# HDR snobbery



## robertwsimpson (Aug 24, 2009)

<rant>

So I've been noticing (and annoyed by) the HDR snobbery around here.  I mean, there is always a certain amount of snobbery in artistic stuff (ie nikon vs canon), and these snobbish comments are certainly magnified on the notorious interwebz, but come on.  When someone asks "what is HDR?" why are there no less than 3 people talking about how terrible it is mixed in with the people trying to be helpful?  Hey, HDR is fun, and although the images that result from it are sometimes completely ridiculous, it's still enjoyable to slide all those little sliders around in photomatix and see what you end up with.  And sometimes, HDR pictures can come out really interestingly.  So, to sum up, CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

Thank you for your time.

</rant>


----------



## loopy (Aug 24, 2009)

I've noticed that too, and agree with you 100%.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 24, 2009)

I'm going to start a petition.

nah, I'm too lazy.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 24, 2009)




----------



## epp_b (Aug 24, 2009)

Every time I check the forum for "New Posts", I see about five new posts on every page entitled "[something-or-other] HDR", "HDR C&C", "Some HDRs" and so on and so forth.

You know what the problem is?  People are focusing too much on the process and ending up with mostly garbage because of it.  I have yet to see the same vast quantity of posts with titles like "Check out this dodged and burned photo", "Selective colour C&C" or "Did lots of layering, what do you think?"










NEWSFLASH: NOBODY CARES











OK, that's not entirely the case, but it needed emphasis and clarity.  Occasionally, there are some posts with the subjects I mentioned above, but not nearly to the degree that HDR seems to hog the front pages.  And, yes, there are some good photos that have been made using HDR processing.  However, what I see is that a large portion of HDR shots are thoughtless snaps made by unartistic gadget-freaks using textbook rules to make hideous, diseased and radioactive crap for their gadget-loving friends to ooh and ah over.  This isn't even bad art, it's just not art at all.

_SIDEBAR: I don't want to be completely negative towards "gadget lovers".  Where else would we get engineers to design and build the incredible and powerful cameras that we use? _
 
We, as photographers might be interested in the equipment and processed used -- let's admit it, we like our gear -- and that's great, because it helps those who are less experienced people learn out how to make the results they're looking for.  But, it should be the afterthought; the thought that comes to mind after...

_What does the photo say?  Is it humourous?  Is it sad?  Does it tell a story?  Is it though-provoking?  Is it ironic?  Is it beautiful?  Does it have interesting light, colour, lines, shapes, patterns or textures?_


----------



## loopy (Aug 24, 2009)

I agree with Epp as much as I agree with the OP. 

However I don't think there is any need to be a snob about it or to be rude. There is a simple solution, don't post. The thread gets pushed to the bottom and no one is considered an HDR snob. Win-win.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 25, 2009)

I reserve my opinions to the individual image. But I'm also not afraid to chime in and say the majority of HDR looks like it was finger painted by a 2 year old. I'm not against any process, just the results that for some reason people like to "artistically" turn a nice scene into garbage.  It's not snobbery, it's my personal opinion and the fact of art is there will always be someone who disagrees with you.

See the thread in Beyond the Basics this week for a very very well done HDR, still clearly HDR, but with a realism that makes it quite clearly still a photograph.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 25, 2009)

It's the internet, and every forum out there will have this kind of thing on one topic or another.

You just have to learn selective reading, it will make your browsing experiences so much better


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Every time I check the forum for "New Posts", I see about five new posts on every page entitled "[something-or-other] HDR", "HDR C&C", "Some HDRs" and so on and so forth.
> 
> You know what the problem is?  People are focusing too much on the process and ending up with mostly garbage because of it.  I have yet to see the same vast quantity of posts with titles like "Check out this dodged and burned photo", "Selective colour C&C" or "Did lots of layering, what do you think?"
> 
> ...



NEWS FLASH: HDR IS A FAD

it's big right now because everyone thinks it's new and exciting.  deal with it.  it'll be run of the mill soon and no one will care again.  in the mean time, don't be such a jerk about it.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

loopy said:


> I agree with Epp as much as I agree with the OP.
> 
> However I don't think there is any need to be a snob about it or to be rude. There is a simple solution, don't post. The thread gets pushed to the bottom and no one is considered an HDR snob. Win-win.



dingdingdingggg!!! we have a winner!

seriously.  why post something rude when you can just let the thread die.  or say "hey next time you make an HDR try using a little less compression and saturation, I bet you'll love the results."


