# What if we just split this up?



## ::trainwreck:: (Aug 6, 2009)

Instead of just fighting about the two types of HDR, why don't we just get more specific about it? We could just call the realistic HDR's "HDR" and the surrealistic HDR's "S-HDR".  just a thought?


----------



## Wyjid (Aug 8, 2009)

or we colud not call them anything and let the image speak for itself. either that or start naming my normally processed pictures: HCSBSCCSDB images. High Contrast Saturation Boosted Colour Corrected Selectively Dodged and Burned images. 
oh but we don't usually explain every detail of our processing do we? we just post the pic and see what people say.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 8, 2009)

Wyjid said:


> or we colud not call them anything and let the image speak for itself. either that or start naming my normally processed pictures: HCSBSCCSDB images. High Contrast Saturation Boosted Colour Corrected Selectively Dodged and Burned images.
> oh but we don't usually explain every detail of our processing do we? we just post the pic and see what people say.



:thumbup:


----------



## ::trainwreck:: (Aug 8, 2009)

but if you actually know what you're doing and going for in your technique, meaning, you know that you want your image to look surrealistic, then it's a surrealistic HDR. 

just a suggestion.

don't even call it HDR, just call it surrealism then.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 8, 2009)

Wyjid said:


> or we colud not call them anything and let the image speak for itself.



I agree.

I think, a good HDR should not get the "is this HDR?" comments.

The "way-over-the-top" HDRs are often not actually HDR...

To me, HDR should have a dynamic range not possible to capture with a single exposure.  It should also not have anything that is under/over exposed.
But, I guess you could still have higher than normal dynamic range and still have some parts of the image outside of that range.

I think that if you have a truely "HDR" image though, the intent is to have everything properly exposed.


----------



## Wyjid (Aug 8, 2009)

::trainwreck:: said:


> but if you actually know what you're doing and going for in your technique, meaning, you know that you want your image to look surrealistic, then it's a surrealistic HDR.
> 
> just a suggestion.
> 
> don't even call it HDR, just call it surrealism then.


 
now we're getting into style, instead of tags. if people want to mention the style and feel they were going for... great. but the titles don't need a processing technique tag. who cares how an image came to be what it is. let's just start looking at images.


----------



## Sachphotography (Aug 10, 2009)

I think a true HDR is HDR. I think that people that cram 3 pictures of something that would have been perfect for one shot and turn it into something that looks like an atom bomb went off blinding MY EYES!!!! is not HDR I think it should not be called that. 
Lets call it WTMHDR.. WAY TO MUCH HDR!!!!


----------



## Psyentific (Aug 12, 2009)

I just started reading these posts about what people think about the HDR process and have got to say it is quite amusing. Such strong opinions that just seem to want to be the most dominant.  I wish I created a tool like Photomatix that inspired such strong reactions among young and old pratictioners of photography.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 12, 2009)

I don't know why we have to call it anything to be honest.

If I shoot a photo and convert it to sepia I don't start a thread saying:

"Building - Sepia"

or

"Bridge at night - Sepia"


----------



## Psyentific (Aug 12, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> I don't know why we have to call it anything to be honest.
> 
> If I shoot a photo and convert it to sepia I don't start a thread saying:
> 
> ...



You have a good point but you might think differently if Sepia was a new thing.  Sepia is an old and established look.  HDR is new and sparks massive curiosity among photographers; more so than any other type of image "manipulation."  Look on any forum, there is a dedicated HDR section in almost all of them.  It's all the rage right now, just like "Auto Tune" (aka. the robot voice) in the music industry.  In the 80's it was digital reverb.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 12, 2009)

Psyentific said:


> HDR is new and sparks massive curiosity among photographers



HDR is from the 30s/40s.


----------



## Psyentific (Aug 12, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Psyentific said:
> 
> 
> > HDR is new and sparks massive curiosity among photographers
> ...



right, I should have said modern/digital HDR.


----------



## Sachphotography (Aug 12, 2009)

(modern/digital) HDR is to photography--what ricers are to drag racing. 

Every now and then you will see a good one but for the most part they are crap 
because they were done by someone who has no idea what they are doing no and no experience but want to "do" the trendy thing.  
This applies to both the above mentioned.


----------



## Psyentific (Aug 12, 2009)

Sachphotography said:


> (modern/digital) HDR is to photography--what ricers are to drag racing.
> 
> Every now and then you will see a good one but for the most part they are crap
> because they were done by someone who has no idea what they are doing no and no experience but want to "do" the trendy thing.
> This applies to both the above mentioned.



haha. So now we've got a music and drag racing analogy! 

HDR - High-contrast Drag Racing


----------



## manaheim (Aug 19, 2009)

I call my HDRs "Gertrude".


----------



## SrBiscuit (Aug 19, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I call my HDRs "Gertrude".


 
 thanks for that.

lets not get silly with naming here.

on a side note: sach, your sig is insane, brother...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 19, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> on a side note: sach, your sig is insane, brother...



:lmao:


If it grows anymore he will need a whole page for each of his posts.

And it's blinding me.


----------



## thedigger (Jul 9, 2011)

It's called "PhotoShopped" enough said.


----------



## Over Exposed (Jul 14, 2011)

I say we all not worry about it and spend more time out in this amazing world with our cameras following our own individual visions.


----------



## Sleven (Jul 14, 2011)

Sachphotography said:


> (modern/digital) HDR is to photography--what ricers are to drag racing.
> 
> Every now and then you will see a good one but for the most part they are crap
> because they were done by someone who has no idea what they are doing no and no experience but want to "do" the trendy thing.
> This applies to both the above mentioned.



I have a bit of a problem with this statement. Is photography art? Is it supposed to be what the photographer wanted it to be? Your pictures turn out the way you want them. Someone may look at it and not understand your perspective on it, or even think it looks horrible, but to say it is crap is a bit far. 

Several people have said that HDR is overdone too often. While I prefer the ones that are made to be surreal.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 14, 2011)

If someone is using software they dont understand whatever comes out is not necessarily what the OP had in mind. In fact there was nothing in mind. The software was given an imput and produced an output. Often we just see the results of that output with little input from the OP. Then they ask questions regarding how they can fix it or how good or bad it is. It has little to do with any intentions or artistic streak of the OP. So I agree somewhat with the statement by Sachphotography.


----------

