|
i agree. sometimes, a little bit makes the picture look nice, but when it's overdone and I can't tell what the image is anymore, then that becomes a problem.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The other thing that's bad when it's overdone is a topic.
www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=34427469792@N01&q=hdr...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So I'm supposed to go back in the archives a few years back even though I've been in the group only a short time? Obviously if the topic has been around that long people need to be reminded. And your sarcasm is noted.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
lamoustique edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I don't think Mugley was being sarcastic.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So I'm supposed to go back in the archives a few years back even though I've been in the group only a short time?
Perhaps using the handy 'search this group's discussions' box in th etop right hand corner?
Yes. Yes, you are. Why would you not?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Michael J Photography [deleted] says:
@lamoustique
Yeah 2 things here,
1) Yes you should realize that despite your awesomeness some topics are obvious and overdone, maybe you should try the what gear should I take with me on vacation subject or should I buy a Canon or Nikon topic..seriously there are search engines for a reason.
2) This is the MOST important thing you have obviously never heard....ART is in the EYE of the BEHOLDER..it is not for you nor anyone else to decide what is right or wrong and definitely not your call on how they perceive to use the tools.
Your arrogance is noted
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If it's OK for people to overdo HDR so darned much, it should be OK to overdo this topic too.
I think we need more topics where we remind people how gaudy and ugly HDR is in hopes of making everyone who wants to try it think twice.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't understand why you would care so much about how other people process their photos.
If someone's work doesn't meet your fine taste then don't look at it. Easy.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
**sasho edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Timothy Gray Photography [deleted] says:
Like most things in life, a little HDR goes a long way.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My favorite thing that Lamoustique said was "face it folks, most of you aren't artists..."
Wow, how do you go to a photographer's website and go to a forum and tell a group of people that they are not artists and that they should face that fact. So MOST of the people that use HDR aren't artists. According to Lamoustique.
I would go on about how lame that is, but I would hate for flickr to turn into myspace, and that's where this topic is going.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As the renowned photographer, Robert Frank once stated, "Photography is ART for lazy people." *wink* *wink*!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"overdone HDR" - tautology
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I though photography was art for people who can't draw!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've never heard of this HDR.
Does it involve kittens?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry I asked.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Personally I can draw and paint. So I must be in the lazy camp.
HDR is fine if you know how to use it. A bit like photoshop, or cameras, pencils or paintbrushes. Just another tool in the box.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@lamoustique - maybe I should start a topic about poorly cropped photos *COUGH COUGH*
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I though photography was art for people who can't draw!
That certainly applies to me. I can't draw, but I'm really good at pushing buttons. :D
HDR can certainly be overdone. It's overdone when it lacks any naturalness to it and it simply looks like colourvomit.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Dollymae Dagger wrote As the renowned photographer, Robert Frank once stated, "Photography is ART for lazy people. Are you kidding me?
After you carry 6 prime lenses in your backpack, with two megasized camera bodies, and the massive tripod, then you lug them on a 7.3 mile hike up a mountain to take a mega-sharp photo of a fuzzy (throw a cat against the sunset) concept... and you are calling photography lazy. WELL! Photography is stupid, but certainly not lazy people.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hot tip for enjoying Flickr: Get over what other people are doing.
Creativity does not belong only to those with “good taste” or even to those with talent. Exploring our creativity is one of the joys of living.
Don’t worry that HDR is somehow a threat to your way of seeing. It’s not.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
""overdone HDR" - tautology "
I disagree. There are a lot of HDR pics around you wouldn't event notice are HDR. There's definitely degrees.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey - I didn't say that!
I thing you meant to say...
""overdone HDR" - tautology "
I disagree. There are a lot of HDR pics around you wouldn't event notice are HDR. There's definitely degrees.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
mugley wrote The other thing that's bad when it's overdone is a topic. Actually, I am going to call bullshit on this :)
While it is true that you can have a nice efficiency of search and topics if people searched and continued the thread, I think it removes an element of human interaction to do that. I think starting a new topic is really more dynamic and serves us better. The site serves the human, not the other way around.
Of course, there are some topics that deserved to be searched and checked first: fact based topics, like "Can I connect my 200mm lens to my iPhone camera?" Sure, that is about a FAQ-like answer.
On the other hand, topics that are about opinion have a different dynamic each time they are started. The original poster will phrase the topic different than before, and so people read it in a different way and, although the topic is tired (Explore, HDR, kittens, etc.) new people joining the group, and many other factors will bring out different dynamics to the discussion -- sometimes called tangents.
There is no cost (storage, access, etc) associated with a new topic, so there are no economic reasons to revive the old one. So, really, the discussion forum -- at least with topics -- should be subverted to the needs of the (uninitiated? lazy? wtf?) user and not the other way around: this is not the Library of Congress.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
So while I agree that the "overdone" look of a lot of HDR photos on flickr are nauseating, I think that why it looks bad is generally misunderstood. Its our monitors. They are incapable of displaying the gamut of colors that are rendered in most HDR images, and the resulting display is terrible. Well, terrible in some people's opinions.
Most people that make HDR photos do not tonemap them and bring the colors displayed down so that it looks more natural, yet has the appearance of more dynamic range.
There is a lot of very tasteful HDR out there, but I certainly do not like the 'overdone' effect. Knowing why it looks like that might hopefully help some people from doing it in the future!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ooops!
Sorry - a bit trigger happy with the icon reply button there. :p
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Actually the horrible ones are over-tonemapped and lack dynamic range. But that's been covered a million times in a million HDR groups...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Lamoustique: "So I'm supposed to go back in the archives a few years back even though I've been in the group only a short time?"
Yes. It's good web-etiquette, but it's easily overlooked on occasion.
Maybe you could start an Explore topic next. Haven't had on of those of 5 mins.
Actually, to be fair, the one unique starting point for this version of the discussion (I think that it's unique anyway - can't be bothered to search and check for sure) is that it acknowledges there are degrees and that it is the overdoing of HDR, as with anything, is actually the problem.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ ~ fernando -- You wrote:
Of course, there are some topics that deserved to be searched and checked first: fact based topics, like "Can I connect my 200mm lens to my iPhone camera?" Sure, that is about a FAQ-like answer.
And the answer to this, thanks to my magical shrink-ray, is a resounding YES:
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That seems like a fair chunk of work for a gag.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
See... now we can flame whoever posts a new topic that does not search for this photo in this discussion. Oh noes, what if the lens is Nikon? Then I guess we get a new topic. Dang.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nikon lenses mount to BlackBerrys. I thought everyone knew this. Search the archives next time. heh
And @ AnthonyGibbons: It's actually a rather old image -- not something I created just for this thread. Blame it on a boring, rainy afternoon. Some people do puzzles. ; )
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes, I agree it can be overdone. I have seen some HDR photos that definitely would have looked spectular in it's original form.
When I saw the first HDR image it was a novelty so I thought "nice". Now there are very few HDR images that I feel look nice. It's probably a result effect of what this topic is about. It's overdone.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
oh right... nikon/blackberry/PC/east-coast-rap vs. canon/iPhone/Mac/west-coast-rap... amazing the fundamentals that can be forgotten in the heat of an HDR discussion.
(glad that I could set you up for pimping your old photo ;)
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
@3rd Eye Studios
"2) This is the MOST important thing you have obviously never heard....ART is in the EYE of the BEHOLDER..it is not for you nor anyone else to decide what is right or wrong and definitely not your call on how they perceive to use the tools.
Your arrogance is noted "
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, yet art doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful. The debate over what constitutes art has raged on since classical times, with no satisfactory consensus reached.
On one hand you're saying that art is matter of perception, but on the other hand you are saying it is arrogant and wrong to hold an opinion on what someone purports to be art. This seems somewhat paradoxical?
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
stevie.gill edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Michael J Photography [deleted] says:
@stevie
Its not about his opinion of the tool but his hard lined approach in saying that they are not artists and they have no idea how to use the tools they have.
