I thought this was a well thought out post about the current distaste for HDR photos that are starting to inundate photo sharing sites http://photofocus.com/2009/07/11/do-you ... dr-haters/
Spot-on accurate. ; I would further add that I think some of the "old timers" who don't like the technique often don't like it simply because they don't understand how to do it. ; It's easier to arbitrarily dislike something than to learn to use it! Conversely, there are a lot of people who use it, and use it not as a "tool" as the author discusses, but use it judiciously and for just about every shot they process. ; I know everything is a matter of personal preference, but it can be annoying to see tons of over-processed shots that could look good if not for poorly applied HDR.
Very good article & Very Well stated on your part Tom. I for one have not used HDR much as of yet simply because I am still learning t use it properly so that I don't "Over do it".
I am at least slightly on the hater side of the fence. I have HDR programs, and I DO enjoy a well done HDR on occasion. ; But I still think it's kind of gimmicky and a little can go a long way. ; There are certain very appropriate applications, in particular the "HDRs that don't look like HDRs" category. ; If you do it so that an average viewer wouldn't even notice anything being off then I think it's a success. ; In a way I guess I'd say an over the top HDR shot that I still enjoy is probably an even greater success, to me. But in the end I have very little passion either way. ; I'm all about people doing their own thing. ; If yours is the extreme HDR look then enjoy.
I fall slightly into the hater side...yet I enjoy myself even trying a few extreme versions every once in a while. ; And like Dan, I don't have any problem with the lighter applications which don't attempt to look too artificial. ; But my 'hater' side comes from the overuse and over-proliferation of the technique, not the technique itself. ; Like everything else out there, moderation is the key. ; Anything done to excess can quickly become tiresome and annoying. ; So in that sense, I don't fit the article description - I do know how to use HDR, do actually use it myself, have no fear of modern technology, never had any problem with digital over film or other technological advances, and don't hate the process for its existence...I only have 'hate' for seeing the process overused and seeing it used with no purpose or gain, just for the sake of using it. Interesting article, none the less.
Good read Ray- thanks for sharing. ; As a side note from the perspective of someone who just recently started shooting film again I would add to the blog that the film-to-digital bias has now come full circle and is fully reversed on anyone wierd or slow enough to still be using such an outdated media. ; People need to remember photography is an artform. ; There is no right and wrong- and certainly no good and evil. ; If the final image makes the artist happy then it is a fine success. ; If it makes other people happy then all the better.
I think the thrust of Scott Bourne's argument was that photography is an art. ; Just like how the realists got their knickers in a twist when impressionism started taking off, there will always be some faction of an art that gets upset when techniques or vision changes. If you don't like the look of HDR, you aren't being a hater, but if you hate HDR because you claim it's not "real photography", I think that is his argument just like people said that if you don't shoot with film you aren't a real photographer back when digital first came on the scene. I think the discussion about the proliferation of HDR is a different argument all together that was slightly touched on another topic. ; I think with the ease of distribution now, there is more chance for people to display pictures others think are horrible. But as HW always says, "If you like it, that's all that matters"
That's a fair point and I think I should modify my previous statement. I meant to use "hater" humorously. ; I understand what the term is supposed to mean, it's just.. I'm getting really sick of it, so I prefer to try to mutate it a bit, I refuse to use it seriously. I'm more of an HDR curmudgeon. "Kids these days with their HDR.. why back in my day we had a narrow dynamic range and we LIKED it!"
Good article and well thought out. I like HDR, but I dislike the overuse. Some seem to use it for everything. Question. When you guys do use HDR do you bracket in the camera or adjust the photos in Lightroom, Aperture etc and then combine the shots. I bracket. Old habits die hard.
You typically need to bracket. ; There are ways to add the HDR look to single normal exposures, and to a degree there is room to widen the dynamic range some using a single RAW exposure, but beyond such minor adjustments you need bracketed exposures.
Usually to get what I want, I have to bracket. ; You can process a raw file twice, once for the shadows and once for the highlights, but There's only so much information to squeeze out of one file. ;
Thats what I do, but one could make adjustments to to a file or two or three with Aperture or Lightroom and them combine them. I have not tried this yet. It does not seem like a good way to do it, but I wondered if some do. ; I only bracket.
Another memory from the film age. ; It seems the "multiple exposures" from one RAW file is gaining popularity. ; Except for the Super-CCD users. I still prefer to bracket, but that's because I shot positives for so long.
For me, it's all a matter of how much the subject really matters, and how long it will take. ; This is especially true at night, when bracketing might add another 1-2 minutes or so to the shooting time. ; This may not seem like a lot of time, but when you’re only in the park once or twice a year, and you only have that hour or so window after hours, you certainly don’t want to waste extra time on a shot that you don’t “really wantâ€
