# A serious lack of originality



## Sachphotography (Jul 18, 2009)

It seems that just as with anything else when a FAD comes about it comes in with a force. For photographers, the latest fad is attempting to take High Dynamic Range photos AKA HDR. As I spend countless hours searching the web and various forums I see a trend. Everybody and their stinking mother want to shoot HDR. WHY??? Why do people not develop their own style anymore? Why do people want to create the same thing 1000s of people are trying to create? The sad reality of this new found trend is the lack of knowledge and ability needed to create a proper HDR image. I am not going to get into the technicalities of this type of photography as I do not shoot it. The reason I do not shoot HDR is out of spite for the masses of wanna be HDR photographers. I am not going to jump on that bandwagon which has swept photogs away by the masses.  I think that people need to develop their own style. If you just have to shoot HDR because you think its cool then please research it out before you post a my first HDR, Please C&C. Because what happens is you take a picture in which HDR serves no purpose and then get mad when people point it out to you. Get off the wagon and get your own style. Flame me if you must. Tell me I am wrong. I dont mind. My point is simply that the best photogs in the world and history each had their own unique style and look and feel. If you ever want to take your photography to the next leave then you MUST develop your own style and look.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 18, 2009)

It's colourful, it's unique or so they think. Kind of like emo's who went out of their way to wear black and pierce themsevles to be individual only at the same time managing to form a minority group of like minded clones who all look alike, hang out together and listen to the same crap music.


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2009)

A unique style of shooting does not appear overnight for most - very very few start with that unique style, they have to work hard towards it - learning to understand both the camera and also think about what it is they want to show and also what they want it too look like.

So its no surprise to me that there are so many new photographers out there (digital has hardly been mainstream for that long comparativly speaking) who don't yet have any style to their work. Some are still working toward it and many others are also content with the work they produce now - they are not trying to "push the boundaries" to "discover new forms" or "make their mark". They are happy with their photos (some could say they are luckier than the more keen photographer still seeking their point of happyness with their work). One has to understand that there are people out there quite happy with the work they produce - sure it might not be you taste or style - heck we all have things we don't like (I hate baby and kids photos) but that does not really give us the right to insult those that do or who produce such works. If anything if there is some simple skill or tip to help such people its worth far more to tell them than it is to gripe about them

So that explains the beginners - now for HDR - well firstly I think it odd that you limit your photography in such a way just because its something that others are doing and doing in a manner which (to your view) is substandard - leaves the pool way open to letting you dominate with your "unique style" of HDR (once you find it of course  ).
Also I do add some blame to the popular magazines and software developers as well - they have latched onto the HDR bandwagon and activly promote it as well as lead some confusion over the terms (HRD is catchy whilst tonemapped is not). This of course leads to missinformation being rife within the beginners and light hobbyists. 

As for the effect many choose to copy -- well what is wrong with copycatting? In drawning or painting tracing and copying the works of others is a very key learning skill, often greatly encouraged since as you draw the same image you pick up the skills (technical) needed to create that look - skills that can be taken and applied to ones own image and creation at a later date. 
Copycatting aside though the "go with the flow" mentality is always present in society - fashion, films, books, media, cameras -- there is always a mainstream of fashionable things - at the moment its HDR and I suspect that as video becomes more dominant in DSLRs and improving in quality that soon enough video will be the latest fad - then a new i"somethingerother" will appear - oh and a new mobile phone -- etc....


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 18, 2009)

My point is that to many people rush into HDR with out studying it and try to produce something they cannot. HDR is a FAD and nothing more. Don't even get me started on video in a DSLR.. no..no sirry. I will keep my mouth shut! 

I think people rather than just latch on to what is popular; should try to develop a style that is unique to themselves. HDR can produce amazingly good pictures, but 70% of the time, the look like overexposed oversaturated blurry shots. It is typical of people though. they rush into something and do it half hearted and always wonder why they cannot produce the amazing pictures the see in magazines. Grrrrrrrrr


----------



## Overread (Jul 18, 2009)

pfft but that is how I got into photography!
No point and shoot, no film camera, only ever used a disposable a handfull of times (and most of them were never developed either, just left in a box somewhere) and before that only a handfull of snapshots on a polariod.

From that I went to a DSLR 400D - and half a year later added most of the gear in my sig... as well as a nice flash and expensive tripod.

Didn't do me any harm and yah I produced some right rubbish when I stared - I ain't met anyone who starts something new and is a pure natural born tallent. We arn't born with an understanding of apertures, ISOs and stuff - though some are born with a good eye for composition - but still that has to be realised, trained and learnt

People all go through the rubbishy stage to get to the good stage.

As for the style, like I said, you have to accept that some people just arn't after a style - all they want is to produce some nice images like what other people do and maybe frame a few or stick them on the net. Sure there are many many of these such people - there are also many who have only one little website hidden in a corner of the net who are developing their unique style and who might be the next big name -


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Jul 18, 2009)

i agree. what happened to good old fashioned photography where people cared more about their picture than what they can do in photoshop. i think a lot of people are drawing the photographer line a little to close to  the graphic designer line these days.


----------



## bitteraspects (Jul 18, 2009)

its the exact same thing that happened with IR shots a few years back. trends will come and go, and lots of clowns will jump on and off the proverbial bandwagon. no need to let it ruin your day


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 18, 2009)

&#8220;No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.&#8221; 


Recognized that? Seems to me it doesn't quite fit with your attitude here.


----------



## JamieR (Jul 18, 2009)

I'm agree 100% with you. I hate all the people trying to do HDR photos for the sake of it being HDR.


----------



## rufus5150 (Jul 18, 2009)

HDR isn't a style, it is a tool in the post-processing toolbox (though one that takes some forethought). 

There are things characteristic of many HDR styles (punched saturation, large DOF, 'glow', 'cartoonish') but to write off HDR as a whole as a fad is like saying 'a 3/4ths inch drill bit? total fad, you should never drill a hole THAT size.'

I do feel your pain in some respects, though, because I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that when they're creating an HDR, the HDR-post-process will not immediately make an interesting image. It's something to add to the image while still paying mind to thinks like interest, clutter, composition, etc. I believe the HDR-for-HDR's sake without attention to the details normally given to a photo is itself a fad.


----------



## BKMOOD (Jul 18, 2009)

I'm often tickled by people who continue to refer to HDR as a fad.  Photographers have been doing HDR-type things to their photographs (with other tools) for more than 100 years.  Then again, I suppose at one time people called Photoshop a fad...


----------



## JFew (Jul 18, 2009)

When I heard about the DSLR's that shoot movies I almost couldn't believe it. Completely absurd! Why on EARTH would a professional camera need a movie mode?? Who is spending that much money on a camera and needing movie mode also??


----------



## KmH (Jul 18, 2009)

JFew said:


> When I heard about the DSLR's that shoot movies I almost couldn't believe it. Completely absurd! Why on EARTH would a professional camera need a movie mode?? Who is spending that much money on a camera and needing movie mode also??


The Pro's, because clients are asking for it.


----------



## Kondro86 (Jul 18, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.
> 
> 
> Recognized that? Seems to me it doesn't quite fit with your attitude here.


 
ha, i agree with clouldwalker.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 18, 2009)

BKMOOD said:


> I'm often tickled by people who continue to refer to HDR as a fad.  Photographers have been doing HDR-type things to their photographs (with other tools) for more than 100 years.  Then again, I suppose at one time people called Photoshop a fad...



HDR-Type things yes. But that's not what is being referred to here. Regardless how you may see it, the evolution of language has clearly defined the term HDR, used incorrectly, as those over saturated, over contrasty, lack of depth nuclear coloured pictures.

Technically it's not even "HDR" but simple "Tone-mapping" but if this thread started on the first post about tone-mapping then 95% of this forum would haven't a clue what it's about.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 18, 2009)

Kondro86 said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.
> ...



The statement was made by Ansel Adams. It is posted on my website. 
It does agree with my statement. I am encouraging people to develop their own style. To not hinge of the FAD of the day.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 18, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> Kondro86 said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...



"Everybody and their stinking mother" is not going to encourage anyone to listen to you. Then again, I'm not sure they should anyway.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 19, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Kondro86 said:
> ...


 
That was rude. My point in stirring up this thread is to get people to get their head out of the sand and learn to research and do things the right way. To develop their own style and abilities. People get so wrapped up in tryint the latest FAD and Trend they forget to get back to the basics. Most colleges require you to shoot on 35mm and learn al the basic old school methods. Then towards the end they allow you to shoot on digital. I am trying to get people to understand this point. Get back to basics and learn how todo things the right way.


----------



## Grace Mendoza (Jul 19, 2009)

A fad is a fad, just like in fashion or music. We can't help what other people like. I do agree with you however, but there's just things we cannot change and that's...change. So focus on your own style and be proud that you're not just like everyone else. I stopped thinking about what other people liked, a long time ago. I'm not looking for a different photographic style just to stand out either, I just have a different photographic view/preference. So, I hope it doesn't bother you as much anymore. Admire those you want to admire, and focus more on your work for the better.

Best wishes.

- Grace


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 19, 2009)

Grace Mendoza said:


> A fad is a fad, just like in fashion or music. We can't help what other people like. So focus on your own style and be proud that you're not just like everyone else. I stopped thinking about what other people liked, a long time ago. I'm not looking for a different photographic style just to stand out either, I just have a different photographic view/preference. So, I hope it doesn't bother you as much anymore. Admire those you want to admire, and focus more on your work for the better.
> 
> Best wishes.
> 
> - Grace


 
Oh I agree 100%. My point is to try to help others.


----------



## Grace Mendoza (Jul 19, 2009)

High five to the 35mm, my friend.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 19, 2009)

When I was living in Seattle, I was all about HDR and photomatix, I thought it was the coolest thing in the world, and I used it whenever possible. 

I shot HDR's for portraits:






For landscapes:





If it was old:





Some of them people seemed to like, and i liked that people liked them, so I kept doing it, but as a result, became a worse photographer.

Then I finally grew out of it and started to get a real grasp on real photography. 

It was a fad for me and was a departure from the principals of photography. It was cheating. "I don't know what the best exposure is, so i'll bracket a buttload and just slap em' together in photomatix and if ti comes out, sweet! if not, whatever.."

October of 2007 is the newest HDR that i've been able to find on my computer, and it's crap, just like the others.


I do think it's a fad, and in the photography world it's going to be on one of those things we make fun of 15 years from now just like white vignettes.. (*cringe*)

It's going to become sort of like one of the one hit wonders of the new millennium..


----------



## Joves (Jul 19, 2009)

While there is very little HDR I like, it doesnt bother me that alot of people do it. I see it as a different genre from standard photography, much like realism in painting and, modernism. You either like one or the other.


----------



## Bravotwofive (Jul 19, 2009)

I had never heard of HDR until I joined here. I paint pictures with light. Literally. So for me I could see this being an extension of what I am already doing. Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me. Only more people exploiting the process. And isn't that what we are all about? Exploring, pushing the envelope. As long as it is a photo, and not computer generated, it works for me. Especially if someone is learning from it.

Dozens of people, thousands of dollars, countless hours, and no one can duplicate Ansel Adams. Nor my photography. I want to learn to be better, but ultimately I shoot for me, and because I can't imagine not doing it. I have not tried HDR, but I sure plan to learn about it. 

Thanks for making me aware of it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 19, 2009)

Bravotwofive said:


> I had never heard of HDR until I joined here. I paint pictures with light. Literally. So for me I could see this being an extension of what I am already doing. Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me. Only more people exploiting the process. And isn't that what we are all about? Exploring, pushing the envelope. As long as it is a photo, and not computer generated, it works for me. Especially if someone is learning from it.
> 
> Dozens of people, thousands of dollars, countless hours, and no one can duplicate Ansel Adams. Nor my photography. I want to learn to be better, but ultimately I shoot for me, and because I can't imagine not doing it. I have not tried HDR, but I sure plan to learn about it.
> 
> Thanks for making me aware of it.



:thumbup:


----------



## Phranquey (Jul 19, 2009)

Sach,

What you are saying, IMO, is pretty much a contradiction in itself.  It sounds as if you expect someone to pick up a camera and have their own style right out of the box.  In order to go through the process of developing a style, one needs to try many others in order to find what they like.....

I don't think of DHR as a fad.  I see it as another tool that is being learned en masse.....it just works much better for some, and not so well for others.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 20, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> Sach,
> I don't think of DHR as a fad. I see it as another tool that is being learned en masse.....it just works much better for some, and not so well for others.


 
I did not contridict my self. And what is DHR?
My point is people try and do something like that and dont even research it. Im saying people need to learnt eh basics. Walk before you Run kind of thing.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 21, 2009)

Bravotwofive said:


> Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me.



Cutting negatives is not the same as getting a few auto bracketed pics and plugging them into automatic software like photomatix. 

For the most part, it's a cheesy fad.


----------



## willma88 (Jul 21, 2009)

some of the HDRs now dont even look like photography anymore... just a vast pile of editedd unrealistic ***#&$


----------



## MBasile (Jul 21, 2009)

I have no problem with true HDR's, it's the over-processed images that people call HDR's that piss me off. I doubt most of them even know what HDR stands for, or what its application is.

I also have no problem with people doing what they want to do (I think in this day and age, with the amount of people that have SLRs it's going to be tough to find people with a "unique" style anyways, especially when those require years of learning your camera and the art), it's the improper use of terms that bugs me.



Sachphotography said:


> Kondro86 said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...



Perhaps the style/technique that you have seen so many times before, someone else really enjoys and wants to make that their style. Are they not allowed to because you've seen it before? Honestly, I think you're getting too hung up about the thought of people caring what you think, but that's just my opinion.

As for the "fad" thing, I don't think HDRing is a fad, but the over-processed look is. Proper HDRing has it's place.

I don't think this is a "bad" HDR:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2317/2447337141_796bca6dac.jpg

This one however, I think starts to fall on the over-processed line. This was not the effect I was going for, I was trying to get a broader dynamic range:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3030569463_8bcfcc9f86.jpg

This one I ended up doing a pseudo-HDR because I was on the wrong side of the track, and the side of the car was too dark without doing it (adjusted the EV, saved as three different copies, then merged):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3632/3569450028_0d107eae4f.jpg

But of course, those are all just fad photos


----------



## Bravotwofive (Jul 21, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Bravotwofive said:
> 
> 
> > Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me.
> ...


 
We used to plow the field with beast of burden. Now we use modern machinery. Does that mean it is not farming any more, or are tractors just a cheesy fad?

I am not trying to be rude here, but there are many people that like this work, and honestly it is somewhat advanced of what a newbie with a PS would produce normally. I think it represents uncommon results in an on going effort to grow.


----------



## patrickt (Jul 21, 2009)

When I was in college, 1959, I took an art class. The professor mentioned frequently that he painted with acrylic on rice paper. One day I asked why. He said, "No one else is doing that. It will make me famous." Well, if I gave you his name, I guarantee you never heard of him.

Having a unique and obvious style, or gimmick, is nothing. Mastering the craft is all. Keep working and you might develop a subtle, here it comes, "style" that people recognize and appreciate.

I went to an exhibit and the photographer did nothing but IR photos. One for effect can be interesting. A room full is ridiculous. The same goes for HDR or a current fad where I live of blurry pictures with obvious camera movement.

I love Hitchcock movies. I think he has a style I enjoy. His being in every movie isn't a style though. It's a gimmick. It's a gimmick I, and others, enjoy but it is still a gimmick.


----------



## Bravotwofive (Jul 21, 2009)

Thinking that originallity will make you famous is a bit narcissistic.

"Mastering the Craft" is a journey, and not a final destination. This would presume that there is finite goal to achieve, and once there you can go no further.

Were Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs a gimmick? What about Henry Ford?
Is signing a work of art a gimmick? It can be if you believe that your signature will somehow make the work more important.

Gimmick is a word we use when we don't buy into something. If that "gimmick" becomes a huge success we call it innovation.

I use a beam of light as a paint brush. does that make it a gimmick, or an artist choice of tools?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jul 21, 2009)

Who cares.

Get out and shoot, however you feel is the best for you and what makes you smile at the end of the day.

Whether that's with an iPhone, a Kodak Disc, Canon or Nikon, film, digital, whatever... and any post processing or lack of YOU desire.

Sorry you hate to see it, but why bother trying to pursuade people to do what you think they should do? It's photography - an art, profession, hobby and just pure enjoyment for most people here in some form or combination - let it go. They'll discover themselves soon enough, don't worry.


----------



## MBasile (Jul 21, 2009)

Ya know, Holgas are an accepted style of photography, yet the quality is lightyears from Hasselblads. Photography is an art, and the quality lies in the mind of the creator AND the viewer, therefore no one piece of art is definitively better than another piece.


----------



## BTilson (Jul 21, 2009)

This sort of attitude really bugs me. You say you refuse to shoot HDR because so many other people are doing it. That is simply short minded and petty. I've always been big in the local music scene, and it's always pained me to no end to hear scene kids prattle on about how band X suck because "they sold out" or "everybody else listens to them" when in fact they haven't even given that band a shot. It's just a childish and rather pathetic attitude.