Certainly if some guy flings his poo at a canvas and calls it art that is his opinion and there will be people who get it, and those who will not. I cannot walk up to him and others like him in a room and scream out...your not artists your just poo slinging morons...what is art to some is garbage to others, and certainly if its beautiful or art its still in the eye of the beholder and certainly no one person has the right to call everyone in a group of like-minded individuals wrong and un-artistic.
Simply stated a hard line approach is narrow minded and will always cause furry and contempt, it is no different then if he walked into the Flickr forums and said all gay photographers suck at photography and have no idea what they are doing and should stop doing it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the simple solution is knives and pipes in a locked broom closet, knives for purists, pipes for HDRists. We can settle all of this in like 5-6 minutes and go to the bar. We can take our cameras and laptops and take pictures if we see anything interesting, and then load them onto flickr using free wifi.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Jeff Prutzman/Arrested Development Photography edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
@ ~ fernando -
There is a cost to starting a new topic. Having one topic split across many discussions means that people who follow the rules and search before posting have to spend more time reading through all those discussions.
And if you're going to define things in terms of costs, might as well look at benefits as well. Someone who does a search might read the old posts and realise the amount of pointless arguing that is generated by a discussion on overdone HDR, and thus decide against starting the cycle of arguments again.
It's fine to call bullshit, but the bottom line is that the rules of the group say to do a search before posting a new topic.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey, may I change the subject?......how do you get on ...Explore.....
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I respect Flickr photographers, and write articles on
fine art HDR for Apogee Magazine online. Here is one of them, featuring brilliant work in photography, using HDR, by Flickr members.
www.apogeephoto.com/feb2007/jaustin22007_1.shtml
Michelle (Lamoustique) Nature is more beautiful the way it is" is a huge yawn, and that same tired argument reminds me of what the Catholic Church said about the nature of the universe before Brache, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Gallileo, Einstein, and Hawking showed us the facts.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Jimages Digital edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Oh boy.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Truethat this topic is overdone, but so is HDR,and a valid point is brought up.
Many people kill their great photos with HDR. And while it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, most beholder would probably agree that HDR can very often kill a shot.
It should be used as an enhancement tool, not a transformation tool.
ChrisG
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'd like to see an HDR of the "grassy knoll"
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey Zuiun...does that make the 200mm lens equivalent to..well roughly the HUBBLE telescope because of the crop factor? :-))
Oh and on topic...I don't like "overdone" HDR either but that's kinda like saying I don't like Lichtenstein or Kandynsky because they are overdone and not photo-realistic. I don't like Lichtenstein or Kandynsky much because I just don't like them much - I can still appreciate the art & talent in them though.
If you don't like it then don't look at it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
No doubt that it is good to search for topics and see if it has been discussed before. However, given the norm of behaviour on flickr, which is mostly "I can't be bothered," I presume that searches will be more about checking the last couple of pages of activities. So, to consider the benefit, it should not be skewed to those that do searches, but the nominal use by all users.
Another cost/benefit would be the lightening of the load for admins, but one live thread about a topic, new or resuscitated, does not make a difference to monitor. It seems that two pages of topics is about how busy it gets here... that is not too bad.
In this case, searching for "overuse, hdr, fad" turns up one discussion -- this one, which I guess was the slant of the original poster. Even google is not that good at making good search rankings based on subjective topics given a small set of keywords. To rely on such search technology has its problem and sever limitation but for "dry" topics.
In my opinion, it is best to foster discussion rather than stifle it by "discouraging" a topic that has been discussed extensively or over-exposed. After all, that is a relative term... one person's over-exposure, it may be another person's enthusiastic new topic. Seeing 227 topics by searching "HDR"-only would not make someone look through them to see if the topic has been discussed to their satisfaction.
However, my main point is that the more subjective a topic, which is likely to be over-discussed, is not "neatly" filed in previous topics. That works for new groups announcements and other simple, mundane, or routine topics (e.g., looking at the photo of the person above you, etc.). It is very difficult from a search to determine if a subjective topic has been discussed the way someone would like to discuss it. Again, why stifle a discussion?
