What They’re Not Telling You About HDR Images

I dont know if this was posted already but i found it pretty interesting and figured i would share.

Enjoy

http://www.scottkelby.​com/blog/2010/archives​/10746/

Sounds like he's in about the same place I've been over HDR...

There's nothing wrong with blending exposures to capture the entire DR in a scene but the over the top "tone mapped" images get old quick.

Who is "they" in this situation?

Kirk

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10360224
Sounds like he's in about the same place I've been over HDR...

There's nothing wrong with blending exposures to capture the entire DR in a scene but the over the top "tone mapped" images get old quick.

Agreed. However, if done right, HDR images can look rather nice. And to reiterate the point "It can get old quick".

Some thoughts:

He must run with a different crowd than I. The graphic directors that I've worked with won't accept HDR's. Some may like them personally, but say that readership reaction shows they're not liked. Isn't that "readership" the same "non-photography" people kelby writes about? Puzzling.

Some gallery managers hate them. When shown one of the "over the top" shots, their reactions are so strong you'd think you had shown them a macro of a turd in a toilet.

As a side note, he writes about shooting a 5-image set. I don't understand the Canon 3-shot bracket limit. People have voiced their desire for change for years, but they don't respond.

Without any doubt, kelby is a photoshop genius. But when he writes about photography, I now treat anything he authors with a tad of cynicism. A few years ago I read a photography book by him which contained some ideas that were so asinine you would think Ken Rockwell had written them.

And, of course, there's always the question of motivation. I prefer to always give people the benefit of the doubt, but Kelby does need to market his hdr books, dvd's, etc.