----------



## Sleepy_Sentry (Jul 21, 2009)

I am a beginning photographer and have to agree with the original poster. HDR is simply out of this world when done properly, but it's overdone. 

I took a black and white course at my high school and feel like it was a much better way to start photography. Whether I had the intention to or not, my professor told me that I took a subtle approach to all my photos. This may be my style or it might not, but I'd much rather carve my own niche than copy cheap effects from Photoshop tutorial sites.


----------



## Bravotwofive (Jul 21, 2009)

Sleepy_Sentry said:


> snipped for bandwith
> ... This may be my style or it might not, but I'd much rather carve my own niche than copy cheap effects from Photoshop tutorial sites.


 
Whoa, lets be clear here. This is something that was done as far back as the 30's on film. This is not just a "cheap effect from Photoshop". My guess is that if you had to drive a model A Ford you would have a renewed appreciation for your modern vehicle.

If the photographers from the day had our modern tools, how much better would they be?


----------



## manaheim (Jul 21, 2009)

Let's see what other things I've heard called "silly fads"...

- Microwave ovens
- The Internet
- Blue jeans
- Autofocus cameras
- Digital cameras
- Photoshop

In truth, all of these things are tools... but when they first "hit the scene" they tend to get used and overused... people try to see how much they can push the given technology or item because it's new and interesting and they want to see where it fits in.  At some point in time or another, excitement around the item dies down and some of the more ancillary or extreme applications die off.

For example... when the microwave came out, my Mom tried to make everything from hot dogs to cakes in the stupid thing.  Nowadays most folks know that making a cake in a microwave is generally a disaster, but boy does that sucker cook vegetables!

Right now people are going gaga making all kinds of wonky images with HDR (and/or tone mapping)... (and what really cracks me up is when people make HDRs when there's no reason to) but there are actually some REASONABLE applications for this method.

For example...







(ignore the sensor dust, I keep forgetting to fix that ) 

There's absolutely nothing wonky about that image except that it would have been technically impossible to capture the blue sky in the windows and still be able to see the interior... other than that, it looks almost completely as you would expect to see it if you were standing there.

As time goes by, I expect more people will use HDR/tone-mapping for this kind of application and the funky crazy stuff will become more of a side thing that people do more occasionally like they do with IR today.

Whatever the case, I think your sitting there and saying that [para] "everyone should explore and find their own way", and then dictating what ways are unacceptable is pretty silly.  Maybe someone's style is all HDR all the time... who are you to say that's wrong?


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 21, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Bravotwofive said:
> 
> 
> > Seems it has been around since the 30's. That doesn't sound like a fad to me.
> ...



It is a fad. People can do a things a lot easier now than they did in the 50's Film took skill. Whe people did things, if the messed up they would have to re-shoot.
Now just CTRL-Z and your good. The HDR that 80% of the people create is crap. The shoot scenes that have no need of an HDR shoot. The final products turn out into an oversaturated out of focus looking piece of crap. If you want to say that HDR is your style then fine. DO IT RIGHT. I developed my own style to represent my artistic look. I label it Ethereal because I enjoy making pictures with a dream like wispy soft feel. People only do HDR because it is the COOL thing to do not because it is their style. 

And HDR is a new thing. They have not been doing it since the 30's


----------



## manaheim (Jul 21, 2009)

^^^ Frankly, I think you should strip "The Pact" out of your signature or you should rethink your approach... not just in this post, but in this forum as a whole.

In that post you basically just said that anyone doing an HDR doesn't have any skill and are generating crap. 

Did you even read my post?  Or are you just here to insult people?


----------



## Chris Stegner (Jul 21, 2009)

Seems to me some are acting "Holier Than Thou". Comments about what others are doing that you disagree with? Why? I understand you wanting to inspire... but this seems to be an odd way of doing that.

As for the Photoshop comment someone made... You'd be hard pressed to not use PS (or software in general). Don't freak out everyone... I know we could all shoot film, but face facts. I understand the "basics" of many photographic processes. I've shot film, processed film & E-6, print B&W and color. Done all sorts of photographic processes, right now in my life I'm choosing to use Photoshop in my process. Yes there are aguements in both directions, but I'd dare say I'm a better photographer (digital) because of Photoshop. Let's not get into the "Get the shot in the camera" arguement because again I'd bet very few "Get the shot" each and every time.

