HDR. Do you like it?

+1. You must have ESP. I was about to write the same thing. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

mikekelley wrote in post #9321178
So is using flash, filters, improvising on site, waiting for better light etc.

Just not a fan, and you're not going to convince me otherwise

I think you're thinking of HDR as a way to go around knowing how to use light, rather than its own photographic artwork. Maybe some utilize HDR that way, but when I make HDR pictures, it's because there is no other way to get that unique image - you may or may not like it, but real HDR doesn't come from lack of knowledge from light, but rather utilizing that knowledge one has.

HDR is a segment of photography. Some like it, some don't. Criticizing HDR work is like saying you don't like photos of lighthouses, but prefer country barn scenes, so folks should not shoot lighthouses. It is a small percentage of the photographic artistry that is out there.

I don't care for the overblown HDRs myself, but prefer the HDR to enhance the dynamic range that is not available to digital to the same extent it is in film. But those who pursue their "overblown HDR" look are OK by me, just not included in my slice of the photography pie . . .

Here is a pretty good article on HDR from Luminous Landscape.

HDR Plea

I can appreciate HDR when well done, but I, like others above, find it is often horrendously overdone. For that reason, most times I see it I don't like it.

golfecho wrote in post #9321372
HDR is a segment of photography. Some like it, some don't. Criticizing HDR work is like saying you don't like photos of lighthouses, but prefer country barn scenes, so folks should not shoot lighthouses.

I don't agree. You're conflating a post processing technique with choice of subject. Criticizing how somebody applied HDR makes no comment about the subject. In another vein, if somebody took a badly composed image of a silo, it doesn't mean that they should stop taking pictures of silos, just that they should stop taking badly composed images.

Like anything that we do, when it's done well > it's very good. When it's done poorly > it's crap.

Corkneyfonz has it right about "mundane subjects". We can revise Ansel Adams and say "There's nothing worst than a HDR of a fuzzy concept."

joedlh wrote in post #9321671
I don't agree. You're conflating a post processing technique with choice of subject. Criticizing how somebody applied HDR makes no comment about the subject. In another vein, if somebody took a badly composed image of a silo, it doesn't mean that they should stop taking pictures of silos, just that they should stop taking badly composed images.

Joe . . . I realize I was comparing apples and oranges, but I was just trying to make the point that what one person considers a work of art, another will turn their nose up at. Nonetheless, it is a segment of the photo world that, for better or worse, some like and some don't.

HDR is best used when other people look at your finished work and don't think HDR.

Personally I love HDR. But I don't agree on the term "abused". There are different taste in what people like in it. While some like the realistic results others like the surreal paintery results. But I don't care what anyone says, neither is wrong. Some people like B&W photos, some people don't but I don't see anyone making a big issue out of that. If the surreal look is wrong I don't think the programs would let you have the option to go that route to begin with. Myself I'm a professional graphic artist. It's been my career for over 23 years now. In the past I've airbrushed, did charcoal drawings, paintings and so forth. Because of my background I like the surreal paintery look that you can get from HDR. I know it doesn't look realistic but most paintings don't either. While I know the majority of people don't like it. That doesn't matter to me, I know it''s not everybody's taste. Nothing wrong with that. If everybody had to have the same taste then there would be only one type of music, no metal, no county, no jazz, just one type of music. Basically what I'm trying to say is what I think is wrong is people saying, it's not used right, people over do it, it's abused. No it's not! It's just one persons taste on how they want their photo to look when it's finished. You don't like it...fine, then just don't look at it. Bottom line is photography is an art. The definition of art itself is to be creative, to create. To say over the top HDR is wrong, you slamming someone's creativity down. That is wrong!!!

photoguy6405 wrote in post #9321934
HDR is best used when other people look at your finished work and don't think HDR.

Very true.

We also need to think outside of our photography world - people in the real world dont understand or care about how it was done - just how the end result looks.
We get too caught up with looking pure - blah blah - fact is this is art - varies from one person to another - and there are no rules.
We should care less about what others think and just do things that we like and enjoy. Create art for our enjoyment or enjoyment of our clients.

mikekelley wrote in post #9317561
Bracketing is for the unsure.

For TRUE HDR, you have to bracket. There is a work around but in most cases you can not capture all of the dynamic range.

Do I like HDR?

Yes
I like the ability to capture what my eyes see. How disappointing it is to see that great sunrise and not have the ability to capture everything that your eyes can see.


HDR is one thing
Overdoing doing tonal mapping is another..

Sometimes the over the top tonal mapping works for me

mikekelley wrote in post #9321178
So is using flash, filters, improvising on site, waiting for better light etc.

Just not a fan, and you're not going to convince me otherwise

Flash won't help much in landscape photography and waiting for better light is not always an option. Filters are a viable alternative, but they're not universally applicable (think big church tower sticking way up into the sky portion of your scene).

And as for improvising on site... well, that's exactly what bracketing is.

I'm not trying to convince you, but discussions generally involve multiple points of view.

Those that look at alternative imagery such as HDR and say they don't like it to me are close minded. Do these same individuals while visiting a museum say that they don't like retro art because it was not done like Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, "now that's art". How many photographers look at oil paintings or watercolors not as art because it was not taken with a camera? OH, I know, that's different. HDR has a permanent place in today's imagery and it's not because we have to bracket to get the right exposure. Or, because the painterly effect of an image is not true hdr or even a real photograph. Fact is a "painterly" image is not really and hdr, so why do we label it so. To achieve a painterly effect one might merge several images of different exposures together, thereby increasing the tonal range, but does not mean it is an hdr. Producing a painterly effect to an image is no different than a painter using different brushes or wooded patterns to create special brush strokes to a painting for effect. Same goes for excessive tone mapping, it is the creativity of the artist with the pen or mouse to express what he or she sees of a scene and again not hdr. There are several companies producing software allowing us as artists the tools of hundreds of brushes to take that one in a million photograph and turn it into one in a trillion if we wish. You can even take a scene that is so familiar to everyone and through software from Lucis Art, Topaz, Stuck-N-Customs and others, and make it an art piece to be enjoyed by others. Georgia O'Keeffe was once ridiculed by her colleges for using scrap wood to oil paint her desert scenes instead of canvas, as was the norm. Those pieces now hang in the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
So, it's OK by me if the next time you look at one of my images and say you don't like it, you can even tell me so if you wish. But to say that every image that was not taken using the age long practices of photography, not processed correctly or was created by using several images and software is an hdr is a misjudgment.

OK, I'm off my soapbox