As for it being a rule... if the over-exposed topic is such a egregious violation, this thread would have been closed under the rules, or deleted. I am sure on the next HDR topic, there can be a tangent... most certainly you are aware of the over-exposure and avoid clicking on it. Nothing wrong with others feeling like they can participate... or there would be only one HDR topic in the archives.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
~ fernando edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Oh, for only one HDR topic in the archives.
You don't need such a precise search. Just type in "hdr". Most discussions it brings up wander into "overdone" territory. The third hit in the search is pretty much the same as this discussion - and even features Brock suggesting a search on previous topics.
Nobody's suggesting any "stifling" of discussion. It just might be a good idea to spend that whole two minutes on a search and see if one's Great Insightful Observation has been made before. If it hasn't, but a similar discussion exists, add to it and make it easier for future readers to locate all the relevant discussion in one place. Even if the point has been made before but one's awesomeness requires it be made again, use the existing topic and save everyone else from having to regurgitate the same old arguments.
It's not rocket surgery, it's just ordinary good netiquette. And regardless of the methods of enforcement, it's the rules.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Uhoh.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Rhys Davies Photography -- you wrote:
Hey Zuiun...does that make the 200mm lens equivalent to..well roughly the HUBBLE telescope because of the crop factor? :-))
Well, they *are* set to retire the Hubble before too long. A replacement is in order. ; )
But to get back on topic, this thread started with the comment:
"One fad that I hope will die away is __________."
I left out that last part because, really, I think you could insert a LOT of things in there. HDR. Lomo. Poorly composed, poorly lit, boring snapshots. Cats. Legos. Goofy self portraits. Shots of new gear (or "unboxing" shots). Et cetera...
But what really interests me is why someone has such a sense of entitlement and self importance as to feel that they ought to dictate what others do with their photos. Regardless of what techniques or subject matters happen to be hot at any given time, there are always going to be good examples and bad examples of photography out there. Furthermore, with the growing popularity of the hobby, there will always be people out there who are perfectly happy with the images they take/make, regardless of whether or not said images offend the aesthetic sensibilities of anyone else.
Get over it. Go out and take photos.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
But what really interests me is why someone has such a sense of entitlement and self importance as to feel that they ought to dictate what others do with their photos.
What really interests me is why someone has such a sense of entitlement and self importance as to feel that they ought to dictate what opinions others are allowed to express.
Get over it. Go out and take photos.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
mugley wrote And regardless of the methods of enforcement, it's the rules. Sure, but I hope people use them as a guidance... much like speed limits, and "slower traffic keep right," which I guess you must also obey as good road-etiquette. Everyone, somewhere, will not follow rules, and not even laws.
Jim Skea wrote Go out and take photos. I am intrigued by Kertész work with Polaroids all inside his home. I wonder if he would not have done that, had he had internet access.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Jim Skea -- you wrote:
What really interests me is why someone has such a sense of entitlement and self importance as to feel that they ought to dictate what opinions others are allowed to express.
And what further interests me is why someone is so full of themselves as to not be able to tell the difference between someone expressing an opinion of what they don't like and trying to dictate to people what they can and can't do with their photos (or further, who has the audacity to to make a blanket claim that "most people" doing HDR are "not artists"). Seems to pass beyond the boundaries of merely expressing opinion, dontcha think? ; P
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You know what flickr trend I don't like? Photographs. Seriously. Stop taking photos people! You're not photographers. Stop pretending to be. If everyone stopped taking and posting photographs on flickr, it would be a much better place in my opinion.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I like oreos with milk.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
erin :] [deleted] says:
i'm inclined to agree however i don't think it's necessary to put people down about it.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If any of you actually meet and get in a big fight, be sure to tonemap your photos of the event so that they look like broken TV images....
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I took a picture of an HDR once.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
: Can a HDR be overdone? For my own taste, yes, some can be overdone. For other's people's taste, answers may differ. In fact, there's no right answer in this topic.
That being said, and after having browsed through the first 12 pages or so of your stream (mostly bird, flower, cats and such), one question came to my mind: Have you even tried making a HDR image at all? I mean, can you give us an example of what you may call an "OK" HDR processed picture from your own collection of image?
