# Why the hatred?



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

I'm becoming very partial to HDR, I think it breaths new life and creativity into shots that I take. 


But man am I getting bashed for it! Honestly, majority of peopple like it, but the HDR haters out there scream bloody murder!


Especially for these...





Peak District by ravenphotography2012, on Flickr





Peak District by ravenphotography2012, on Flickr


Just as an example. People saying I've "overcooked" them. 


I think its people just not liking the process or not fully understanding it.


These are not over cooked by a long way! 8)


----------



## jaomul (Nov 12, 2012)

Its called free will to have ones opinion


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

jaomul said:


> Its called free will to have ones opinion


 Opinions are absolutely fine, but coming along and saying ah, these are ****, HDR is ****, you overcooked them, why? Why not either give constructive critisism or just don't post?


----------



## runnah (Nov 12, 2012)

My honest opinion is that HDR used sparingly can be good. When it is used to try to make a bad photo good is when people take issue.

I am not saying your photo are bad BTW.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 12, 2012)

It's like anything; some people love it, others hate it.

I've been getting into HDR, as well, and find myself shooting towards that end.

A while back, a friend of mine, who's a photographer for whom I hold a tremendous amount of respect, sent me an e-mail. Essentially, he said I should ratchet it back a bit (I was posting a LOT of HRD of Facebook). His opinion was that HDR is the new "selective coloring". He thinks it can easily be made to be a gimmick, and little more. 

I thought about that, and actually tried to concentrate on _not _shooting HDR. But I do it anyway.

The people who simply _have _to demean your posts are people who A) Have little understanding of HDR or B) Can't do HDR worth a damn themselves, although they want to...


----------



## Kolia (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > Its called free will to have ones opinion
> ...



To their defense, they don't have to like it at all.  

Many people online love to hide behind a keyboard and troll around hating stuff.  In real life, they'd get punched in the face.  Here, we just have to ignore them.

Personally, I like the artistic effects of your pictures.


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 12, 2012)

Don't worry about the hate brigade. If HDR is something you find useful, challenging, pleasing, etc., then continue exploring and experimenting. If people tell you what they think is wrong or could be better (as far as they're concerned) and back this up with whys and wherefores, it's up to you to take it or leave it as you please (but thank them anyway). The other planks can be ignored.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 12, 2012)

People are *******s. You get this absolutely everywhere. HDR just happens to be the current outlet. 

Incidentally I don't see someone saying you overcooked something as aggressive. It's actually quite constructive criticism coming from someone who doesn't like the surreal glow that HDR creates.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 12, 2012)

It's a religious issue.  You know, like color film, autofocus lenses and digital photography.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

I agree, if it is constructive like "there is a halo on that branch" or the sky there looks a little over cooked" then yes, but they just come along with, yeah that's crap, its overcooked. 

People are idiots, you are right, I would just punch them in the face.


----------



## RichardH (Nov 12, 2012)

I like HDR. Since I am the only one I am going to please is myself. Others opinions don't matter. There is a lot of people with a lot of hate in them now days, so ignore them.

Nice work and keep it up.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 12, 2012)

Coming back to this for a moment...

What a lot of people are railing against is the tendency to use HDR as a replacement for other important things when composing a "good photograph".  Someone here (I wish I remember who) once said "It's not a bucket of liquid cool that you pour onto any picture."  On this point, I personally agree, and my advice to you is to be mindful of it.  The picture has to stand without the HDR treatment compositionally, or it's no more than a demonstration of how an HDR can be done.

People additionally disagree with people's choices in "how far" a person takes it.  "It's overcooked!"  This, I think, is a matter of preference and preference alone.  I happen to think the over-cooked look is ridiculous, but I know a lot of people love it.  People like cubism, too.  I hate it. *shrug*  More exprienced viewers of artwork will not say something is bad just because they don't happen to like it, but then not everyone on an internet forum is experienced.  There are very low qualifications associated with getting on here and telling someone their work is crap.  I'd never suggest you ignore people, because you may get an idea or a nugget of wisdom here and there from anyone... but I wouldn't take this stuff too much to heart.

Personally, I don't much care for your style choices... I think your colors are off... looks like leaning warm as a general tendency, and your HDR treatment leans toward the more "overcooked".  I look at HDR as a tool to provide additional realism.  Those are, however, entirely my opinions.  Your choices are your own.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 12, 2012)

If you post a photograph in any area other than "Just For Fun" then you are, in effect, asking for comment and critique.  Comment and critique doesn't mean "Only tell me the good things about this photograph" it means "What do YOU think about this photograph".  Just because you happen to like overcooked HDR doesn't mean that everyone else does, and those photographs were posted in the Landscape area and not the HDR area.  Given those circumstances then you can certainly expect people to comment on the over-processed HDR look.

I saw them in that area.  I didn't say anything, but I started to.  They are over-processed, there is no question of that.  HDR means "High Dynamic Range", it doesn't mean "Stretch every channel as high as you can get it".  You look at your first shot.  Did it look like that when you took it?  Did it really have all those over-saturated reds and greens?  If so then I apologize.  If not then it's over-processed.  It's as simple as that.  The second one is good.  It uses HDR for what it was intended, to bring out detail in the shadow and highlight areas that would otherwise be lost.

You do what makes you happy.  If it's something you enjoy then by all means go for it.  But when you do don't expect everyone to appreciate, and do expect some to tell you that it's over-processed because it is.  I like well-done HDR, and there are some people on this forum who can accomplish that.  I won't speak for others, but I personally detest over-processed cartoonish HDR, and normally just skip over it as soon as I see it, as I did with your post.  But since you asked I felt like responding.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 12, 2012)

Is the first shot Derbyshire Bridge ? but i have never seen these colours when im out in the Peak District


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 12, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Coming back to this for a moment...
> 
> What a lot of people are railing against is the tendency to use HDR as a replacement for other important things when composing a "good photograph".  Someone here (I wish I remember who) once said "It's not a bucket of liquid cool that you pour onto any picture."  On this point, I personally agree, and my advice to you is to be mindful of it.  The picture has to stand without the HDR treatment compositionally, or it's no more than a demonstration of how an HDR can be done.
> 
> ...



some sage advice from the wise bunny...whoever did the quote about the liquid cool was spot on there. 
there are some aspects to photography that are very subjective. and some that are purely technical. 
when it comes to C&C, you  have to decide which applies to your photos, which advice you want to take, and what  you will simply consider "subjective". in the end, for you own personal photos, the only opinion that really matters is your own, but it wouldnt hurt to try out other peoples ideas and see how you like them. take bits of advice to try, keep what  you like, and toss the rest. you might just be a better photographer for it.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

SCraig said:


> If you post a photograph in any area other than "Just For Fun" then you are, in effect, asking for comment and critique.  Comment and critique doesn't mean "Only tell me the good things about this photograph" it means "What do YOU think about this photograph".  Just because you happen to like overcooked HDR doesn't mean that everyone else does, and those photographs were posted in the Landscape area and not the HDR area.  Given those circumstances then you can certainly expect people to comment on the over-processed HDR look.
> 
> I saw them in that area.  I didn't say anything, but I started to.  They are over-processed, there is no question of that.  HDR means "High Dynamic Range", it doesn't mean "Stretch every channel as high as you can get it".  You look at your first shot.  Did it look like that when you took it?  Did it really have all those over-saturated reds and greens?  If so then I apologize.  If not then it's over-processed.  It's as simple as that.  The second one is good.  It uses HDR for what it was intended, to bring out detail in the shadow and highlight areas that would otherwise be lost.
> 
> You do what makes you happy.  If it's something you enjoy then by all means go for it.  But when you do don't expect everyone to appreciate, and do expect some to tell you that it's over-processed because it is.  I like well-done HDR, and there are some people on this forum who can accomplish that.  I won't speak for others, but I personally detest over-processed cartoonish HDR, and normally just skip over it as soon as I see it, as I did with your post.  But since you asked I felt like responding.



When I took that shot, the raw file is over exposed and completely washed out, the light up there was blinding through a white cloud all day, exposure was a night mare, hence the bracketing. If I had left them as shot they might as well have been deleted. 

The negative comments were not from this forum, it was another, and they weren't constructive, just stupid people unfortunately!


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Coming back to this for a moment...
> ...



Completely, truly agree with you, I am already going to re-edit these when I get the chance from the raw files and try to create a better more realistic HDR.

But, the issue here is I am doing this because other people think that's what is required, not because I want to. I like these shot as they are.

Hey ho.


----------



## runnah (Nov 12, 2012)

Nikon is better.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



I think you missed a key part of what I said, though.  I said, essentially, you need to do what feels right to you.  You shouldn't ever ignore critique when given, but if you feel you are on the right path for you and your artwork, then you need to stick to your guns.  People can tell you whether or not they _like_ something, but they cannot tell you what your vision is.  One of our favorite members (now gone) has in his sig "My camera, my rules, my vision." -Chiller

Nothing bothers me more than seeing someone change what they're doing just because the masses on some internet forum rose up and crushed their spirit... even if it just so happens that I actually agree with the masses... and in this case, I do.

In brief: my advice is 1. that your HDRs are overcooked and don't look good, and that 2. you should ignore my advice.

Look, Van Gogh was largely considered a hack and a lunatic during his life.  His work was systematically panned, and both he and his work were ridiculed and marginalized.  He died poor and alone and miserable.  Today he is one of the most famous artists in the history of mankind.  Are you the next Van Gogh?  Likely not, but it's still something work keeping in mind.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 12, 2012)

If the internet was like most consumer products, it would come with a manual of disclaimers and warnings.  A very thick manual.  And on the first page would be:  "The tool you are about to access is also being accessed by almost everyone with a computer or a link.  Given the range of intelligence, mental capacity, psychological health and maturity in the human population, everything obtained through this medium should be considered unsubstantiated hearsay and opinion until such time the information can be independently verified.  Conduct yourself accordingly."

As my Mom said to me when I was younger:  "Consider the source."


----------



## AlexanderB (Nov 12, 2012)

Check this: xkcd: Duty Calls

As for me your images look distracting unnatural.


----------



## Patrice (Nov 12, 2012)

In a post above the OP says he knows the images might be 'overcooked' and adds that he likes them the way he presented them. So his vision, his image, his perogative. We as an audience can either not like it, be noncommittal, or be enthusiasts. Since the image has been made public the op should be prepared for all reactions and accept the praise, and the criticism, with grace.

Personally I don't mind HDR. I do have preferences for how it is used and I suppose it depends on the image. For the most part I like to see it used with a bit delicacy to help bring out some subtle detail that enhances the image and that might have been otherwise overlooked or missed.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 12, 2012)

It is my own personal dogma that things done to an image should not be the reason that people look at it and a corollary is that technical issues are unimportant unless they interfere with the point of the image.

The candy color of HDR is almost offensive because it is saying 'look at these odd colors' instead of look at the picture I made.
Your first picture has a couple of technical things that bother me.

First is the aspect ratio.  So tall and skinny draws attention to the shape rather than the content.  Considering the amount of editing you did, a more 'standard' or close to standard aspect ratio would attract less attention to the shape and allow more to the great depth of field and the really interesting things in that depth.

Second the vertical you chose.  There are three possible ways to align this vertically.  You chose the horizontal of the bridge, ignoring the look of the arch which implies that the bridge is actually at an angle to the camera. That however left both of the falls dropping their water at an angle. My guess is the the falls to the left, which seems straight on to the camera represents true up-down and both the other falls and the bridge have some perspective distortion because we are seeing them at an angle.

If the image is rotated the falls in the center are vertical, as gravity wishes, and the bridge appears to be going away, adding another dimenion, and the falls on the right look at an angle.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 12, 2012)

Making images is a form of fantasy creation.  When we start, we take images of what is.  As we get better, we learn to use focus, depth of field, background selection, lighting, staging, etc. to make the subject look better.  When we get really good, we succeed in creating images that look like what we imagine the subject to be.  The best can create the fantasy in a way that hides all the artifice used in its creation - it is as accessible as a casual snapshot, but the image is far, far better than reality could be.  And in this process of creation, who is to say that your version of the fantasy is better or worse than mine?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 12, 2012)

pgriz said:


> *The best can create the fantasy in a way that hides all the artifice used in its creation *- it is as accessible as a casual snapshot, but the image is far, far better than reality could be.  And in this process of creation, who is to say that your version of the fantasy is better or worse than mine?





pgriz said:


> And in this process of creation, *who is  to say that your version of the fantasy is better or worse than  mine?*



We are.:lmao:

But the maker doesn't have to believe us.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2012)

There are several things going on with HDR:

"Overcooked"

At any given time in any art, but perhaps particularly in photography, there is a range of styles that look "natural" to us. We see, for instance, Ansel Adams landscapes as looking "natural" even though taken objectively they are _*wildly*_ distorted views of nature. They're not even in color, for crying out loud. The same analysis applies to lots of things, though. Photographs are inherently not natural, they are a 2D rectangle representing a 3D universe, for one thing.

So what?

Well, if you make a photograph that doesn't fall within the current zeitgeist, your photograph "looks unnatural" and "wrong". Extremely HDR tends, currently, to fall outside that zeitgeist. Given time, we'll come to accept the look as "natural", more than likely, and things that look overcooked now will feel perfectly correct and natural.

"Drama"

HDR is often used to add a lot of visual drama to a crappy image. Ansel Adams, to fall back again on that familiar example, used basically analog versions of HDR to push a huge amount of visual drama into his landscapes. These are inherently dramatic scenes, huge mountains, mighty forests, waterfalls plummeting 100s of yard through the frosty mist. The drama makes sense. HDRing the crap out of a picture of some rusted out hulk of a 1950s era truck? Not so much. There's nothing dramatic about a rusted out truck -- there are fine images to be made there, but jamming the DRAMA lever over to 11 isn't the way to approach it.

"Solution in search of a problem"

HDR techniques are used to show detail in shadows and highlights. This is certainly a thing you can do, always, but as with the visual drama problem, sometimes it fails to serve the image well. Sometimes it's better to hint and conceal than to show and expose.

In summary:

HDR is a powerful set of tools, but virtually all the images produced with these tools are just thoughtless exercises in technique. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, most photographs are made thoughtlessly, HDR or not. The visual drama, the virtuoso exposition of shadow detail, the WOW factor of overcooked imagery, tend to fool the maker of the image in to thinking that there's more there than there is. It is, I think, harder to be objective about an image that you worked hard to make, and which has an immense amount of POP/WOW! So, we see these basically uninteresting photographs shown around, and the aficionados praise them for technical virtuosity and pop, while those of us who have spent more time looking at photographs and thinking about photography see past that to the basically boring photograph, and the incoherent artistic vision. And then we say really mean stuff, which we ought not do.


----------



## dbvirago (Nov 12, 2012)

FNG here, but I'll weigh in as this is something I have given some thought to. IMO, their needs to be two separate terms, HDR and a different one for the over-cooked look. I have done quite a few over processed images when I thought it would add something extra or put some pop in an image that didn't. People look at them and say, oh, HDR? No, they was no high dynamic range, I just pushed them through some filters. I think it is entirely possible to create an HDR image in the original sense that most if not all people wouldn't know any HDR technique was used. HDR describes the light on the scene, not the process used to fix it, but not only have the two become synonymous, but has also begun to refer to pushing the processing way beyond what is needed to address the high dynamic range of light on the scene. 

Again, I'm not putting down the technique of over-processing; I've used it a fair amount myself, and like the look in limited amounts. I just don't think it describes HDR.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

All taken on board guys, I don't think anyone is right or wrong, it is just opinion. In regards to re-editing them, the editing is more for the real issues, the strange light in the top corner of a couple, cropping and haloing. I still like them because they are mine! 

I didn't hike for 10 miles for these pictures for other people!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> In brief: my advice is 1. that your HDRs are overcooked and don't look good, and that 2. you should ignore my advice.
> 
> Look, Van Gogh was largely considered a hack and a lunatic during his life.  His work was systematically panned, and both he and his work were ridiculed and marginalized.  He died poor and alone and miserable.  Today he is one of the most famous artists in the history of mankind.  Are you the next Van Gogh?  Likely not, but it's still something work keeping in mind.



Unlike  Van Gogh, who was a true VISIONARY, and a one-of-a-kind artist who achieved tremendous fame for being a trailblazer and innovator, the OP here is one of millions of people pursuing a gimmicky technique at the expense of making good,solid photographs; the OP is in effect, trying to pour that so-called *bucket of liquid cool* over images that are quite mundane. Overcooked HDR is the new selective coloring.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow Derrel, you made me actually laugh, out loud! 

Nice to see a small minded person on an internet forum.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 12, 2012)

My guess is it's because most HDRs that get posted here are garbage. Properly designing and executing an HDR image is an advanced technique that can only be completed by someone who already has a complete understanding of exposure, dynamic range, and (as with every image) composition, etc.

Many of the HDR-like images people post here have no reason to be HDRs. Many of them are very poorly processed, suffer from ghosting and heavy-handed sharpening.

Also, and less skilled photographers are particularly guilty of this, too many people use HDR processing or tonemapping to try to rescue an otherwise poor image that belonged in the trash. 

When properly designed, executed and processed, HDR images can be extremely pleasing and compelling. 95% of those posted here are neither.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> All taken on board guys, I don't think anyone is right or wrong, it is just opinion. I still like them because they are mine!



I am trying not to be offensive or rude (my son-in-law is English and I like him a lot) but it isn't 'just opinion.' 
People may indeed have differing opinions but those persons with lots of experience and education in looking critically at photography over time and understanding how individuals and techniques fit into that development have a much more worthwhile opinion than, say, your grocery clerk.
They have opinions that backed by reason and experience.  
You have the absolute right to ignore them, as you should ignore unfounded opinions, but try to be objective about your work in relation to the art.
Love it because its yours but recognize that may be its most positive characteristic. 

Children getting potty trained are very proud of their first in-chair poop but soon learn to recognize it for what it is.

Lew


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Everyone is entitled to their opinion... as long as it's the same as mine.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel's remark and your response prompted me to go look at your photos.

You didn't ask for critique, so I will keep it short. Many, but not all, of your photos are pretty classic examples of what I was talking about: Photographs of nothing "pepped up" with a heavy dose of HDR. Seriously, pictures of your car? There are some pretty decent photos in your flickr stream as well, but in the few minutes I spent looking through it I did not find any where I thought the HDR technique particularly served the image. The images would have been equally good without the HDR.

This is pretty much the trouble - we look at the images and we say 'but WHY?' and are left, in the absence of a coherent answer, to draw the conclusion that it's "because it looks cool!"

Just FYI, Derrel is among the biggest minded people on TPF.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> theraven said:
> 
> 
> > All taken on board guys, I don't think anyone is right or wrong, it is just opinion. I still like them because they are mine!
> ...



It is just opinion, I could take a photograph of a pen on the floor out of focus, that would be my choice, your opinion would be that it is wrong, someone elses opinion would be that it was artistic, another mans opinion would be that its abstract. But who is right? Who is wrong? No-one, because the person that created the photograph created it how they wanted it. What other people think is opinions.

It's not a bad thing, opinions make the world go around, they make people like myself step back and say yes, the corner of that is blown out, the composition on that could be better. But there is still no right or wrong, just different!

I don't ignore people, I said I will be re-editing these slightly different, to change the few issues that have been bought up.

However, once fixed, they will stay a similar processed style, as that is what I like!


----------



## Mully (Nov 12, 2012)

Just take it in with a grain of salt ...If you like HDR over the top just have fun with it ..and remember photographers are the most opinionated people on the planet, as long as you learning something you are moving forward.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Derrel's remark and your response prompted me to go look at your photos.
> 
> You didn't ask for critique, so I will keep it short. Many, but not all, of your photos are pretty classic examples of what I was talking about: Photographs of nothing "pepped up" with a heavy dose of HDR. Seriously, pictures of your car? There are some pretty decent photos in your flickr stream as well, but in the few minutes I spent looking through it I did not find any where I thought the HDR technique particularly served the image. The images would have been equally good without the HDR.
> 
> ...



