Why HDR is not wanted in many challenges?

[Akebono]

Do any of you, maybe a host, have a simple explanation of why HDR pictures aren't
accepted in so many challenges?

Is it because some consider it ugly? Is it because it is considered that those who use it have an advantage over them who don't?

I really feel that HDR is the new leprosy...

Best regards!
Akebono
--

Unfortunately, sometimes, instead of changing cameras to get good pictures, you have to change the photographer.

 

[AussieJo]

I love HDR (I know this isn't answering your question), and that is why in my challenges state "creativity is encouraged".

 

[Miwok]

Ha! Ha! It's like the people who feel so proud to not use HDR and need to write it in BIG under their photos.
Who care? A good image is a good image and I don't care how it was making.

(You should have post this in "Open Talk")
--
Philippe
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miwok/

 

[One eyed Bart]

Clown vomit.............is a term I heard once to describe most HDR images.

Doesn't bother me if it's done well.

--
Arrrrrrh !

Bart.

 

[Akebono]

I appreciate your answers!
Cheers
Akebono
--

Unfortunately, sometimes, instead of changing cameras to get good pictures, you have to change the photographer.

 

[dwight3]

I think HDR has a bad rep because so many people "overdo" it in tonemapping.

Personally, I don't much care for the images that have been tonemapped to the point of generating weird colors and textures. I will allow that it can sometimes be artistic when done that way, but having been a photographer for about 60 years now I'm used to more realistic images from photographs. Sure, we had weird photos produced in the darkroom way back then, but they were really minimal, and took a lot of work to produce.

IMHO, HDR is a good way to extend the dynamic range of your camera. It's a way to produce an image that contains detail in the deep shadows or highlights that would otherwise be blown out. Done well, you would not know that it is a HDR image. And I think that most challenge hosts would not DQ an HDR image if it were not obviously "overdone".

But that's my opinion, and I allow others to have theirs. That's why I put "overdone" in quotes. Because (clearly, based on the number of such images) not everyone has my point of view.

 

[jpmalohesr]

Having said this, I am not certain why many hosts don't allow it. Maybe they will speak to us about it...
--
jp

 

[Akebono]

First of all, I would like to say that I perfectly understand your points and, at some extent, I share them...

1) By denying HDR entries, all kind of HDR (subtle and overdone) is being blocked.

2) How can one meassure what is overdone?

3) Why not let everyone enter everything and let voters decide? Something I learnt along the time is that people that vote in the challenges are very sincere

Thanks again for your comments!
Cheers
Akebono
--

Unfortunately, sometimes, instead of changing cameras to get good pictures, you have to change the photographer.

 

[Ben_Egbert]

If its a good image.

There is another bias against HDR in addition to the normal complaint of being overdone. Any image that has as much DR as the eye can see, or as much DOF does not look like a photograph because cameras are incapable of producing such images.

The bias is not that its overdone, its that it is more realistic (when done well).

There is a group of photographers who want all the technical flaws of our gear to be preserved. Vignetting, distortion, CA, low DR, noise, limited DOF, soft edges and corners poor micro contrast to name a few.

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[AKozik]

I have one suggestion.
Many hosts represent "old school" photography and hardly
accept new art. It is just like classic and rock music.
Rest of story you know...
Alex

 

[onlooker]

Many hosts represent "old school" photography and hardly
accept new art.

There is a difference between art and technique. Art is "what", technique is "how".

 

[brucet]

I doubt anyone could pick a well done HDR.
So how could one enforce the rule?

 

[jpmalohesr]

If its a good image.

There is another bias against HDR in addition to the normal complaint of being overdone. Any image that has as much DR as the eye can see, or as much DOF does not look like a photograph because cameras are incapable of producing such images.

The bias is not that its overdone, its that it is more realistic (when done well).

I agree 100%

There is a group of photographers who want all the technical flaws of our gear to be preserved. Vignetting, distortion, CA, low DR, noise, limited DOF, soft edges and corners poor micro contrast to name a few.

No even Ansil Adams would have wanted this ...

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

--
jp

 

[Ben_Egbert]

If its a good image.

There is another bias against HDR in addition to the normal complaint of being overdone. Any image that has as much DR as the eye can see, or as much DOF does not look like a photograph because cameras are incapable of producing such images.

The bias is not that its overdone, its that it is more realistic (when done well).

I agree 100%

There is a group of photographers who want all the technical flaws of our gear to be preserved. Vignetting, distortion, CA, low DR, noise, limited DOF, soft edges and corners poor micro contrast to name a few.

No even Ansil Adams would have wanted this ...

I can take your reply in two senses, one that Adams would have wanted to eliminate techological flaws (and I think this is what he did with his own work) or no, he did not want to eliminate them.

Reading a book about his color work and many of his quotes regarding color. He thought the big problem with color was that it was not possible to control the final presentation with the media available to him. He was happy enough at times looking at the transparency, but the technology to reproduce a print was lacking.

