Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are more snobs about HDR than other things?

Go to last post
Again, only see your signature.

Be like all the other people on the internet and write your message in the big message box. Please.
Roger99 said:
Neptune76 said:
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"
Click to expand...
--

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.
 
Re read my posting, I was updating it when your replied.

And just in case you missed it again...
(nt) = 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.
 
I think I see your problem with HDR now.
Neptune76 said:
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.
Click to expand...
--

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.
 
--

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.
 
archiebald said:
Sorry what did you say? Nothing was posted in the message box??
Click to expand...
Yup, a definite tourist Neptune.

Ya have a nice day now ya hear.

--

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.
 
Roger99 said:
I think I see your problem with HDR now.
Click to expand...
you mean, "Headings Disregarded Routinely"?

I don't know if it's fair to tease, though - yes if it's deliberate, no if it's a genuine affliction.

:) RP
 
omg is wear to god like 5 years ago my dad told me about a guy on the internet that always said "ya have a nice day now ya hear" I wonder if that's you..
Roger99 said:
archiebald said:
Sorry what did you say? Nothing was posted in the message box??
Click to expand...
Yup, a definite tourist Neptune.

Ya have a nice day now ya hear.

--

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.
 
richardplondon said:
Roger99 said:
I think I see your problem with HDR now.
Click to expand...
you mean, "Headings Disregarded Routinely"?

I don't know if it's fair to tease, though - yes if it's deliberate, no if it's a genuine affliction.

:) RP
Click to expand...
I like that one. ;)

But yep, just self defense against a suspected troll.

Seems like a waste of time and energy to explain anything to one who can't even see the door he has to open before he enters the room.

--

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.
 
In general, I find HDR to be like a fisheye lens: neat effect in the rare circumstances where it really works, but a lot of it tends to have one screaming for reality.
 
Overdone is OK once in a while, to me anyway. Most non-photographers really like it (including me). This one may be more to forum taste.





I am working on other techniques that are even more "natural" looking, but I'm relatively new to digital photography and am still acquiring software and skills with it.

I just like HDR in many forms.
--
Ed Rizk
 
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...
Other posters have mentioned the overuse of the technique as well as its lacking a "real" look, but it's not the only thing I'm snobbish about. Another thing that bothers me in pictures is the use of focal lengths that are either obviously wide angle or telephoto; that is, the lens used draws attention to itself by making things appear unnatural. Probably because it has been done so often, I also find myself not caring for pictures featuring reflections or for long exposures to blur moving water. I like color to be natural; I don't mind black and white (probably because I grew up with black and white television, photo albums, etc.), but oversaturated colors, unnatural tints, a single colored item in a B&W photo, etc., spoil a picture. My preference is that a photograph show a scene in a way that is as much as possible what I would have seen had I been there myself.

HDR can help make a photo look more realistic under conditions where you would otherwise have blocked-up shadows and/or blown highlights, but if you do a Google image search for "hdr photographs," you won't find many examples of people using the technique to make things look natural.
 
HDR snobs don't despise all HDR; just the majority of it (the poorly done stuff that serves no purpose except to draw your attention to a picture that's not otherwise worth your attention).

Selective color was pretty offensive, too, and those fake "toy" shots get a little annoying, but neither reaches the level of bad HDR, probably due to its ubiquity.

I suppose that as a photographer trying to improve my skills year after year in an effort to create interesting photos, seeing people ooh and ahh over bad HDR photos is like a struggling artist watching people buy Elvis on black velvet out of a minivan on the side of the road.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
BPengMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said. I myself like HDR. But I'd add that people also get frustrated when it looks like you just took what came out of your HDR software on default settings.
 
Neptune76 said:
why are people snobs about the artistic use of it, the saturated colors, the artsy look?
Click to expand...
And this is the gist of the problem - people confusing loud form that tries to compensate for the lack of substance with "art". You can see it many photos, paintings, etc. It doesn't have to be HDR. When there is little to attract attention and provoke reflection, make it scream at the viewer and assault his senses. Then it's "art". It isn't. It's just loud. And just like loud people, one tends to avoid it.

People have done HDR for ever, it just wasn't called HDR and no one knew it under a separate name. It was just a well-done photograph with a wide dynamic range, no matter what technique in post-processing (digital or wet) was applied to accomplish it. Now we seem to have a group that wants to elevate a relatively minor post-processing technique to the level of art. That makes as much sense as if I insisted on calling something "art" just because I applied a curves layer in Photoshop.
 
Dennis said:
HDR snobs don't despise all HDR; just the majority of it (the poorly done stuff that serves no purpose except to draw your attention to a picture that's not otherwise worth your attention).
Click to expand...
Very well put. I've seen an "hdr" photo win a contest (not on here) that was extremely bland subject matter, scruffy foreground clutter and it was only the "hdr" aspect that made the image even with looking at and so it won an award
Dennis said:
Selective color was pretty offensive, too, and those fake "toy" shots get a little annoying, but neither reaches the level of bad HDR, probably due to its ubiquity.

I suppose that as a photographer trying to improve my skills year after year in an effort to create interesting photos, seeing people ooh and ahh over bad HDR photos is like a struggling artist watching people buy Elvis on black velvet out of a minivan on the side of the road.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
Reality is highly overrated. If it were not so, drugs would not be so popular. Extreme effects are healthier than drugs and cheaper too.
--
Ed Rizk
 
Viewing HDR images hurts my head and stomach like when watching 3D movies or when a TV is up or downscaling a different frame rate and it has that soap opera look to it. At least the "overcooked" HDR images make me feel that way.

I assume it is because my brain sees it as unnatural tone transitions...not really sure though. But it really does make me feel 'ugh'. Weird I know.

I may eventually try it as I am new to photography and should try things - but if I do it will probably be unnoticeable.

Everyone has their own tastes though so its not a big deal. Not sure if its a 'noob' thing but I love the lens-flared/washed out type of photos. Lots of people probably hate that as much as HDR - but I like it (at least until my taste changes). So, like what you like and let haters hate what they hate :)
 
HDR on a photo is like make-up on a beautiful woman. If the first thing I notice is black gunge on her eyelids and lashes, I can't see the beauty. It only works if it's not obvious it's there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top