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

Garbz said:


> I reserve my opinions to the individual image. But I'm also not afraid to chime in and say the majority of HDR looks like it was finger painted by a 2 year old. I'm not against any process, just the results that for some reason people like to "artistically" turn a nice scene into garbage.  It's not snobbery, it's my personal opinion and the fact of art is there will always be someone who disagrees with you.
> 
> See the thread in Beyond the Basics this week for a very very well done HDR, still clearly HDR, but with a realism that makes it quite clearly still a photograph.



HDR snob in denial.



loljk but seriously, all I am annoyed with is the rudeness that comes out immediately after a thread is started with an HDR picture in it.  as long as your opinion is shared in a way that is helpful, I'm all for it.  I think tons of the pictures posted on this site are garbage.  we're all here to learn.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> It's the internet, and every forum out there will have this kind of thing on one topic or another.
> 
> You just have to learn selective reading, it will make your browsing experiences so much better



does TPF have a forum filter that can get rid of anything with HDR in the subject?

can it filter for gamma levels?  


that would be pretty sweet.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 25, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> N0YZE said:
> 
> 
> > It's the internet, and every forum out there will have this kind of thing on one topic or another.
> ...




BEWARE what you ask for. It could be your photos getting filtered out next.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

why would my photos get filtered out?  I barely edit them at all.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 25, 2009)

Today you want to filter HDR out. Tomorrow someone may want to filter out anything by robertwsimpson. That's the way of censorship.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

I just want to filter out rude trash talking.


I think that's valid.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 25, 2009)

Same difference to me. Sorry.

It's censorship. And if we know where it starts, we have no idea where it will end. Ever read Fahrenheit 451?

And who are you to define rude trash talking for all of us?

All I'm saying is Beware of what you ask for.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

hahahahaha what in the world?

I'm all for freedom of speech.  but you know what else I'm all for?  respect and decency.  I'm not asking for censorship of anything.  I'm asking people to stop being rude.  I realize that doing this on the internet is like trying to douse a fire with gasoline, but hey, it's worth a shot.


----------



## McNugget801 (Aug 25, 2009)

NEWS FLASH:  HDR IS A TOOL IN THE BOX
... not a fad.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

it's a fad.


it will always be used, but right now, it's being over-used.  Just like photoshop back in the day... and a little bit right now.


----------



## McNugget801 (Aug 25, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> it will always be used, but right now, it's being over-used.  Just like photoshop back in the day... and a little bit right now.



They said the same thing about pockets.


----------



## epp_b (Aug 25, 2009)

> *NEWS FLASH: HDR IS A FAD*


Ooh!  Good point, not sure how I missed that


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 25, 2009)

Summit42 said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > it will always be used, but right now, it's being over-used.  Just like photoshop back in the day... and a little bit right now.
> ...



but look how we've all come to accept them.  I mean, I don't know anyone who doesn't own at least 1.


----------



## boogschd (Aug 25, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> loopy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Epp as much as I agree with the OP.
> ...




yeah that ... if you dont want it.. ignore it

you cant control what people post :/


----------



## photo28 (Aug 25, 2009)

SOme people just don't feel liek googling it I guess... EVERYONE - keep this handy: Let me google that for you 

But trust me here, I've been to forums with real attitude, this is like a nice breeze. Not much anger here. Some people(the high posters) curse you out on other forums because they feel you should leave and that only people with 500 posts should talk and are the only trustable ones. 

Some people so do over use HDRs. I personally have never made one [YET]. Like any other photo though, I think it should be critiqued normally. If colors off, say it, same with light, composition, etc. 
It's kind of like clothes - the style.


----------



## MelissaMarieImagery (Aug 25, 2009)

I'm sorry but why are we considering HDR to be so awful? 

It kind of reminds me of Split Contrast Printing in the darkroom.... you get more of a range of what you were looking for -- and that was never frowned upon in school. 