It's not because it's "cool", jeez, if you met me you would realise I am definitely not cool! 

The small mindedness made be laugh because a HDR photographer I know, and a comment on another HDR forum, both today, said that the crits of HDR are now calling it the new selective colouring. 

Made me laugh!

Also thank you for saying they are photographs of nothing. I can see why thousands of people have hiked up there to take pictures, because there is nothing there.

Really?


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Mully said:


> Just take it in with a grain of salt ...If you like HDR over the top just have fun with it ..and remember photographers are the most opinionated people on the planet, as long as you learning something you are moving forward.



Haha too true! Don't worry I'm not going to run away crying, I'll just re edit and post, shoot edit post and keep going. But you guys probably aren't gonna like it, but it's for the select few that do.

Plus I always need help, so your all good for that!


----------



## semicolon (Nov 12, 2012)

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Everyone is entitled to their opinion... as long as it's the same as mine.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These are my opinions and only my opinions, unless you share them as well, which would make them our opinions, but I am not of the opinion that I can express your opinion as my opinion without your prior expression of said opinion, and then my re-utterance of that opinion would, in my opinion, be foolish unless I were expressing agreement to your opinion, and then it wouldn't be my opinion but your opinion to which I only agree.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

There is a prevalent opinion by some that a camera and subsequent processing techniques should mimic a copy machine.  Anything that doesn't look absolutely "natural" as if the viewer were standing there observing it with their eyeballs is "WRONG DAMMIT, YOU HACK!!!!"  Of course, it doesn't count if it's black and white or something THEY produced.

For some, if it ain't Rembrandt-style, they may tolerate it as long as it doesn't stray too far, but if it goes so far as to become Picasso-style, which is totally out there with respect to wild colors and "cartoonish" treatment, then it's crap - period. And that's not just an opinion according to them; it's a FACT.

I'm not personally of that camp.  That doesn't mean I like every processing technique I see either, but I agree that it's just an opinion.  To me, "overcooked" is just shorthand for "overcooked from _*MY*_ POV", and I'm not above "overcooking" an image myself, when the mood takes me there, though I rarely use HDR to do my own "overcooking'.  Some won't like it, and that's okay with me, as long as I like it.

Bottom line: When it comes to art, especially photography, what they say goes, and don't you forget it, k?

Or...

Take what the extremely elite, knowledgeable and ultimately never ever even remotely incorrect copy-machine-only-photonistas say with a grain of salt, thank them for taking the time to look at what you've presented and weigh in with their invaluable thoughts, insights and occasional derision as they attempt to simply educate you (even if you don't agree), use what you can from the parts that make sense to you, and then move on with the understanding that one man's trash is another man's treasure, and vice-versa.

From my observations, it's not worth arguing with them or dwelling on it. As experts, their minds are made up and locked down about it already, since they KNOW, without a doubt, that they're right, you're wrong, and 'Picasso-style' overcooked, over the top produced stuff sucks and doesn't in any way, shape or form qualify as legitimate art because it doesn't look 'real'.

Some might go so far as to call them snobs, but I think that's generally perceived as rather rude, insulting and even uncalled for, unlike the way some of them articulate their thoughts, so I don't recommend it.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Buckster said:


> There is a prevalent opinion by some that a camera and subsequent processing techniques should mimic a copy machine.  Anything that doesn't look absolutely "natural" as if the viewer were standing there observing it with their eyeballs is "WRONG DAMMIT, YOU HACK!!!!"  Of course, it doesn't count if it's black and white or something THEY produced.
> 
> For some, if it ain't Rembrandt-style, they may tolerate it as long as it doesn't stray too far, but if it goes so far as to become Picasso-style, which is totally out there with respect to wild colors and "cartoonish" treatment, then it's crap - period. And that's not just an opinion according to them; it's a FACT.
> 
> ...



You have made my day, this is exactly my way of thinking!


----------



## Tuffythepug (Nov 12, 2012)

Wow.   All this gives a person reason to re-think everything they do before they press that shutter button.   I've been fascinated by the range of comments about this subject.  A couple of things come to mind.
    First I have no problem with the images posted by the OP.   I probably would have treated the subject differently if I had photographed it but so would everyone else;  we would have given it the look we wanted.
    Second, artists and photographers who think they are artists will always dis-agree on what constitutes art.   Can anyone give a satisfactory definition of art ?
    Third, the notion that a photograph cannot be considered "good" unless it portrays a subject as it actually appeared at the time the photo was taken is just ludicrous from the get-go.    If that viewpoint is to be taken seriously we must never shoot black and white and only use pp in the pursuit of the totally natural look.   And I ask you this:  How many people who criticize enhancements such as HDR and selective coloring, sharpening, etc have taken photos of a stream or waterfall with a long exposure to create that dreamy., blurry water effect ?   Is that the way the scene looked when they took the photo ? I've never seen that in real life yet I'll wager almost every photographer has used this technique at some point in their photographic career.
    If Andy Warhol can be considered a great artist because he painted a Campbells soup can I think a photographer can use whatever technique he chooses to create his vision of the world around him.  In the end some people will love it and some will hate it.  You press the shutter, process as you choose and take your chances


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Tuffythepug said:


> Wow.   All this gives a person reason to re-think everything they do before they press that shutter button.   I've been fascinated by the range of comments about this subject.  A couple of things come to mind.
> First I have no problem with the images posted by the OP.   I probably would have treated the subject differently if I had photographed it but so would everyone else;  we would have given it the look we wanted.
> Second, artists and photographers who think they are artists will always dis-agree on what constitutes art.   Can anyone give a satisfactory definition of art ?
> Third, the notion that a photograph cannot be considered "good" unless it portrays a subject as it actually appeared at the time the photo was taken is just ludicrous from the get-go.    If that viewpoint is to be taken seriously we must never shoot black and white and only use pp in the pursuit of the totally natural look.   And I ask you this:  How many people who criticize enhancements such as HDR and selective coloring, sharpening, etc have taken photos of a stream or waterfall with a long exposure to create that dreamy., blurry water effect ?   Is that the way the scene looked when they took the photo ? I've never seen that in real life yet I'll wager almost every photographer has used this technique at some point in their photographic career.
> If Andy Warhol can be considered a great artist because he painted a Campbells soup can I think a photographer can use whatever technique he chooses to create his vision of the world around him.  In the end some people will love it and some will hate it.  You press the shutter, process as you choose and take your chances



I completely agree, It's like I said earlier with the pen out of focus, it is the photographers choice.

And whats the problem with selective colouring when it is used well? Schindler's list and the little girl in the red coat was a brilliant idea!


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Also I forgot about this, I take photo's of my car because I love it! Don't see why it's an issue? People take pictures of their kids, dogs, cats etc...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 12, 2012)

I'm not a huge fan of HDR, however I have seen some really well done and I like it.  It's all just a extension of photography as an art form.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> It's not because it's "cool", jeez, if you met me you would realise I am definitely not cool!



