Nik Software announces HDR Efex Pro 2 with improved tone-mapping

That's funny, I could have sworn Gustave Le Gray produced some wonderful high dynamic range images in 1850.... In fact isn't his "Beech Tree" still the most expensive photograph ever sold?

And then there was Schweitzer, you know, who's name was used for the Albert Schweitzer award, using HDR techniques which took him 5 days to apply to a print who's photography was so important to his humanitarian work.

Ansel Adams? Massive proponent of HDR photography, but you say he never produced a good one? Each to their own I guess.

That's aside from the importance of medical HDR photography, who knows, next time you have a deadly disease and are cured by modern medicine, the scanner may have been a HDR camera, OH NOES!

Let's just hope, for your sake that you were trying some clumsy sarcasm.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you do not speak for me or many others. I think HDR has its uses, and can help convey imagery that we see in our creative minds, not just the plain well exposed images with see with our eyes. And in my line of work, art critics have no bearing whatsoever on my pay, so their opinions are utterly worthless to me.

What ?? Your choice of fashion photographers as an example of "naturally lit none-over-processed" photography is suspect. It's not the processing that counts it's the subject matter. And, having said that the constant battle landscape photographers have in capturing DR is an issue. Go look at the plethora of HDR processing that is being done without turning every photo into a Walt Disney Cartoonish look. There are some masters out there who are raising the bar in post processing without being gauche about it.

I fail to see how HDR is conceptually different from burning and dodging when printing from a negative. Some people do it well. Some don't.

Serious art criticism is mostly impenetrable academic jargon. I was a painter and I never knew a practicing artist who cared at all what art critics thought. Or even had a clue what they were writing about. There are exceptions, mostly writing for popular magazines. But their populist approach was disdained by academic critics who considered them mere journalists, reviewers, not critics. Photography criticism may be better, but I doubt it. Over the long term, tastes in the art world are influenced far more by gallery owners and serious collectors than by critics. For photography, photo editors likely have as big a role.

HDR is just a tool with many uses. Some hokey and garish, others subtle. Maybe its because I come from painting, but I find most photographers too wedded to the literal, busy judging histograms and peering into shadows in search of noise instead of considering the artistic worth of the entire image.

You people are missing the joke. vFunt is kidding you. The giveaway was the line about art critics having the only viewpoints that matter. C'mon that was so obvious.

That's only because most people way overdo it or don't do it properly. It's possible to do it and make it not even apparent.

So vFunct, what camera do you use? I hope for your sake it isn't one which has been optimised to produce a high dynamic range, like say... all of them since Charles Wyckoff developed triple layer film to produce a greater dynamic range (in 1955).

Perhaps it would be better to say "Don't do bad HDR", but then who is the ultimate judge of what is good or bad? You?

I'm guessing from your comments that you don't like the overly tonemapped images. Fine, no probs - but some people do like that. Leave them to it, stop trying to dictate other peoples taste, it honestly makes you seem like a complete moron. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I don't like it either, but neither do I like it when someone has gone way over the top with the clarity tool. Doesn't mean the clarity tool should be banned because I don't like pictures which have used it to the extreme.

As with all post processing, the best examples are those where the viewer doesn't realise it has been done. Simple as that.

Oh, and by the way, saying that the only person who's viewpoint matters is an art critic is by far the stupidest thing I have seen written for a long, long time. Not all photography is fine art. Oh and an art critic is not a qualified role.To be an art critic, one merely needs to call one self an art critic.Or more precisely one needs to actively criticise art.

But to say that the photo I took of my kids for the family album is good based on an art critics point of view is ridiculous.What if an art critic slams it for poor composition yet it brings my family joy and laughter for generations.

What if the "fine art" shot I took for a client is eviscerated by a critic then goes on to hang pride of place in my clients home, bringing joy for generations.

Art critics, along with most opinion journalism are there to entertain the reader.They are paid to make the public want to read their articles again,wannabes who need to validate their opinion or just be titillated by someone being rude.

I displayed six of my hundreds of HDR photos at work, and everyone who has seen them are totally

AMAZED!

Granted, they are not photo critics, but who cares? The masses love it!

With camera manufacturers and mobile phones adding "in camera HDR" features, I don't see the HDR trend being over.

HDR has always been a tool and should be viewed as one. When I bracket my shots, I always have a shot that is properly exposed, so the HDR option is there for me but it never comes at the expense of a proper exposure.