Why would you hate on something that can improve the look of your photos? You wouldn't frown upon someone for dodging or burning an image, so unless I am misunderstanding what is being debated-- I don't exactly see the issue.. ?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 25, 2009)

I think most people are fine with 'true' HDR, to expand the dynamic range of a photograph.

What I think some people have a problem with are these HDR's coming out of the woodwork that are so over done they look fake/cartoon like.

Me personally, I'd just like people to post their images w/o the HDR variant added to the title and just let me decide based on the photograph/post processing if I like it or not.

9 times out of 10 if I click on a thread title with HDR specified in it, I'm assured to be presented with the cartoon-like samples... which can be quite attractive, however not what I would consider HDR.


----------



## MelissaMarieImagery (Aug 25, 2009)

There are always going to be new things happening in photography that people are going to like, and dislike. 

There has been a heavy increase in over saturated and slightly over exposed images, many people like them and it appeals to them, while there are also a lot of people who like images that are extra dark, heavy shadows, etc... 

There are people who photoshop and post process the hell out of their photos and get both positive and negative reviews.

There are people (even like myself) who shoot things out of focus with intention to form interesting compositions. I have met people who like the shots, and people who think they are crap.

So my question then, is why cant Overdone HDR be a new "style" ?


If that's what they want their images to look like, and it's what they're going for-- what's the harm?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 25, 2009)

There is no harm, but like you said (kind of) I personally think it needs it's own name (style) and get away from the HDR definition.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 25, 2009)

I personally think it needs it's own name

Why? Photography is photography. If you're so anal that everything needs to be in its own little box maybe you should become a psychologist 

My photography is LMTFAIKWIDEIYDLIJTMIYLION





































Leave Me The F*ck Alone I Know What I'm Doing Even If You Don't Like It Just Tell Me If You Like It Or Not


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 25, 2009)

BAHAHAHAHA! Well put Cloudwalker. Well put.

My, this thread is entertaining!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 25, 2009)

:thumbup:

3 more pages of this HDR cr*p because Mr. Snob wanted to show us how not to be snobs :lmao:


----------



## Joves (Aug 25, 2009)

Well it is case of either you like or dont like it. I personally dont and, anytime I see a thread title with HDR in it, I dont even look. Id rather not look at it than to say something about it.


----------



## MelissaMarieImagery (Aug 25, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Leave Me The F*ck Alone I Know What I'm Doing Even If You Don't Like It Just Tell Me If You Like It Or Not




^that was pretty rude....




N0YZE said:


> There is no harm, but like you said (kind of) I personally think it needs it's own name (style) and get away from the HDR definition.



Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


 As far as I am concerned though -- It's *still HDR* whether you want it to be or not, you used the process of HDR to create the image so there can't really "be" another name for it. There are just degrees of intensity to it.

 Everyone has a preference - like I said previously.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 25, 2009)

Photography is one thing, post processing is another 

My point is, if _you choose_ to label it - label it correctly.


----------



## photo28 (Aug 25, 2009)

Dam... 

Stop the fighting, PEACE!





eacesign:

eacemrgreen:


----------



## LokiZ (Aug 25, 2009)

MY take on the whole reason behind the "snobbery" of HDR for lack of a better term...

The opinions of those who shall we say lean away from the intrigue with HDR on many occasions have had this to say;

On the nicely done HDR that compliments the realism side and focus' on the widening of the dynamic range via the hdr/tone mapping process...

"Oh that is HDR... well it does not look like anything one could not do if they set up their shot and/or  lighting correctly." (hint of disrespect)

On the dramatically over accented HDR bordering the cartoonish and gritty finalization...

"I'm not into HDR, it just does not do anything for me."  Followed by either negative critique or possibly "The image looks good, but I feel it would have been much better represented without the HDR process."

Comments along these lines but not limited to the exact wording are the comments I do believe the op is referring to.

While he may be right that there are a good number of posts that down those labeling their entries as HDR from the start of the thread.  If you take the time to notice, a lot of those comments repeatedly come from the same sources/individuals.

So I have to ask those of you getting bugged by this... Why?  Why is this different then any other flamer on any other topic or any other forum for that matter.

If they are truly sincere but have not the tools to communicate negativity in a more tactful manner take what you can from it and move on or just move on period.