Ok, see, I don't write all those words because I enjoy the typing. They actually mean stuff. I said: we look at the images and we say 'but WHY?' and are left, in the absence  of a coherent answer, to draw the conclusion that it's "because it  looks cool!" I'm not saying that you are doing it because you think it's cool, I am saying that this is the conclusion we draw because we don't see any coherent OTHER reason. Note that you don't give any other reason, either. So, still drawing the same conclusion here.




theraven said:


> Also thank you for saying they are photographs of nothing. I can see why thousands of people have hiked up there to take pictures, because there is nothing there.
> 
> Really?



Again, lots of words, many of which you seem to not be reading. Your stream has some photographs of nothing, for example, your car. It also has some quite good photographs. I don't know what you're talking about with the location wherever it is that people have hiked, but whatever it is, I didn't pass judgement on that.

You're just in full-on defensive mode, and responding to what you think people are saying, and not bothering to read anything anyone says. This is normal, but it makes the discussion pretty pointless, so I'm out.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

These are photographs of a world other than which we live in.


----------



## cool09 (Nov 12, 2012)

Photography is Art and that encompasses just about anything you can think of and/or goes along with it. That's like saying Picasso was wrong for painting in the style that he did or that Art Deco is trash. Beautiful creations!


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Nov 12, 2012)

I know this is a divergence, but bear with me a second...

I think the HDR vs non-HDR argument is really just a proxy battle for the bigger arguments about art.  I was having dinner with some friends of mine last weekend, one of them being a painter.  She and I always have this little reparte that we do where she claims that photographers aren't real artists and I say that painters are jealous that they can't recreate reality.  Then she sarcastically says "oh...it's so hard to point a camera at something and press a button" and I come back with "and it's so hard to smear colored oil into a piece of canvas".  It's really just a joke we have at this point, but we like the fight.

I like to think that we've had this argument for the last hundred thousand years.  Like the first person to carve pictures in a wall was told that they weren't creating art and the only true art form was beating a bone against leather.  It seems to me that every time a new technique or new tool is created, the guardians of the craft descend from the rafters and proclaim the invention as not being artistic.  As not conforming to the craft as they know it.  In a way, they're right...it's not the art as they know it.  It up to the pioneers of the art to prove that it can be art.  

I think this argument is important.  It's one that we need to have with whatever new tool or technique comes about.  It's up to the old guards to teach the pioneers what makes art worthwhile and the pioneers to show what can be done with it.  Let's realize that this is what's happening.  In ten years time no one will be arguing over the HDR thing, it will simply be part of our artistic lexicon.  We'll be having some new argument.  But in the meantime, break out your photomatix and let's create something new while the gaurdians of the craft show us what can make it better.  Be part of the process...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:
			
		

> I'm becoming very partial to HDR, I think it breaths new life and creativity into shots that I take.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I sure hope you let the various museum curators have first crack at this photo and others like it. It would be a crying shame to see this photo and the 14,586,569 other similar HDR shots hosted on Flickr fade into oblivion...


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> theraven said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point!

They must have fought tooth and nail to get yours!  Would love to hear about that sometime!!  By the way, which museum is featuring your entire collection of (totally so much better!!!) photos again?  I forget now...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

I can just feel the new life and creativity that slamming those sliders to MAX brings to every photo the OP makes!!! Soooo exciting! Sooo creative! Why, this overblown HDR slider-maximizing is *almost* as exciting and worthwhile as *stacking three or four Cokin filters in front of a lens*, and snapping snapshots of bridges! Soooo amazing! 

Gimmicks are soooo kewl! They make one into an artiste!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

^^lmao! Remember the tiffen gauzzy fog craze? I couldn't wait to stack a fog filter and a star filter. Oh and those fun masks shaped like keyholes or hearts? AWESOMETASTIC!


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I can just feel the new life and creativity that slamming those sliders to MAX brings to every photo the OP makes!!! Soooo exciting! Sooo creative! it's almost as exciting and worthwhile as stacking three or four Cokin filters in front of a lens, and snapping snapshots of bridges! Soooo amazing!


Ya think?!  Wow!  Thanks!!  I mean, I like that bridge shot quite a lot, and I do sell quite a few of them in various formats, so I assumed others like it too (not everyone, of course), but you know your opinion means a lot to me man, so thanks for that awesome compliment!  :thumbup:


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 12, 2012)




----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2012)

Have you boys peed on one another enough, now? I'd prefer that the thread get back on track, to the original purpose of peeing all over OP and his photographs, if you don't mind.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^lmao! Remember the tiffen gauzzy fog craze? I couldn't wait to stack a fog filter and a star filter. Oh and those fun masks shaped like keyholes or hearts? AWESOMETASTIC!


Oh, yeah!  Those were the BOMB!!!  I can hardly wait for Vaseline to make a comeback!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Have you boys peed on one another enough, now? I'd prefer that the thread get back on track, to the original purpose of peeing all over OP and his photographs, if you don't mind.



I thought the OP was a female?? Not that it matters. People who have no training in the fine arts typically do enjoy *kitsch*. Pre-digested, facile ideas are hugely popular with the masses. Look at the kind of "entertainment" people are fascinated with these days...genuine rubbish like "The Real Houswives of ________", "Keeping Up With The Kardashians", "Jersey Shore", and so on. Comic books have been elevated to the oh-so-pretentious category of "graphic novels". And so, yes, a lot of people do feel a sense of creativity when they bring a series of images into software, and tweak the crap out of mutliple color channels, and *create* something. The fact that huge numbers of people "like" facile, idiotic entertainment, and horribly created Chicken McNuggests made with pink slime, and so on, is really not much of an argument for the worthiness nor the value of low-quality entertainment or fast food. Same goes with photography trends like Cokin effects filters, brides and grooms inside of wine flutes, brides and grooms inside of overprinted hearts, selective coloring, Vaseline-smeared filters, star filters, and today, overcooked HDR images.

There is high art, collected by museums, and there is *kitsch*. There are fine plays and novels, and there are episodes of Keeping Up With The Kardashians and comic books....err...I mean "graphic novels"...so as we see, popularity does not automatically equal quality....and in FACT, mass popularity is often an indicator that something is...cheap...substandard, imitation, or kitsch...again, WalMart is the #1 retailer, McDonald's the number #1 'restaurant, and Ernest & Julio Gallo cheap jug wine is the highest-selling volume wine in the USA. People today study the photographs of Stieglitz...who will be studying the HDR images of the Flickr set in 100 years. Today, entire university courses are built around the work of Shakespeare, or Moliere...when will universities recognize the fertile academic ground that is the study of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians"?

It's kind of like this: if something is really,really "good", it is rare, and often expensive. If something is immensely popular, it is usually low-cost, cheap, and common.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2012)

I'm ok with peeing on the OP male *or *female! Heaven forbid that I should allow gender to color my willingness to pee on anyone, or their work.

As for the rest, I am uncomfortable using the word "good" in that way, but I understand and agree with your point. I prefer to say "lasting" or something. Who the hell am I to tell someone that their awful Thomas Kinkade print isn't "good"? I feel pretty comfortable telling them that I don't think anyone will think much of it in 100 years, though. Ditto most of the HDR being made today. As you know, I have a suspicion that we're seeing the _start_ of something interesting. It just isn't interesting yet.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Well,  testosterone much! Lol! I don't watch crap telly, right now I'm watching the real war horse. Incredible program. It was a terrible war. 
Any way. Art is art,  if you don't like it that's fine! As I've repeated, it's opinions! 
I don't slide to the Max! I think that's a bit ott! 
I like them,  you don't have to,  I don't see the issue really? 
I don't like poo in a bean can but it sold for thousands at the Tate. People's opinions of art differ, as they do of photography. How boring would it be if all of out photographs we're exactly the same?


----------



## slow231 (Nov 12, 2012)

didn't read each and every post, but IMO "realistic HDR" is a bit of a misnomer.  with today's sensor dynamic ranges, almost any "realistic HDR" image could really just have been pulled from a single raw exposure.  so in that way I think a true HDR image is one that is goes beyond sensor ranges. so imo, if you're talking about HDR, you're inherently dealing with an images that are going to be a bit unnatural (but they're intended that way!).  It's a tool just like any other, and you're going to see people using it to spice up otherwise bland images.  but that's not the fault of the technique.  take b+w conversions for instance, they're unnatural, and you see plenty of people applying B+W conversions as a one-click "artistic impressions" of bland photos.  same deal with long exposure water.  unnatural, and 99% of the time it provides the exact same (and imo boring) effect in every instance.  but people still swoon over b+w and smooth water.  at least HDR is a bit more involved, and allows for a variety of different effects.  it's not really a one-click/one-trick kind of thing.

here are some of my personal examples:





is it unnatural? yes.  did the scene look anything like this in person? not really, it was super dark with really bright highlights coming in from the sunlight. but does this image capture the scene and the sense of being there exploring/discovering this forgotten place? i hope so, and imo better than i could have with any single exposure from this series.  there's almost a sense of being underwater.  and yes, that is a parallel i purposefully want to exploit.

and here:




overdramtic? yes. but does it capture the sense of climbing over and exploring an abandoned pier before an incoming storm? again i hope so, and imo better than i could get out of any single exposure i got from the series. there's rain coming, i'm climbing up a rickety ass pier (it was pretty high up and i was on vacation so i didn't really have any gear with me), so yeah dramatic is the sense i want to impart.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

I really like the first one,  give it a minute and someone will be here saying its over cooked lol! 
My honest thoughts on HDR, well mine at least,  and your from looking at these,  is that it doesn't represent what you saw,  so much as what you felt when you were there, taking that photo, at that moment.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Have you boys peed on one another enough, now? I'd prefer that the thread get back on track, to the original purpose of peeing all over OP and his photographs, if you don't mind.
> ...


None of that means that it shouldn't be created.
None of that means that the person making it won't enjoy the making of it or the viewing of it.
None of that means that it doesn't have appeal to a large audience.
None of that means that it doesn't have a market.
None of that means it has no worth.
None of that means it shouldn't be posted.
None of that means that it's *necessarily* junk, your opinion notwithstanding.

And, in the end, the same could be said for most, if not all, of the photos and photographers that post here: In a hundred years, how many will be in museums, or even remembered at all, let alone revered as "masterpieces"?  Will yours?  How do you find the brass to condemn others for not ending up in revered spots in museums when you'll fare no better?

"There is high art, collected by museums, and there is *kitsch*."  Okay...

You asked, so why don't you answer your own question: *WHO* will be studying *YOUR* images in a museum in a 100 years?  If the answer is "*NOBODY*", then I guess *you should stop making kitsch* and start doing something worthwhile yourself, instead of beating on others for not making the "museum in a 100 years" grade you've set out as the standard - a standard you yourself cannot attain.

Or am I wrong?  If so, where's your museum work?  You ran from the question the first time I asked and instead lashed out to hurl an insult at me because I dared to ask it.  You can do better than that.  Man up and just accept the facts: Your work isn't being protected by armed guards and security lasers at the Louvre either big boy, so climb down off your high horse for a minute or two, *kitsch-maker*.

Frankly, it's not my cup of tea either, but then, I didn't get disco either. Nonetheless, it was no skin off my nose if others wanted to make it, buy it, enjoy it, dance to it, OR EVEN if they want to put it in a museum someday.  Que sera, and all that...

I still think you're a great voice here Derrel, and I think by now you know that I really do respect what you have to say on most issues, but your attempt to poo poo on this member, images, gear or techniques that you don't _*personally*_ find appealing or worthwhile is getting ridiculous, IMHO.

Chillax dude. Remember, in a hundred years, nobody will care and none of this will matter.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 12, 2012)

Why do people keep dragging out this fallacy of "If you're not DOING it, you can't COMMENT on it!"?


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Also,  I have a Sony a200. Feel free to **** all over me for that too!


----------



## bunny99123 (Nov 12, 2012)

I like some photos HDR, and others I don't, but that is only my opinion.  Opinions are like mouths...everyone has one.  Life is like that. 

I do agree that there are people who act rudely behind a keyboard that normally wouldn't behave that away if you met them in person.  "No one knows me, so I can be a jerk."  To those, you either put in your two cents or passs on by, because it is up to you to determine if it is worth your time.

I get a lot of critism from about my camera, especially in a photo club I am in, but when people see my pictures and like them in class they never consider their negativity towards my Sony.  Unfortunately, this type of hate has always been there and will continue to be there.  My quote, "Life is short and the body is too precious to react to negativity."


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> Also,  I have a Sony a200. Feel free to **** all over me for that too!



I still drag out our old D100 from time to time. absolutely NO reason you cant take great pictures with older gear. after all, it wasnt THAT terribly long ago that those older DSLR's were top of the line.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Why do people keep dragging out this fallacy of "If you're not DOING it, you can't COMMENT on it!"?


Why do people keep dragging out this fallacy of, "If you're not making high art by MY STANDARDS, you shouldn't be DOING it!"?


----------



## jhodges10 (Nov 12, 2012)

"I piss excellence." - Ricky Bobby


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

Buckster said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people keep dragging out this fallacy of "If you're not DOING it, you can't COMMENT on it!"?
> ...



If opinions aren't worth expressing, then the opinion isn't worth having.

and likewise

if you're being told how to think, you're the only one you can blame.


