HDR: An Assault Upon the Senses

NaChase

NaChase

Well-known
Local time
4:55 PM
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
541
Location
Alamo, CA
View My Gallery
Suffice it to say, when I am appointed King of America (by heavenly mandate of course) I will make HDR a crime befitting capital punishment. Moreover, the sentence will be carried out by forcing the guilty party to shoot nothing but black and white, with no tripod and no auto anything. Also, and this should be the clincher, they will have no access to photoshop. The combined effect provided by these combined punishments should be enough to shock the accused to such an extent that they will quickly cast off this mortal coil.

"Justice divine doth smite them with its hammer"
-The Divine Comedy : Inferno : Canto XI by Dante Alighieri
 
Amen!

There are actually people going about- the young ones who were weaned on digital, and have pretty much a zero idea of how photography should be- who think that their photography is never complete until it's been HDR'ed.

That no image is no decent enough for exposition until its been photoshopped, plugged (as in plug in), or heavily processed...
 
I'm no fan of HDR abuse that is for sure. It does have it's uses.
Last week I had a architectural shoot of an outdoor stone garden for a brochure. The light was far too contrasty but, access to the sight (a private home) was limited to this time only. HDR was the only way to salvage an otherwise bad situation. It has it's uses but yes, can and has been abused. Are you purist saying that if Kodak or Fuji offered a film ( or sensor for that matter) with DR extended one stop in both directions you would never use it? Every generation has had their bag of tricks *** ***-ed. Why is that?
 
Nah, I am just being antagonistic. I just happened to be on flickr an hour or so ago and saw the most ridiculously ludicrous HDR shot I had ever seen. Moreover, people seem to eat that stuff up. It makes me question my faith in humanity... actually, let me recant, while not a purist per se, I am an aspiring purist.
 
In my opinion, HDR has done to photography what Thomas Kinkade did to painting; by which I mean, both have elevated the mediocre to the highest level of "art" through the mere application of unrealistic color saturation and editing or, in Kinkade's case, snowy cottages and cobblestoned streets.
 
Roger Hicks said:
HDR is great for the right shots.

It's just the other 99% or so (+/-1%) that are a problem.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree necessarily, but don't think I've seen the shot that I didn't think couldn't be mimicked (or mimicked but better) with adjustments in PS/LR/Aperture.
 
and, generally an affront to any reasonable aesthetic sensibility. however, to be fair, though it's usually overdone and done badly, occasionally someone with deft touch and light hand can use it for good. most often, not.
 
Carlos M said:
I can understand a dislike, but in what way are the 1% a "problem"?

Have you ever printed with multi-grade, using different grades while dodging and burning different parts of the image?
Click to expand...

Read it again. It's the 99% that constitutes the problem. Also, do the math. 99% +/- 1% is 98-100%.

Cheers,

R.
 
Not sure about the tarring and feathering being proposed, I think that should be reserved for those who selectively colour black and white images 🙂

More seriously, HDR is a technique with different levels of application, and whether I like the effect or not, arguing its right to exist makes one no better than those hardcore art folks who argue photography is not art.

Live and let live, man - is anyone forcing HDR on you ?
 
damien.murphy said:
Not sure about the tarring and feathering being proposed, I think that should be reserved for those who selectively colour black and white images 🙂

More seriously, HDR is a technique with different levels of application, and whether I like the effect or not, arguing its right to exist makes one no better than those hardcore art folks who argue photography is not art.

Live and let live, man - is anyone forcing HDR on you ?
Click to expand...
Dear Damien,

You don't like hand coloring? Never mind tar and feathers -- it's Marshalls Transparent Photo Oils and feathers for you, m'boy.

Cheers,

R.
 
Oh how I like to ask this: now what is HDR. Have no faintest idea, and I´m proud of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NaChase said:
In my opinion, HDR has done to photography what Thomas Kinkade did to painting; by which I mean, both have elevated the mediocre to the highest level of "art" through the mere application of unrealistic color saturation and editing or, in Kinkade's case, snowy cottages and cobblestoned streets.
Click to expand...

I used this exact example in a blog comment I made recently. A user of HDR asked, essentially, "if it's so bad, why do I sell so many prints that feature it". My response was "basically the average person likes pretty pictures ... take Thomas Kinkade ...".

Sales != Art (not that art is the only goal).
 
Here we go again...I think this thread is about its abuse and overuse of HDR, to my opinion.

Lets see what is the point of a HDR portrait?? It looks so ugly and people love it. ok it makes sense to use in backlight situations but what is the point of using it on everything!
 
NaChase said:
In my opinion, HDR has done to photography what Thomas Kinkade did to painting; by which I mean, both have elevated the mediocre to the highest level of "art" through the mere application of unrealistic color saturation and editing or, in Kinkade's case, snowy cottages and cobblestoned streets.
Click to expand...

Genius! Perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom