Roland Karlsson: Those are pictures. You may, or you may not, like them. That is just fine. It is every ones right to have an opinion, and in the free parts of the world it is also every ones right to voice it.
It is also reasonable to question why DPReview shows them, if that is what you think. It might even be reasonable to question why the photographer spends time doing those (in your opinion) lousy pictures.
But the posts here go way beyond that. It is pure hate, against the art form and the photographer personally. "He should not be allowed to touch a camera again" - etc, etc, etc, ...
As you may have seen, I am one of those that likes some of the images. And there are actually other here that do. So, it seems like they have some kind of value after all.
My advice - do not tell others what kind of images they are allowed to take. And if you have some critique - be nice. Someone may dislike what YOU do.
I have a question for pfzt. If HDR is such a backfired trend on every internet photo community, then why is this comment thread showing so many supporters, myself included? "...it has to be stopped..." Give me a break.
CallMeAlan: As an urban explorer myself, I believe that the derelict and the abandoned should be portrayed in an honest and accurate documentary style; eye-burning HDR is incorrect for these subjects.
And if number 16 is an abandoned house, well, I'd love to see the bathroom and the kitchen!
Who are you to say the subject matter has to be portrayed in only a certain way? That you don't like it, and say so, is fine. This isn't journalism where honesty and accuracy should matter more. This is art so judge the art and not the "correctness".
Karl Summers: I love HDR when it is done correctly and with discretion. This is not one of those times.
Who determines what is correct? Either you like it or you don't. Go ahead and say you don't like it, but it is incredibly arrogant to be the ultimate judge and say it is not done correctly.
imsilly: Is there anything worse then bad HDR processing?
Yes. People who whine about what they think is bad HDR.
JonSr: Damn American Journalism to lead the charge in fakery in public images. OJ Simpson photo was my eye opener and then on I realize that ALL photos are touched. Therefore ALL FAKE. Current acceptance of HDR is totally inexcusable, too. Damn the industry and all its contributors in making photo worth a toiler paper. I trust 4chan photo far more than anything on the mass media. Shame on us.
Are you making this statement in regards to photojournalism only? If it takes a wider scope to include all photography, you are one seriously uptight, self-righteous moron.
Photojournalism should be performed with the highest regard to honesty. Anything else is art and should be open to allowing the artist's (photographer's in this case) vision and the path s/he chooses (HDR for example) to get their.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review