I might be wrong on this. There's a pattern I often encounter when I browse through "complaints on art form" topics such as this one: The one complaining are those who are unable to create those said art form for any given reason, or has tried it once with unsuccessful result and then decided to call this crap and rant about it.
Like I said, I might be wrong... but...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Everytime someone uploads an HDR image, terrorists kill a hostage. And that's a fact.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Check please!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So most of the world is dead and I'm seeing zombies in the street, and all that is HDR's fault
People who say "if you don't like it, look away" please shut it. If you look away from every single thing you don't like, then USA=China, Michael Jackson invite more kids to his mansions, and Canon whistle away from oil-lubbing their whole mirror boxes. We as an audience of photography are simply demanding what we like. Artists (for the most part) need their audience, so take note.
So those who actually have reasons to support or not to support overdoing HDR keep at it. Those idiots who say "if you don't like it, look away", go to China, you'll love it there!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love these it's always an interesting 45 seconds of reading.
While it is a topic that seems to come up too often, at least it wasn't one of the following:
- Post 1 Comment 10 groups: Why?
- I'm so sick of these "look at the photostream above you and pick your favorite" groups because they make me cry and kills discussions!
- Everybody who does HDR sucks.
... OH, wait, sorry for the third one. That's what this thread is about, right?
Half way through it, that point seems to get lost.
Easy solution: Don't feed trolls. :)
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
RyshardAntonio edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
So lamoustique never came back to face the controversy that she generated - that's a shame...
Found this interesting remark in her profile:
"A kind Flickr member gave me f advice on how to improve my pictures and my views, and for that I am grateful."
Improve views huh?...oh dear
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Can I start topic on how much I like overdone HDR's? They rock!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And what, pray tell, on a photo sharing site, is wrong with wanting to improve (increase?) views?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yes.. HDRs are nearly as bad..... as "photographers" who take nearly every shot with the subject in the dead center of the frame.....
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
ACreepingMalaise edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
@John: Why would anyone want to improve views? to increase their non-existent ratings?! Sure we want the world to see our work but using techniques to intentionally increase traffic seems odd to me...I have suffered at the hands of people who want to increase viewings and it usually takes the form of being added as a contact for the sake of it, silly comments with animated gifs attached and "cum c my pics" messages etc...all very childish/Facebookish and not what this site is about...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Hyaground:
I'm reading "improve" as "increase". Maybe I'm wrong.
I agree that some methods of generating views might be described as less than tasteful.
What I'm saying though, is that views in themselves are a good thing!
I'd much rather that a photo had ten views rather than zero, or a hundred rather than ten.
And yes, I know that views are not necessarily an indicator of quality, and can be as much a result of "marketing".
In terms of "what this site is about", there are many different types of users who use the site in multiple ways.
I guess conflict occurs when their paths cross, but I don't think that some users are "superior" to others*, just because they use the site differently.
*(Apart, of course, from the clear inferiority of those posting shots of flowers and pets!).
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@hyaground - "and not what this site is about..."
"or maybe they want to show off their best pictures or video to the whole world in a bid for web celebrity." is actually stated under the first of Flickrs two goals....
so I guess it technically IS what this site is about. :)
I think it is better to stick to personal attacks and pointing out the inadequacies of others than to begin to assume we have a grasp of what things are all about.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I believe some HDR is overdone, I especially think every photo does not need to be HDR'd, why can't a photo be just a photo? There, my spewing is done, and I feel much better. Carry on...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
One person's rare hamburger is another person's well done.
Not that I'd ever say "well done" to some HDR.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I did a quick scan of the replies to this topic and I was so happy to see the reaction!
Just about to cross my 1st year of photography and this topic has been everywhere I look!!! ---- it is dam played out ..
Not going to bother with my opinion of your response as it is non logical.
In any other art form out there a person should be taking any creative disciplines they have or are discovering about themselves and injecting it into their work, many like yourself seem to think that "you" know the rules of the art form of digital photography.
This is a digital era, hence you have a digital device in your hand, you are free to grow with your tool as much as you want or as little AS does any one else out there who wishes to explore this art.