----------



## Patrice (Nov 12, 2012)

So you post an image on an internet site and then get upset and all defensive because somebody does not like it and tells you so. Time to either get some thicker skin or stop posting images on the internet. 

Not saying that HDR, or B&W, or long exposure water shots, should or should not be posted. Just that one should not expect to have praised heaped onto every image one posts. You have an image that you spent time, energy and thought to make and feel like you want to share. Good for you, but don't expect everybody else to agree with you. 

You have the right to post an image and everybody else has the right to call it cr@p if they feel like it. Just the way it is.


----------



## theraven (Nov 12, 2012)

Not getting defensive because people don't like my pictures,  I'm not 12, I've said a million times it's people opinions. 
But,  if people don't like HDR,  then they are not going to like mine,  so why comment at all? 
It's like if I didn't like black and white then went into the black and white forum saying they're all crap because they're black and white.  There's no constructive criticism if you don't like the technique in the first place!


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> All taken on board guys, I don't think anyone is right or wrong, it is just opinion. I still like them because they are mine!
> 
> It is just opinion, I could take a photograph of a pen on the floor out of focus, that would be my choice, your opinion would be that it is wrong, someone elses opinion would be that it was artistic, another mans opinion would be that its abstract. But who is right? Who is wrong? No-one, because the person that created the photograph created it how they wanted it. What other people think is opinions.
> 
> ...



I must admit this is becoming silly.

It is facile to say that everyone has an opinion but that doesn't make them all worth the same and that is no reason to ignore people who have good intelligent thoughtful opinions; in reality, some opinions just are worth more.

You can dance your heart out because you like it and if the head of the London Ballet says you're silly and ridiculous, you probably might listen because there are actually other opinions than your own that are thoughtful, informed  and make sense.

People are saying that these particular HDRs are mostly glitz painted over pictures that aren't much to begin with.

You can ignore than but consider that these people are fairly skilled at recognizing gold and distinguishing it from crap.

No one says that you doing pictures that vary from photorealism is wrong.  (Buckster is just using that to make points on Derrel in a passive aggressive way).

What I and Andy and Derrel and others are saying is don't think that beating the crap out of a useless picture with a technique makes that picture good or that you are any kind of noble for sticking to loving it.
You are loving poop because its yours - and no amount of love will make it any better.

.No one hates HDR; generally they hate the use of it that makes what could be an attempt at art some sort of gaudy,  Kincaide-kitch kind of thing.

There is nothing new or unique or inventive or interesting about this picture or its treatment that justifies some sort of slavish adherence to it on principle. (Among other things,it is badly tilted.)

Go do good pictures and use HDR if it makes them better - and stop suffering out loud.


----------



## runnah (Nov 12, 2012)

*backs out of thread slowly*


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> Not getting defensive because people don't like my pictures,  I'm not 12, I've said a million times it's people opinions.



Is that why you called Derrel small minded?  Because you're not getting defensive?



theraven said:


> But,  if people don't like HDR,  then they are not going to like mine,  so why comment at all?
> It's like if I didn't like black and white then went into the black and white forum saying they're all crap because they're black and white.  There's no constructive criticism if you don't like the technique in the first place!



I don't think it's about HDR in general, but rather BAD HDR.

Here is an example of what I consider good HDR:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2057/2482188903_8f8043db67_b.jpg

Here is an example of what I consider a bad HDR:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8062/8176213419_f391e4b9d2_b.jpg


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Nov 12, 2012)

1. Photography 
2. HDR 

People tend to get that order mixed up.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> There is high art, collected by museums, and there is *kitsch*.



Yep, and it's pretty easy to tell the difference. The high art in the museums is high because you have to stand to see it. Kitsch or low art is usually viewed while seated.

Joe


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 12, 2012)

the truly amazing thing here is that this thread has made it 8 pages without degrading into such nastiness as to get it locked. A true testament to the moral restraint and personal respect of one another on the forum!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 12, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> theraven said:
> 
> 
> > Not getting defensive because people don't like my pictures,  I'm not 12, I've said a million times it's people opinions.
> ...


The problem I have is demonstrated very well with these two images. 
The first is crisp and clean. It's pleasing to the eye and brain to look at. 
The second hurts my eyes and brain. It just doesn't seemed focused. It's hard to describe. But I can't look at some of th images posted here for the same reason. It looks focused, but in a confusing way. The next problem, is my brain picks up the overall splotchieness. Like there are incongruent tonal variances that don't make sense. They are not "in your face" obvious, but the effect is perceptual, and disturbing. 

The first image has a little sense of depth, and the second, like so many HDRs, feels completely flat.

I like well done HDR, even on the highly saturated, cartoonish variety. I don't like when the image is "confusing", and dizzying.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

While I don't entirely disagree with Derrel's assessment of kitsch, it is another example of his out-of-date assessment of fine art.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

I think the OP's original post title, "Why the hatred" is a bit of a drama-queen move.  Sort of a big *her-favorite-the HDR method-against-the-**big-bad-mean-old-world-of-haters *kind of a preemptive cry for sympathy. I do not hate HDR work...just as I do not "hate" my own waste...I flush it down the toilet, and yes, it's yucky...and it stinks...but it is a huge part of life. Same with cleaning up after one's dog, with a hand jammed into a plastic bag, picking up piles of doggie doo-doo so others who come behind will not have to deal with it--that unpleasant task goes with having a dog in the modern world. When I see the clumsy, weird, vibrating-colors, shadow-free and miraculously "lighted" scenes portrayed in over-the-top-HDR-glory, I just pass on by them, like piles of doggy doo-doo that careless owners allowed to stay where they fell in my neighborhood park. The park is still quite beautiful, even with a few piles dotting the flower beds. And the occasional pile a dog leaves right ON the sidewalk?? I just step over it. Those piles do not engender any hatred of dogs on my part. Again, the original poster's allegation of "hatred" is a bit much....in fact, I find the premise the *OP opened her troll post* up with to be kind of like one of those piles on the sidewalk...


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I think the OP's original post title, "Why the hatred" is a bit of a drama-queen move.  Sort of a big *her-favorite-the HDR method-against-the-**big-bad-mean-old-world-of-haters *kind of a preemptive cry for sympathy. I do not hate HDR work...just as I do not "hate" my own waste...I flush it down the toilet, and yes, it's yucky...and it stinks...but it is a huge part of life. Same with cleaning up after one's dog, with a hand jammed into a plastic bag, picking up piles of doggie doo-doo so others who come behind will not have to deal with it--that unpleasant task goes with having a dog in the modern world. When I see the clumsy, weird, vibrating-colors, shadow-free and miraculously "lighted" scenes portrayed in over-the-top-HDR-glory, I just pass on by them, like piles of doggy doo-doo that careless owners allowed to stay where they fell in my neighborhood park. The park is still quite beautiful, even with a few piles dotting the flower beds. And the occasional pile a dog leaves right ON the sidewalk?? I just step over it. Those piles do not engender any hatred of dogs on my part. Again, the original poster's allegation of "hatred" is a bit much....in fact, I find the premise the *OP opened her troll post* up with to be kind of like one of those piles on the sidewalk...



and yet...we all got sucked into it. well played OP, well played.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

I know....it was a troll....a highly successful troll...downriggers popped! Fish-on! Fish-on! Fish on the port stern downrigger! Fish on the stacker on rigger three!!! Oh,oh,oh!!! *BIG chinook* on the diver rod with the Penn 320 GTi reel!! I can tell by how deep the rod is bent and how fast it's sounding that *that one* might make Buckster-class!!!

"I do Black and White...why all the hatred?"  "I shoot Alien Bees--why all the hatred". "I shoot Canon, why all the hatred." "I am a mom with a camera, why all the hatred?" "I shoot pictures of my kids, why all the hatred?" "I watermark the CHIT outta' my piccies, why all the hatred?" "I have had a camera for three months and am going to shoot a wedding for money next week, why all the hatred."

"I take pics of stuff then HDR them, why all the hatred?"


----------



## manicmike (Nov 12, 2012)

I like cheeseburgers. No one hates those. 

Vegetarians don't count.


----------



## SJ_PhotoG (Nov 12, 2012)

Your shots look amazing to me. You know what they say about opinions.....everyone has them.......go with what you like not what other people like. I think that a lot of the people that are giving you harsh feedback are ones that base their feedback off of current trends, dont have any photography of them self posted so they're giving bad advice, and/or just don't like your own personal style which is fine as everyone has their own style in any form of art. Just like how some like heavy metal some hate heavy metal, some hate oil paintings some love them, to each their own don't take it personal all that manner is if YOU like your pictures.

Also one thing that I have learned from asking for critique on any photography forums from other photographers is that you will mainly if only get critqued based on technique, deep analysis that most people don't look into when it comes to certain things (mainly having to do with technique and over thinking the picture), this problem exists on all types of forums such as guitar/musician forums where they are about playing fast with perfect technique vs making a song that has meaning to you for yourself and ignoring technique. 

Jimi Hendrix is a good example of this, most people trash his technique, his mistakes, and many other things about him yet if you listen to his music for what is truly is.....in most peoples opinion it is amazing.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I know....it was a troll....a highly successful troll...downriggers popped! Fish-on! Fish-on! Fish on the port stern downrigger! Fish on the stacker on rigger three!!! Oh,oh,oh!!! *BIG chinook* on the diver rod with the Penn 320 GTi reel!! I can tell by how deep the rod is bent and how fast it's sounding that *that one* might make Buckster-class!!!
> 
> "I do Black and White...why all the hatred?"  "I shoot Alien Bees--why all the hatred". "I shoot Canon, why all the hatred." "I am a mom with a camera, why all the hatred?" "I shoot pictures of my kids, why all the hatred?" "I watermark the CHIT outta' my piccies, why all the hatred?" "I have had a camera for three months and am going to shoot a wedding for money next week, why all the hatred."
> 
> "I take pics of stuff then HDR them, why all the hatred?"


Your histrionic-ridden attempt at self-justification definitely makes for irrefutable evidence that this was preconceived troll action on OP's part.  No way it could just be what the OP stated at face value.

Congrats on cracking the case, inspector.  I'm in awe.  :er:


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

Actually, go and look at the OP's posting history. She wrote "*You know, funnily enough, when I started that thread it was because of the crap I got from another forum! Then it started here too so kind of made...*"

and comments like ,"*You have made my day, this is exactly my way of thinking!*"

And "*Also, I have a Sony a200. Feel free to **** all over me for that too! *"

The OP has been here about a month, and seems to be moving from forum to forum, looking for people who think EXACTLY LIKE herself...

Nice try Buckster!! Histrionics? Me? Hah hah! You crack me up dude! YOU are the one who went ballistic earlier. Ease up, and admit it...you fell for the bait....you're the big chinook on the diver rod!!! (For those who do not understand, "divers" are diving planers....typically they pull a trolled bait down only a fairly short distance, and are very EASY to set out and rig...and occasionally, they can hook a really big, tough fish.)


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 12, 2012)

theraven said:


> You have made my day, this is exactly my way of thinking!



This one statement is a synthesis of this entire thread in one sentence.

And all the other valid statements that you didn't fit "exactly your way of thinking"...did you appreciate them as well?

Troll.

 :banghead:


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I thought the OP was a female?? Not that it matters. People who have no training in the fine arts typically do enjoy kitsch. Pre-digested, facile ideas are hugely popular with the masses. Look at the kind of "entertainment" people are fascinated with these days...genuine rubbish like "The Real Houswives of ________", "Keeping Up With The Kardashians", "Jersey Shore", and so on. Comic books have been elevated to the oh-so-pretentious category of "graphic novels". And so, yes, a lot of people do feel a sense of creativity when they bring a series of images into software, and tweak the crap out of mutliple color channels, and create something. The fact that huge numbers of people "like" facile, idiotic entertainment, and horribly created Chicken McNuggests made with pink slime, and so on, is really not much of an argument for the worthiness nor the value of low-quality entertainment or fast food. Same goes with photography trends like Cokin effects filters, brides and grooms inside of wine flutes, brides and grooms inside of overprinted hearts, selective coloring, Vaseline-smeared filters, star filters, and today, overcooked HDR images.
> 
> There is high art, collected by museums, and there is kitsch. There are fine plays and novels, and there are episodes of Keeping Up With The Kardashians and comic books....err...I mean "graphic novels"...so as we see, popularity does not automatically equal quality....and in FACT, mass popularity is often an indicator that something is...cheap...substandard, imitation, or kitsch...again, WalMart is the #1 retailer, McDonald's the number #1 'restaurant, and Ernest & Julio Gallo cheap jug wine is the highest-selling volume wine in the USA. People today study the photographs of Stieglitz...who will be studying the HDR images of the Flickr set in 100 years. Today, entire university courses are built around the work of Shakespeare, or Moliere...when will universities recognize the fertile academic ground that is the study of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians"?
> 
> It's kind of like this: if something is really,really "good", it is rare, and often expensive. If something is immensely popular, it is usually low-cost, cheap, and common.



Fine art has never been more subjective than it is now, though. 

Post-modernist art is basically the absence of art in several instances. And that stuff is exhibited I galleries and museums.

Just because it's hanging in a museum does not make it any more worthy than some of he photos on deviantART or Flickr  lol


----------



## Overread (Nov 12, 2012)

And I think it might just be worth calling it a day there on this topic for now - esp since it seems that sub-arguments are striking up in the ranks now.


----------

