of a building/structure.  I will consider it is a Artwork.  And an artwork do not need to be realistic.

And personally I do not consider it is a High Dynamic Range, although at one point of time it was until converted into a LDR.  But it does not really matter how it is called.  As long as the end result is something that people like to see.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 4, 2009)

"HDR as an art and not an enhancement"

Absolutely. Why not? In art, anything goes. The technical aspects are secondary to the finished product. In this case, an image.

And in this case the image does not do anything for me. The building is absolutely beautiful but that in itself does not make an interesting photo. The sky is so weird it doesn't look real, even though you say it is, and it doesn't please my eye.

So, yes, I agree that HDR even pushed to the extreme, just like any other special effect, has its place but I don't think this is the best example.


----------



## Sachphotography (Aug 10, 2009)

Art is in the eye of the beholder. A person buys a piece of art for what it does for them. 
Thats why I am not buying this picture. 
There is a person out there for everything which is why I cant stress enough for people to find their own unique style. Go find yours and stick to it no matter what people say. 
I do not shoot HDR because it does not fit my style. However, for some it enhances their style. For others...... it destroys it..... You just seem like you have not found your style yet......................


----------



## Dominantly (Aug 11, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> "HDR as an art and not an enhancement"
> 
> *Absolutely. Why not? In art, anything goes. The technical aspects are secondary to the finished product. In this case, an image.*
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## snowsoftJ4C (Aug 30, 2009)

I personally LOVE this photo. I feel HDR should go both ways!
HDR as an art is overused, true, but the great ones still have that magic. If you need more shadow detail, HDR it up, but tone down the settings.


----------



## PushingTin (Aug 31, 2009)

This is the reason I love HDR. I love the over the top photos that give off that surreal look.


----------



## Aeb (Dec 10, 2009)

Great shot! 

All photographs should look like this!  ... lol.


----------



## Chad Truss (Dec 10, 2009)

I think the sky has too much going on and it takes away from the building.

Your work on the building is outstanding though.


----------



## GFreg (Dec 12, 2009)

When I see the building I see an extraordinary and lavish design so going with a vibrant, over-the-top HDR compliments it in my opinion.  Nice shot.


----------



## Machupicchu (Dec 14, 2009)

What I want to know is how you did GDR


----------



## Machupicchu (Dec 14, 2009)

Sorry im trying to post from an iphone. its a pain

K, what i want to know is how you did HDR handheld, or did you generate the different exposures from one image?


----------



## Lyncca (Dec 14, 2009)

I like the buildings but not the sky.


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2009)

Being a single exposure it's not an HDR. It's just a tone-mapped image.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 14, 2009)

yuck.


----------



## Jhamb (Dec 16, 2009)

I think its a fantastic shot! I like the fact that it is so vibrant and outlandish!


----------



## JLEphoto (Dec 16, 2009)

Actually, if you are shooting Raw and the historgram is between the extremes all the data required to do HDR is there.....it pretty much is HDR...  There is no difference here than if you took the same picture 3 times with different settings to raise and lower the exposure values.  I have done this both ways and I can't tell a difference...  So long as the original exposure is spot on.


----------



## JLEphoto (Dec 16, 2009)

Yes, I think HDR can be both a true representation (if that actually exists) and an over the top form of photographic art.  Where would Piccaso have been if all his paintings were true to life?

Yes, each has it's place and each can work for a given vision....  I say go with it if that is the style you like.  I like both ideas for different reasons.  Nothing wrong with that.

Cool image by the way.


----------



## fokker (Dec 16, 2009)

I like it. The building looks like one of those big lollipops, I want to eat it.


----------