When I look at the color work in the book, it is very clear that CA, vignetting, distortion were not part of his accpetable work, and the images are sharp and in focus anywhere you look. He does allow a bit more shadow than many new techniques can eliminate. One wonders if he would? I am sure he corrected for this in his B&W work.

The colors and saturation in these images as presented in the book were of course printed after he died so there is no way to know what he would have wanted for the final. We have to remember that he was shooting Kodachrome and had no control over the transparency color and saturation (like our raws), it was fixed by the technology. The chance to modify it was when printed.

The images in this book are subdued in color and saturation for the most part compared to what is easy to obtain now. The question for anyone is when to stop.

Adams did not think photgraphy was ever literally realistic. With B&W, there is no pretense at matching real world color, but with color film there is, and he thought it never did.

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

--
jp

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[jpmalohesr]

If its a good image.

There is another bias against HDR in addition to the normal complaint of being overdone. Any image that has as much DR as the eye can see, or as much DOF does not look like a photograph because cameras are incapable of producing such images.

The bias is not that its overdone, its that it is more realistic (when done well).

I agree 100%

There is a group of photographers who want all the technical flaws of our gear to be preserved. Vignetting, distortion, CA, low DR, noise, limited DOF, soft edges and corners poor micro contrast to name a few.

No even Ansil Adams would have wanted this ...

I meant to type "Not even" indicating that he would make up for capture flaws in the darkroom using whatever tools he had available until he achieved his original vision. I truly believe he would be using Photoshop if he were still around...

I can take your reply in two senses, one that Adams would have wanted to eliminate technological flaws (and I think this is what he did with his own work) or no, he did not want to eliminate them.

Reading a book about his color work and many of his quotes regarding color. He thought the big problem with color was that it was not possible to control the final presentation with the media available to him. He was happy enough at times looking at the transparency, but the technology to reproduce a print was lacking.

When I look at the color work in the book, it is very clear that CA, vignetting, distortion were not part of his acceptable work, and the images are sharp and in focus anywhere you look. He does allow a bit more shadow than many new techniques can eliminate. One wonders if he would? I am sure he corrected for this in his B&W work.

The colors and saturation in these images as presented in the book were of course printed after he died so there is no way to know what he would have wanted for the final. We have to remember that he was shooting Kodachrome and had no control over the transparency color and saturation (like our raws), it was fixed by the technology. The chance to modify it was when printed.

The images in this book are subdued in color and saturation for the most part compared to what is easy to obtain now. The question for anyone is when to stop.

Adams did not think photography was ever literally realistic. With B&W, there is no pretense at matching real world color, but with color film there is, and he thought it never did.

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

--
jp

--
When you can't focus, nothing else matters
Once you can, everything else does.

http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

--
jp

 

[Figsbury]

Guess I'm "old school" and hate HDR (when it's obvious).

There was a challenge recently for "subtle" HDR - most of which were anything but subtle. But the shots that were subtle were fantastic.

So don't really see the point of excluding them from challenges - If they are done badly, old farts like me will vote them low (just doing what everyone does when voting which is to apply their own taste and preference), but the good ones will do well and hopefully everyone learns something along the way.

 

[AKozik]

I cannot accept your postulate: "There is difference..."
Because variety of "HOWs" create variety of "ARTs"
When color photo was invented many voices were against it,
(Ironically still are), when HDR was introduced the same voices sounded.

Remember Salvatore Dali? He was expelled from art school because he had different
View on the reality. Who remember his mentors now? Or surrealism didn't survive?
How about Impressionism school? And so on...
Art assumes a freedom of expression otherwise it is not an ART.
History has instances - "Socialism's realism" for example.
As long we follow DPReview rules - nobody can limit "HOW"
Author expresses him/herself.

Community of photographers will be an judge and put an author in deserved him/her place.
Because as soon as someone install a limit - it is a first step to CENSORSHIP.

With respect to all
Alex.

P.S.
About of numbers of entries. Add some percentage for 'weird" authors.

Like 100+10=110 who cares about numbers ( actually I do, because it is hard to judge equally entire challenge)

 

[onlooker]

I cannot accept your postulate: "There is difference..."
Because variety of "HOWs" create variety of "ARTs"

Those are methods of achieving goals. It is the goal that is "What". The methods are "How".

Remember Salvatore Dali? He was expelled from art school because he had different view on the reality.

But it was his view on reality, not the paintbrushes he used. That is my point.

Because as soon as someone install a limit - it is a first step to CENSORSHIP.

I don't care what methods are used. I am looking for message. I do not have post-processing rules in my challenges.

About of numbers of entries. Add some percentage for 'weird" authors. Like 100+10=110 who cares about numbers ( actually I do, because it is hard to judge equally entire challenge)

I agree in principle, but with the current system of voting increased number of entries creates a problem. If we changed the system of voting to "Like" and "Skip", I think the number of entries could be increased.

 

[Akebono]

this thread/topic...

Thanks for your comments!
Cheers
Akebono
--

Unfortunately, sometimes, instead of changing cameras to get good pictures, you have to change the photographer.