Why are more snobs about HDR than other things?

Is it just the cool thing to do to not like HDR?

What's wrong with it, do people just not like color?

I don't have a problem with it. I'm starting to dabble and as long as you don't get to carried away, really don't see what the beef is.

Neptune76 said:

Is it just the cool thing to do to not like HDR?

What's wrong with it, do people just not like color?

Click to expand...

Ignore them. There are just as many of us who do like HDR.
--
Brian Schneider

Here's my perfect example

watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jPu2lnfYvc

the way he says "We don't like HDR" smells of someone who wants to fit in.

I think it has to do with the "popular" use of HDR to make pictures into a very saturated, eye-candy, sometimes even appearing to be like a videogame, appearance. The "super-sweetness" of the eye-candy induces a nauseating effect on those people (I speak in generalities based on what I have observed...heck I have a friend that says he throws up rainbows when he sees those kind of pictures).

Personally, I think there's a place for all that. But I think the general consensus here on these forums is don't overdo it, make it subtle.

First, there is the HDR "look"; like it, hate it, it's very subjective.

Second, HDR is a technique and programs like Photomatix and Dynamic Photo HDR are tools I've purchased to either blend different exposures of the same scene "or" different intensity settings of a single exposure. From my perspective Photomatix is a very powerful tool that I don't care to live without. I also use Dynamic Range Increase (DRI) by Fred Miranda as a blender. When it comes to blending you never know in advance which tool will give you the best result.

In general I'm not a big fan of the HDR "look" but for certain scenes it makes for very spectacular results. Additionally, many fairly mundane to completely blah scenes can actually look wonderful by applying a bit of the HDR look. Trust me, over the years I've seen a lot of pictures presented in this forum that would have been greatly improved by adding just a little bit of that HDR "look" that many folks seem to dislike. IMO folks are silly to overlook the possibility adding a powerful editing tool to their bag of tricks just because they don't care for the generic HDR "look", YMMV.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia

--



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

People don't like it because more often than not it's used to turn mediocre photos into "art", and usually in a pretty garish and gaudy fashion. HDR as a technique in itself isn't bad and can be quite useful in the right circumstances, but there is a whole legion of amateurs out there HDRing anything from their dog to a pic of their wife reading the paper and posting it en masse for the world to choke on. It's not just HDR either, it's smudge painting, polar coordinates, Topaz Adjust, selective color, etc., the list doesn't end. If a photo requires a gimmick for it to be "successful", it's probably better to bin it right from the start.

--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

A moderate amount of HDR can be very nice, much like a moderate amount of tequila.

But too many folks drink the whole bottle then wake up naked on their neighbors lawn. Gives the whole deal a bad name.

It's one of the most mis-understood terms.

The images themselves are a matter of personal preference, and I've tried a few myself.

As for the HDR technique, it can be broken down into three categories

1. Both original scene and final displayed result contain a high dynamic range. Requires advanced display hardware.
2. Original scene has a high dynamic range, which is captured in multiple exposures, and converted into a Low Dynamic Range (LDR) image suitable for normal viewing.
3. Original scene has a low dynamic range and is processed by tone-mapping software to give another LDR image for normal viewing.

Given the wide range of uses (and mis-uses) of the term, there is plenty of scope for both liking and disliking the idea.

Regards,
Peter

--
StephenG

sjgcit said:

--
StephenG

Click to expand...

Sorry, your post had no message in it so I didn't see what you said.

Anyway HDR is fantastic and I know there are tons of images where you can't tell it was used. But why are people snobs about the artistic use of it, the saturated colors, the artsy look? I hate that it moved from the realm of "it's not my taste" to "you have to dislike HDR if you want to be considered seriously or not insane"

There's no law about making ugly stuff
--
Leonard Migliore

Roger Krueger said:

A moderate amount of HDR can be very nice, much like a moderate amount of tequila.

But too many folks drink the whole bottle then wake up naked on their neighbors lawn. Gives the whole deal a bad name.

Click to expand...

Best analogy ever!

28to70 said:

I don't have a problem with it. I'm starting to dabble and as long as you don't get to carried away, really don't see what the beef is.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, let's get carried away!





--
Ed Rizk

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Err what? All I see is your signature.

Roger99 said:

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Click to expand...

--

Please stop posting your messages in the subject line. Use the body of a message to post your message.

Good example. If it were finished it might have even worked although I would have called this is more an example of over used tone mapping than a HDR.

Fix that sky and we can talk.

With these things you have to either control it and use it as an enhancement or go over the top with justification from the subject but the problem that has come about with digital is that too many people are just gorging on the smorgasbord of available effects and letting the effect use them rather than them using the effect.

Often the difference between skill and indulgence is knowing where to stop.

The problem with HDR is that no-one seems to know where to stop.

While a viable and in many cases, a desirable enhancement the rule seems to be give me a chunk of HDR and while your there, see if you can slip a picture in there somewhere.

My rule is that if you can obviously tell that it has enhanced HDR you have gone too far unless that was the point. If you rely on this for all your work then you have decided to be a one trick pony.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

(nt) means no text
--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Huh?

I don't read the subject lines I read the posts.

Roger99 said:

(nt) means no text
--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Click to expand...

--

Please stop posting your messages in the subject line. Use the body of a message to post your message.

Neptune76 said:

sjgcit said:

--
StephenG

Click to expand...

Sorry, your post had no message in it so I didn't see what you said.

Click to expand...

(nt) = NO TEXT

Neptune76 said:

Anyway HDR is fantastic and I know there are tons of images where you can't tell it was used. But why are people snobs about the artistic use of it, the saturated colors, the artsy look? I hate that it moved from the realm of "it's not my taste" to "you have to dislike HDR if you want to be considered seriously or not insane"

Click to expand...

Few have an issue with it as a tool but as an "artistic effect" it's lazy and overused.

It's just kinda pedestrian and touristy to rely on it to establish your "artsy" cred.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.