As for those deeming themselves enough clout here or anywhere to proclaim what is or isn't art, I scoff in your general direction.  Then I loudly proclaim that you are of course entitled to your own opinion not unlike the rest of our fellow forum dwellers.

my 2 cents.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 26, 2009)

that was like 14 cents.


nicely put though.


----------



## KmH (Aug 26, 2009)

Another essentially useless, unresolvable, opinion thread. 

It did help me identify another screen name I should probably add to my 'Ignore List' though. :thumbup:


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 26, 2009)

likewise  


I've never seen you say anything useful.


----------



## KmH (Aug 26, 2009)

Are you sure you want to leap to that conclusion? 

You're certainly not the only poster in the thread.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 26, 2009)

I'm not leaping. I'm not concluding.  I'm recounting.


And you're continuing your streak.


don't worry, I'm not going to block you, I just ignore some of the stuff that you say.


----------



## musicaleCA (Aug 26, 2009)

Methinks someone needs to look-up the meaning of the word "conclusion."

Bahaha. This thread is just so fun!


----------



## LokiZ (Aug 26, 2009)

14 cents... I love it.

Yes this thread was a very interesting thread to say the least.

I have really seen valid points on either side.  It is great to see where everyone comes from when sharing their opinions.

My only thought is not close out someone for a single differing opinion on a single process or idea.  That same person may have something you can use at a later date on an entirely different subject.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 26, 2009)

I don't see it so much as snobbery as apathy, boredom and perhaps some dismay.  Photography is almost 200 years old.  There really isn't anything all that new.  It's been done before, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. A lot of those accidents never really saw the light of day because they were not popular.    Tastes change.    

20 years ago you wouldn't see barbells in peoples eyes, ears, noses, tongues, nipples, belly button, and places I won't name.   Now they are common place.  Does that mean I want to see and marvel over all those barbells and other bits of body jewelry or find it fascinating or that I have too?  

HDR is just another form of art. There are some that I have seen that I do like some I don't.  My only complaint with it or any form of art that seems to capture the fascination of so many is if you like it great.  But it doesn't mean that I have to as well. 

I guess that means I don't have to worry about my wife getting me a gift certificate for nipple piercing for Christmas.


----------



## sabbath999 (Aug 26, 2009)

Ya, I keep reading about this HDR thing, but I don't know what it is...

What is HDR?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 27, 2009)

happy dead rabbits.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 27, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I don't see it so much as snobbery as apathy, boredom and perhaps some dismay.  Photography is almost 200 years old.  There really isn't anything all that new.  It's been done before, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. A lot of those accidents never really saw the light of day because they were not popular.    Tastes change.
> 
> 20 years ago you wouldn't see barbells in peoples eyes, ears, noses, tongues, nipples, belly button, and places I won't name.   Now they are common place.  Does that mean I want to see and marvel over all those barbells and other bits of body jewelry or find it fascinating or that I have too?
> 
> ...



you should BE so lucky!


----------



## patrickt (Aug 27, 2009)

The only HDR photos I've seen that appealed to me were ones that didn't look like HDR.

HDR is like IR in that there is certainly a place for it but it's limited. I went to an exhibit that was all IR photos. The first one or two were interesting.

I had an art professor who bragged that he worked only with casein on rice paper. I asked him why and his response was, "No one else is doing it. That makes me different." I suppose for some, that's their goal.


----------



## shed301 (Aug 27, 2009)

I had to laugh at the term *HDR is a fad* considering it's been around 1850 ish. man a lot of us weren't even a twinkle in our daddy's eyes in that era !. IMO it depends on the photographer if they like the hdr style of photography or not. Personally i'm quite happy with it, some of it can be completely overdone, And some just pick horrible objects to use hdr on and that gives them a rejected feeling when told it pretty much sucks, so they tend to hate it or persevere and carry on etc. But overall i'm for it


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 28, 2009)

shed301 said:


> I had to laugh at the term *HDR is a fad* considering it's been around 1850 ish. man a lot of us weren't even a twinkle in our daddy's eyes in that era !. IMO it depends on the photographer if they like the hdr style of photography or not. Personally i'm quite happy with it, some of it can be completely overdone, And some just pick horrible objects to use hdr on and that gives them a rejected feeling when told it pretty much sucks, so they tend to hate it or persevere and carry on etc. But overall i'm for it



HDR is a fad.

