Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

Started Aug 20, 2013 | Polls thread
antoineb Veteran Member • Posts: 6,648
His image has horrible HDR looks, yours the same but more like a cartoon

Mikhail Tal wrote:

DPR published an article showing some images taken by Carsten Krieger in bad weather that they deemed "great photography." I say the photographs were generally terrible because they looked exactly like any other amateur snapshots taken in bad weather: underexposed, poorly lit, and sorely lacking in contrast and saturation. Here is an example from the article, including Krieger's own caption:

Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier. To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour.Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 24mm TS-E, F14, 1/13 sec, HDR (+/- 3 stops), tripod.

Notice how out of touch with reality this guy is. He's acting like this is some great image when in fact it is terribly bland regardless of what he did to it. He used about $5k worth of gear and claimed to use fancy processing, yet he's still produced something that looks like an amateur snap. All he had to do was look at the image histogram to see how poorly exposed it is, making a mockery of the term high dynamic range.

To back up my scathing criticism of his inferior work, I snagged the low-res image he posted in the article and spent about two minutes making some really simple edits in ACR to produce something that actually looks like a legitimate professional photograph:

What do you know, an image that actually has some legitimate dynamic range and color in it. Again, this isn't a brag by any means, it's a trivial adjustment that anybody with even a basic knowledge of ACR could have made. I am calling out Carsten Krieger - and DPR - because they have posted several articles by him and I find his photography to be grossly overrated for reasons such as what I have pointed out here. Just another overgeared rich guy who thinks his photos are professional just because he threw an HDR process on that he doesn't even know how to use correctly.

So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.

Frankly neither image appeals to me AT ALL.

The first image, which from what you say is deemed "great", looks way too HDR for my taste, transmitting, to my eye, nothing of what the actual scene may have felt like.  It also looks like he perhaps went quite a bit overboard on contrast and possibly saturation, making his image look almost like some computer-generated thing, but from cheap computers and software.  Yuk.

Your image is the same and now looks too bright and colourful and so, again to my eyes at least, is even closer to bad computer art.

If people are going to produce bad computer art, I don't see why they should even bother going in the field with a camera.

And if DPR deems such shots "great" then really it is, or at least has become, a community of gear-loving geeks but not photographers.  Real photogs are probably somewhere out there capturing great shots and not needed hours of HDR or other PP in a sad attempt to make them look perhaps a bit interesting...

Again:  tastes vary, this is just my opinion.

 antoineb's gear list:antoineb's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus TG-610 Nikon D7000 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow