HDR. Do you like it?

Here's a good read on the subject: http://photofocus.com/​2010/01/04/the-hdr-wars/

Kevin wrote in post #9323332
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

Amen Kevin, Amen!

René Damkot wrote in post #9323375
Here's a good read on the subject: http://photofocus.com/​2010/01/04/the-hdr-wars/

I subscribe to this too, a must IMO. Thanks Rene' I meant to add the link.

René Damkot wrote in post #9323375
Here's a good read on the subject: http://photofocus.com/​2010/01/04/the-hdr-wars/

That hits the nail on the head perfectly!

Whatever it takes to get a unique image. It doesn't have to be about lurid colours. It's about reclaiming detail and the ability to push an image that little bit further than you might have otherwise been able to.

Spacemunkie - your HDR images are the sort that I personally like to see with the HDR allowing the reclamation of the detail.

The problem many people have with HDR images (myself included) are the overly processed, halo ridden, overly saturated images which actually appear unreal.

Yes i realise that it is a personal issue and that some might find those bad (IMHO) HDR images artful however they strike me as ameteurish and lacking in care and attention.

I really like the pictures posted by Spacemunkie, not just because they're a skillful use of HDR but also because they're very nice images regardless of the technique. I also was extremely impressed by this one posted by Kevin in the HDR section, it might be over the top for some but it strikes me as an outstanding image. The only minor gripe I have is he won't tell us exactly how he processed it.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=797842

It's just a technique like any other and can be used well or used poorly.

That shot of Kevin's is a stunner. I'm a big fan of this style of HDR - images almost look like illustrations or scenery from a Resident Evil game. Top stuff

I find the HDR 'glow' to be distracting on a lot of shots. Not just the saturation and halos. Still I admit it has it's uses and you won't get away with some shots without using it. Even in the above examples I see slight glow (On that log in particular). Nice shots overall though.

breal101 wrote in post #9327813
I really like the pictures posted by Spacemunkie, not just because they're a skillful use of HDR but also because they're very nice images regardless of the technique. I also was extremely impressed by this one posted by Kevin in the HDR section, it might be over the top for some but it strikes me as an outstanding image. The only minor gripe I have is he won't tell us exactly how he processed it.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=797842

If you are using Firefox with a exif viewer add-on you can see all exif data including processing data from Photomatix. I hide nothing, except for my mistakes

Sorry Kevin, I must have misunderstood your comments in that thread. I'm on Safari right now but I do have Firefox and exif viewer. I'll have to check it out, thanks for the info and again great work!

Absolutely not. Especially with cars.

I like some, not others. I was just reading a tutorial on it from a photographer who has one of his hdr's now hanging in the smithsonian.

http://www.stuckincust​oms.com/hdr-tutorial/

I'm not a big fan.

The technique? Perfectly valid and useful in many situations.

The problem is too many comic booky pictures have ruined it. I like photos that look real...If I wanted a comic book picture, I'd buy a comic.

The problem is people using HDR...for the purpose of using HDR, not necessarily because the contrast in the scene deemed it necessary.

The photos from the post 3 or 4 posts above mine- Nice photos? Sure. But I just wonder why on such a heavily overcast day you thought it necessary to use HDR.

Dick Emery wrote in post #9330361
Even in the above examples I see slight glow (On that log in particular). Nice shots overall though.

That 'glow' was processed in - it's not a tonemapping artefact.