The fact that it's been done before doesn't make it any less of a fad.


----------



## McNugget801 (Aug 28, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> HDR is a fad.
> The fact that it's been done before doesn't make it any less of a fad.



When I think of Fads I think of slap bracelets, Koosh Balls, The Macarena, hammer pants, ect.
There is a lot crap produced with HDR methods, but if HDR is a fad then so is a 50mm lens.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 28, 2009)

hammer pants are just genie pants.  and genies have been around for thousands of years.  The defense rests.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> shed301 said:
> 
> 
> > I had to laugh at the term *HDR is a fad* considering it's been around 1850 ish. man a lot of us weren't even a twinkle in our daddy's eyes in that era !. IMO it depends on the photographer if they like the hdr style of photography or not. Personally i'm quite happy with it, some of it can be completely overdone, And some just pick horrible objects to use hdr on and that gives them a rejected feeling when told it pretty much sucks, so they tend to hate it or persevere and carry on etc. But overall i'm for it
> ...



Ok... first off. HDR is not a fad. It's part of photography.

From the majority of the posts in this thread it seems like everyone is talking about "Tone Mapping", not "High Dynamic Range". When someone uses an HDR technique in a shot you cannot tell it's been done and generally not labeled HDR in a thread title.

I think people get annoyed with all the HDR threads because the HDR threads are not HDR. They are heavily tone mapped.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

Summit42 said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > HDR is a fad.
> ...



How dare you call hammer pants a fad.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 28, 2009)

Hammer pants, now there's a great memory... ahh, the good old days.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Hammer pants, now there's a great memory... ahh, the good old days.



If by memory you mean right now. Then I agree. :mrgreen:


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 28, 2009)

first person to take a picture of someone wearing hammer pants and post it in this thread wins a prize.


----------



## itznfb (Aug 28, 2009)

Is the prize a new pair of shiny hammer pants?
If so I'm in.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Aug 28, 2009)

no, it is a trial version of photomatix so that you can be ultra faddy while making an HDR tone mapped image and wearing hammer pants.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 5, 2009)

I think HDR (specifically tone-mapping the crap out of an image until it has no shadows) is kind of like applying copious amount of gliitter to a turd in MOST situations. People use it to get oohs and ahhs from the untrained eyes of non-photographers. It's just played out because its too damn easy.

Used in the right circumstances however, it can be useful and allow you to embellish some interesting landscapes or whatever. I'm not entirely opposed to it, but when you end up with surreal, cartoony, played out junk... I am. HDR just allows some people to spend less time in the field, which is supposed to be the fun part of photography.


----------



## iamacyborg (Sep 5, 2009)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I don't see it so much as snobbery as apathy, boredom and perhaps some dismay.  Photography is almost 200 years old.  There really isn't anything all that new.  It's been done before, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident. A lot of those accidents never really saw the light of day because they were not popular.    Tastes change.
> 
> 20 years ago you wouldn't see barbells in peoples eyes, ears, noses, tongues, nipples, belly button, and places I won't name.   Now they are common place.  Does that mean I want to see and marvel over all those barbells and other bits of body jewelry or find it fascinating or that I have too?
> 
> ...



Just because you didn't hang out with the homosexual sailor crowd twenty years ago didn't mean piercing wasn't around.

PS nipple piercings are awesome, except when they rip out.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 15, 2009)

I think DSLR snobbery is worse.  You shoot a DSLR? So what?  Most people (not saying any of you guys) don't even know what they're doing or take digital for granted.  They get all excited about gear and brag about how much they spent, yet they don't have a clue on basic composition.  They end up selling all their gear off in a couple months cause they get bored with photography.  But it's cool--that's where I come in and buy your used gear after you took a hit.  hahaha


----------



## Sachphotography (Sep 16, 2009)

I think that my main issue against it is that people who know nothing of photography jump into it and make a b_line for HDR. The same people I see posting their "supposedly" HDR work are in the beginner forums asking what ISO is or what Contrast means. They dont take the time to learn the basics and beginner stuff that is needed. They don't know what "Tone" means but they try an HDR shot which requires precise tone mapping. HDR is a FAD right now. And yes a type a HDR may have been shot a long time ago but this is different. When I see some one shot a shot outside in the sun light with very little shadows and  HDR it.. I cant help but laugh. The very nature of HDR is expand the dynamic range that is not visible in a single shot. I do not shoot HDR because everybody and there mother is doing it. HDR is a fad and like all fads, when everybody is bored with it...it will fade away. The only people who will be left standing are those who did HDR right and made the images that took our breath away. My advise is this " if you do not know the difference between ISO 100 and 1000....you should not shoot HDR" "If you do not know the difference between F/2 and F/20 don't shot HDR" "If you do not know what Tone Contrast and Dynamic range means, DON'T SHOOT HDR!!!!"
Learn how to walk before you try to run.


