HDR Sucks!!!

You have got to read this post, it's great. http://lewiscollard.co​m/cameras/hdr-sucks/

Have Fun,
Jeff

What a goof, but I think I can see where he's coming from. HDR's a lot easier taking three photos and tone mapping rather than getting a flash, an nd filter, or whatnot

Not to mention the amount of people doing it wrong, including me. lol

That was .

lespaulowner wrote in post #10758184
What a goof, but I think I can see where he's coming from. HDR's a lot easier taking three photos and tone mapping rather than getting a flash, an nd filter, or whatnot

How is it easier to buy filters and flashes? HDR is difficult to do correctly. I agree with that. And a lot of people are not even coming close. I'm tired of traditionalist old timers trying to temper contemporary ideas and methods. Things change. Get over it (not speaking about you specifically - just in general).

I hope his next article is on the suckiness of the saturation slider.

This guy is funny..pop up flash to fill in shadows..LMAO...(Most HDR's that I have done are wayy beyond what the onboard flash can do..any most likely any flash unless you have the sun behind ya)

Now I agree you can go too far..like I did with this HDR..hehehehehe :P

I get he's trying to be funny, but he just comes off poorly. All the negatives he talks about (well, most of them anyway) can be found in other types of photography, and with other techniques. He talks about getting a ND filter for an effect? If you're shooting the ocean at sunrise/set - especially with a ND filter - you're getting a Tri-pod. If you shoot RAW, you're spending time in front of a computer.....

neonlazer wrote in post #10758599
Now I agree you can go too far..like I did with this HDR..hehehehehe :P

Yeah....that qualifies as too much. I like HDR that does not look like HDR.

JeffreyG wrote in post #10758744
I like HDR that does not look like HDR.

Same thing for flash usage.

when every one does the same thing, it cheapens and annoys.
but, someone will say, lots of people had cameras and darkrooms and produced images in the same fashion. you're just being a luddite, sticking to your old ways.

the difference is that, we never saw everybody else's crappy pictures. its the cream of the crop (usually) made it into the public realm. now, with mass communication, we're all privvy to everyones attempts at 'creativity" both good and bad

The only "HDR" I like is the kind where you'd have to inform me it was HDR. Or to be more precise... HDR is supposed to look real. When it doesn't, that isn't HDR, that's just silly post processing.

I found the more interesting read to be Reinhard's site (Linked in the OP article). This is really all there is to say about "HDR":

Mike Deep wrote in post #10759400
The only "HDR" I like is the kind where you'd have to inform me it was HDR. Or to be more precise... HDR is supposed to look real. When it doesn't, that isn't HDR, that's just silly post processing.

I agree! There should be two categories....HDR and Grunge Processing. That Grunge look has nothing to do with HDR other than using the same software. HDR should be an image with a High Dynamic Range, nothing more....nothing less. Taking an image and applying Tone Mapping does NOT make it a HDR image.

Needless to say, there is a lot to learn about HDR for most people.

I don't really care as long as I find an image pleasing to look at. All of these rules and values people try to apply is crap. Everyone has their own style and what they like to do. You don't have to like someone else's work - that is your own prerogative. If I look a piece of work in a gallery and I don't care for it - that doesn't mean it is any less valuable. It just means I didn't like it. HDR doesn't have to be one way or the other. People have the choice to do it how they see fit. I have seen a lot of terrible HDR work that looks like radioactive waste. But I have seen some amazing images that don't look "natural," yet is still very pleasing to look at.

This is an old argument that was not started and will not end here. Everyone has their own ideas

Kaigler wrote in post #10759484
I don't really care as long as I find an image pleasing to look at. All of these rules and values people try to apply is crap. Everyone has their own style and what they like to do. You don't have to like someone else's work - that is your own prerogative. If I look a piece of work in a gallery and I don't care for it - that doesn't mean it is any less valuable. It just means I didn't like it.

If you decontruct this argument, at the core it is pointless.

Art is great even if everyone thinks it sucks? No!

On an individual basis, if a piece of art is disliked by one person then this does not matter. If a piece of art is disliked by most everyone then this is because it sucks.

It's OK to have an opinion on art. Feel free to state 'that sucks'.

And if I think a piece of art sucks and most people like it, then I feel challenged to try and understand what I am missing. But do not discount the validity of your own opinion. Some people's art really does suck. That's OK.