WOW... didn't think I was going to go off like that. I just think if your happy with what you're doign with you photography... share it with others, even share your knowledge with others. Don't spend your time expressing how bad others are.


----------



## Bravotwofive (Jul 21, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> And HDR is a new thing. They have not been doing it since the 30's


 
Oh Ok....
High dynamic range imaging was originally developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Charles Wyckoff. Wyckoff's detailed pictures of nuclear explosions appeared on the cover of _Life_ magazine in the mid 1940s. The process of tone mapping together with bracketed exposures of normal digital images, giving the end result a high, often exaggerated dynamic range, was first reported in 1988 by Zeevi, Ginosar and Hilsenrath.[1] Later introduction in 1993[2] resulted in a mathematical theory of differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter that was published in 1995 by Steve Mann and Rosalind Picard.[3] In 1997 this technique of combining several differently exposed images to produce a single HDR image was presented to the computer graphics community by Paul Debevec.


----------



## MBasile (Jul 21, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Let's see what other things I've heard called "silly fads"...
> 
> - Microwave ovens
> - The Internet
> ...



Great example of the proper application of HDRI.

An 8-bit image can only capture .05% of the dynamic range that the human eye can, HDR gives us a step towards capturing what is seen. Yes, proper skill can increase the efficiency of that 8-bit image, but it still has it's limitations.


----------



## MBasile (Jul 21, 2009)

Anyone have August's issue of Popular Photography? If so, I suggest checking out page 62, where they discuss two new P&S's on the market that (waaaaaaait for it... waaaaaaaaaaait for it) DO HDR IMAGING!

Both the Fujifilm F200EXP and the Ricoh CX1 produce, although not top quality, HDR shots by capturing two images and combining them into one shot automatically.

Also briefly mentioned is the Pentax K-7 as just coming onto the market with similar technology.

The short article doesn't go into how the Pentax technology works (both P&S's capture two frames and merge them), but the Sony Alphas have had a "Dynamic Range Optimization" feature since the A100. (EDIT: This review goes into the K-7's HDR function).

Here's part of the article (I couldn't find it online, so I'm just typing it)


> *Doesn't Pop Photo have, um, issues with HDR?*
> It's just that we see too many images taken to the Fakey McPhake level. When done subtly, HDR looks like a finely gradated but natural photo.



CN:Someone should tell Fujifilm, Ricoh, and Pentax that HDR is just a fad.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 22, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> It is a fad. People can do a things a lot easier now than they did in the 50's Film took skill. Whe people did things, if the messed up they would have to re-shoot.



It's a fad because it's easier?

Back in the 80s I regularly spent days working on one transparency doing dupes after dupes, adding one effect at a time with each dupe. Yes it took skills but frankly, you can have my skills. And I'll keep my new digital camera and PS to create the weird stuff I like in a matter of hours instead of days.

Plus, unless I am mistaken you shoot digital, so what-the-hey does this mean?


----------



## MBasile (Jul 22, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > It is a fad. People can do a things a lot easier now than they did in the 50's Film took skill. Whe people did things, if the messed up they would have to re-shoot.
> ...



Seriously, digital photography took off like a wildfire! Everyone, their mother, and their newborn has a digital SLR. Doesn't that make digital photography a fad? Film has come and (for the most part) gone, was that a fad too?


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 23, 2009)

I would like to end this thread and close it. The voices hav3e spoken and though I had good intentions in writing this thread I feel the opinion was taken the wrong way. Thank you to those you chimed in. Please do not respond to this with and more opinions as I would like it closed. Thanks again

CHEERS!!!

Daniel


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 23, 2009)

Since when does being the OP give you the option to say when the discussion is over? This thread hasn't gotten heated or turned into a flame war. I'd hardly see reason to close it.

Basile: Holy schmoly. I thought that those things were still in development. Do they take multiple 8-bit images, or is it built into the sensor? (Like, two sensors with different dynamic ranges on top of each other.)

HDR is a tool to put in the kit. Pull it out when needed. Like a flash. Or a gel. Or a sandwich...mmmm...sandwich...


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 23, 2009)

So let me get this straight. I start a discussion it goes the wrong way and I decided that it would be better left as is and ended before thing heat up and people get offended and I am the one frowned on? I would rather let it go and not create a problem than let it continue. 
Jeezy man back off..... I started the conversion so yes, I should have the right to say end it. Flame me... rag on me. I do not care. This is a friendly board and I would like to keep it that way.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2009)

Let me pull up the Internet rule book here...