----------



## jbylake (Sep 16, 2009)

loopy said:


> I agree with Epp as much as I agree with the OP.
> 
> However I don't think there is any need to be a snob about it or to be rude. There is a simple solution, don't post. The thread gets pushed to the bottom and no one is considered an HDR snob. Win-win.


 
Someone cares, or they wouldn't post, or have comments.  Too many people let non-issues like this bug them.

If you like the subject, read..if not..move on..

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## icassell (Sep 16, 2009)

Some people even like velvet paintings of Mr. Spock or Elvis ...

There's no accounting for taste.  If someone wants C&C on an HDR, let's give honest C & C (poor technique, good compostion, etc. .... nothing wrong with saying you don't think the HDR added anything).  I agree -- leave the rudeness at the door.

That said, I just bought Photomatix so I can play with it a bit.  I also played with all sorts of filters when I first bought Photoshop. I had fun and, for me anyway, that's what this is all about.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 16, 2009)

MelissaMarieImagery said:


> There are always going to be new things happening in photography that people are going to like, and dislike.
> 
> There has been a heavy increase in over saturated and slightly over exposed images, many people like them and it appeals to them, while there are also a lot of people who like images that are extra dark, heavy shadows, etc...
> 
> ...



I think that this technique is likely _part_ of a style or movement, but not a style or movement in and of itself. Heavy manipulation of images is, to my eye, much like impressionism or fauvism in that it abstracts the subject greatly, but unlike those two movements it is not always implemented in a way that works to send a message to the viewer, at least as far as I can tell. Heavy saturation, heavy sharpening, or heavy use of any computerized tool for that matter falls into what I consider to be a reflection of the times in which we now live.

Styles of art, any art, tend to reflect societal trends, sentiments, or feelings, and in our technology-rich society, where speed is king and subtlety seems  an outdated concept, strong visuals like those produced by the heavy use of these techniques reflect (I believe) our society. I often don't care for  images created using these techniques because, to my eye, they only seem to send one message 'look what I can do!' (perhaps with even more exclamation points.) and I think that art should appear more about a message that about a method of it's creation, but that's just my opinion. 

As others have already stated when these techniques are used on an image that appears to be intended remain 'realistic', again in my opinion, the results often appear contrived and meaningless because of the heavy application of technique, hence the 'look what I can do!' sentiment. The originators of these images often appear to have no regard for how others will see the image, focusing only on the technique rather than what they wish to say.

_However_, I do not consider myself a 'snob' when it comes to these techniques, for when they are used to create visions that do not exist in reality they seem to me to be wonderful uses of those tools. I've seen some amazing alterations that began life as a real world image and ended up as a view into a fantastic world of imagination, often times conveying strong messages or feelings.

For my part, I think that the reason much of the work done with these techniques gathers comments from 'snobs' is not so much because people don't like new ideas (the ideas are really far from new), rather  because the application of that idea does not compliment the subject or the intended message...

- Randy


----------



## icassell (Sep 16, 2009)

Let's make an analogy to music ...

There are many (successful) bands out there that have built their reputation on the use of electronic effects rather than art.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 16, 2009)

Since this is bumped to the top again I have to say I haven't seen this issue come up in a while.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 16, 2009)

Amen to that.  B-line to multi-thousand dollar DSLRs and they haven't a clue what SLR stands for or how it works. ZOMG I NEED SPENSIVE KAMERUHS TO TAKE OUTSTANDING PHOTOES! 

A skilled photographer using a disposable 35mm film cam can outgun a n00b using a 5D2 or D700 



Sachphotography said:


> I think that my main issue against it is that people who know nothing of photography jump into it and make a b_line for HDR. The same people I see posting their "supposedly" HDR work are in the beginner forums asking what ISO is or what Contrast means. They dont take the time to learn the basics and beginner stuff that is needed. They don't know what "Tone" means but they try an HDR shot which requires precise tone mapping. HDR is a FAD right now. And yes a type a HDR may have been shot a long time ago but this is different. When I see some one shot a shot outside in the sun light with very little shadows and HDR it.. I cant help but laugh. The very nature of HDR is expand the dynamic range that is not visible in a single shot. I do not shoot HDR because everybody and there mother is doing it. HDR is a fad and like all fads, when everybody is bored with it...it will fade away. The only people who will be left standing are those who did HDR right and made the images that took our breath away. My advise is this " if you do not know the difference between ISO 100 and 1000....you should not shoot HDR" "If you do not know the difference between F/2 and F/20 don't shot HDR" "If you do not know what Tone Contrast and Dynamic range means, DON'T SHOOT HDR!!!!"
> Learn how to walk before you try to run.


----------



## shed301 (Sep 16, 2009)

Anyone can come and take a hdr photo and consider themselves a expert. BUT it takes a lot of technical skill to make a good HDR photograph.
 As it being a fad?.. i don't think so. sure everyone will get bored with it and it will die down a bit but won't completely die out, The technique has been around far to long for it to become extinct. It's like swine flu.. was big news at the start and now you only hear about occasionally. Its not dead and buried but it has been pushed back into everyday society now

My 2.5 cents worth.. ( i'm cheap )

cheers


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 17, 2009)

shed301 said:


> Anyone can come and take a hdr photo and consider themselves a expert. BUT it takes a lot of technical skill to make a good HDR photograph.
> As it being a fad?.. i don't think so. sure everyone will get bored with it and it will die down a bit but won't completely die out, The technique has been around far to long for it to become extinct. It's like swine flu.. was big news at the start and now you only hear about occasionally. Its not dead and buried but it has been pushed back into everyday society now
> 
> My 2.5 cents worth.. ( i'm cheap )
> ...



I'm sure some people are still wearing slap bracelets.  Doesn't mean it wasn't a fad.


----------



## epp_b (Sep 17, 2009)

Exactly.  Fads, by definition, slow down to lesser use after an initial explosion of over-popularity.


----------



## Chiller (Sep 17, 2009)

I still dont see why people get their sheeit in a knot over stuff like this.  Everyone has their own visions, whether it is photography, music, painting or whatever.  I have never understood why people get down on others for using the tools available to create whatever they wish.   
  That is what makes the world unique.  We can create an endless ammount of art, with whatever is provided.  
  Personally I have only done 2 HDRs, but if there is something in my peanut that says...."hey, this might look cool in hdr", Im going to do it. It is my vision, and I will use the tools provided for me to get that vision to come alive.  
 Photography/art has come a long way, and this growing technology will grow more.    Just enjoy it...cause we are only here for a short time.


----------



## epp_b (Sep 17, 2009)

What bothers us is that HDR doesn't usually involve vision or imagination.  What it usually involves is carelessly snapping three or five shots on a tripod and dropping an H-bomb on the pictures to make them look radioactive.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Sep 17, 2009)

yes, HDR pictures do look stupid a lot of the time.  I'm just saying that it's no reason to be rude.  Just say that you prefer HDRs with a more realistic look if that's your preference.  or say nothing.


----------



## dry3210 (Sep 17, 2009)

I think the issue is just more of a narrow mindedness which goes both ways.  People who take nothing but HDR photos who seem to not know the workings of their own cameras or put any thought into a photo and those who think the only thing worthy of being a photo is ones that are not altered/post processed in any way.  

Even then really if you take all non-altered or all HDR photos or all photoshopped pictures then so be it...but why hate on someone who goes another route.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 18, 2009)

I agree



dry3210 said:


> I think the issue is just more of a narrow mindedness which goes both ways. People who take nothing but HDR photos who seem to not know the workings of their own cameras or put any thought into a photo and those who think the only thing worthy of being a photo is ones that are not altered/post processed in any way.
> 
> Even then really if you take all non-altered or all HDR photos or all photoshopped pictures then so be it...but why hate on someone who goes another route.


----------