<fwoomp>

Ok, lessee... rules on ending threads...

<flip flip flip>

Something about moderators... yeah... ok...

<flip flip>

Looking for references to OPs ending conversations.......?

<flip flip>

Nope.  Nada.

Sorry, man.


And frankly... the thread went the way it did for no other reason than you created the thread to begin with.  There are plenty of "why HDR?" conversations on this board, but yours amounted to "Anyone who does HDR is just a lemming and has no skills."  Really, that can go nowhere good.  

If you don't understand why, then there are deeper issues here and you're going to spend a lot of time on the Internet feeling very confused about why everyone is annoyed at you.

And if you don't understand why posting something like this is effectively like letting a slavering mad beast out of a cage, and that you cannot simply stuff it back in the box... well... I guess it goes hand in hand with not knowing why people might be annoyed at you.

I'll send you this book on Internet rules.  Maybe it will help.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jul 23, 2009)

Ok Um I am not wondering why a few people are annoyed at me. I opened the can and a lot of worms came flying out. I am now wondering why you all are being so rude. I simply stated I wish to close the thread. So let me rephrase what I should have said so I dont have to listen to mindless drones of how I am wrong. 
I WAS WRONGok there I have said my peace.
Now for the way I should have wrote it.
Upon reading this thread, I now feel as though my original intension's went on a tangent. Rather than help other understand the importance of originality, I now see that this caused a bit of contention. I think in the end if people choose to waste there time on the current so called FADs or TRENDS; that is their business. The people who become the household names in photography will be those who simply do. There is no magic formula for success but rather one simply needs a good marketing rep. HDR will come and go with it's time and it will leave behind trail of intrigue amazement and sadly; disapointment. My choice now is to end MY posting in this thread as my personal opinion hash been tarnished by me irritation. So now, rather than continue to voice my opinion and irritations, I will leave this thread to those who wish to continue it. As for me......Goodbye.

CHEERS.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2009)

"mindless drones"

Yes, much better... thank you. 

Sorry... I know you're trying... it's just too funny not to comment on.


----------



## MBasile (Jul 23, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Since when does being the OP give you the option to say when the discussion is over? This thread hasn't gotten heated or turned into a flame war. I'd hardly see reason to close it.
> 
> Basile: Holy schmoly. I thought that those things were still in development. Do they take multiple 8-bit images, or is it built into the sensor? (Like, two sensors with different dynamic ranges on top of each other.)
> 
> HDR is a tool to put in the kit. Pull it out when needed. Like a flash. Or a gel. Or a sandwich...mmmm...sandwich...



One of them took two images with one shutter opening, the other one (the 12MP one) takes two 6MP images and combines them. The Pentax SLR takes 3 shots and blends them, I'm not sure if it does it like bracketing or all in one shutter opening.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jul 23, 2009)

this thread = hilarity.

can't we just shoot what we like, and process it how we like it?

good lord. all my photos SUCK then.
i missed the rule book.
manaheim, i think it's filed next to the internet rule book...can you pass it over?


----------



## MBasile (Jul 23, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> this thread = hilarity.
> 
> can't we just shoot what we like, and process it how we like it?
> 
> ...



No, you're not allowed to shoot what you want, you must shoot what 100% of people viewing will like the most.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> good lord. all my photos SUCK then.
> i missed the rule book.
> manaheim, i think it's filed next to the internet rule book...can you pass it over?


 
Oh yeah, here let me grab that for you...

Man it's kinda dusty...

>FWOOMP!<

There you go!

Read up, there will be a test later.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 23, 2009)

Oh my. Now you're just being silly. 



MBasile said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Since when does being the OP give you the option to say when the discussion is over? This thread hasn't gotten heated or turned into a flame war. I'd hardly see reason to close it.
> ...



How nifty is that? Pretty cool stuff that's getting packed into these cameras. It's funny that the other brands (not Nikon or Canon) seem to be leading in a few areas where it can really count. HDR isn't that big a deal, but the fact that my Canon doesn't natively support DNG? Now that I take issue with. (And Pentax has jumped on DNG quite happily. Yeesh.)


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2009)

Me?  Silly?  Lies!  Bite your tongue, sir!

Man I'm having an odd night.  I really should stay off TPF.


----------