Those traditional purists out there, quit trying to fit this explosive digital era of photography into a little tiny wooden box maintaining some fictious level of purity. (yeah yeah filters etc its all manipulation)
-Marc
And to the comment I hope this fade goes away? How will it everything yoi have seen in the movies/tv is heavily edited thats why it looks so GOOD; if you want ALL of your shots to have a high calibre look too then your going to need to edit. (like the big boys have ALWAYS done)
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
·The Oracle· edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
How will it everything yoi have seen in the movies/tv is heavily edited thats why it looks so GOOD; if you want ALL of your shots to have a high calibre look too then your going to need to edit. (
Actually, most movies look good because they have good lighting equipment. Have you ever been on a movie set?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ah, and people who work on movies know how to use their tools well because they're going to lose a hell of a lot of money if they don't.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I bought a new mp3 player....
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For those people who don't like HDR then don't look at the pictures :)
I HATE country music....I don't listen to it, and I certainly don't go bitching to others about it....and yes some people may say
"but Clyde open your mind, you don't know what your missing"....I say "its fine I am too busy making HDR's!!"
If anyone is interested look at my HDR's you know where to find me...rather subtle I think :)
Clyde
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
rather subtle I think :)
I don't.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ahhh poor baby Fletch, sense of humour bypass coming right up. Never mind you can't please everyone..and I guess you missed the general consesus of the thread :)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Errr! I think you have been using that slider on more than your photos.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Overdone HDR = a turd sandwich.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sure, art is in the eye of the beholder. And some people think Britney is a great artist.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i love HDR, i love how unnatural it makes everything look, i love how half the pictures on flickr are made in this fashion(sarcasm). at this point im calling it spam, so overdone and soo not appealing and wayy too common
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
this topic is becoming stale now so im bailing out - overdone HDR is tacky and tasteless IMO and no longer represents a photo but a 'work of art' like a painting for example...im off to the cafe for a milkshake and doughnuts - anyone care to join me? (we can find someone else to slag off while we are there *evil laugh*)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is a nonsensical post. If beauty lies in the eye of the beholder how can you possibly be the authority of what makes a HDR photo "overdone"? It's simply art that you happen not to appreciate.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
phil-jackson edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
one fad i hope passes is : people that haven't any experience in photography with a point and shoot camera criticizing the merits of another's work . i have some f advice for the op . take a photo class .
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Its pretty easy to put a technical view on what is an 'overdone' HDR beyond what could be concidered a realistic opinion for someone to have. Highly visible halos for example and very low contrast. Beyond that taste dictates what and individual may like or dislike but there is still a limit.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Flet©h edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I believe we're all adults here. Are we not?? Stop playing bully like you're in elementary school. Flickr is a place where everyone can post anything they want. If you don't like it, don't look. Make better use of your time by making your photography better. Some of you complaining about poor HDR certainly do not have "artistic" photos posted, nor anything interesting (and I'm not saying I do either. Just an observation.). Back off from everyone else, and move on.
An Admin/Mod should just close this thread because of the stupid-human factor. Grow up, kids.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're wrong I'm afraid. What governs an overdone HDR is subjective and therefore is not a "technical" matter.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lamoustique Pro User says:
One fad that I hope will die away is the overuse of HDR. HDR can be cool, but most people overuse it and really ruin a great shot with it.
Everything looks like a sleazy backlit 3D shrine. Pure Delboy & Rodney.
For suckers who will buy anything with varnish on.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
But how can I be wrong? It is my opinion and I thought all opinions were equally valid.
Anyway I think there is a definate point at which a HDR image ceases to become 'bad' in a subjective way and is just bad. Try this search as an example.
www.flickr.com/search/?q=hdr+halo&ss=2&s=int
There are some examples which are technically good, despite a very HDR look which some may like, there are other examples which are just really badly done.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Flet©h edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
has anyone seen the coffee and donuts? we could use some "lightening up"...:-))
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I got Pepsi and popcorn, will that do? ;-))
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Works for me.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Why do I imagine that most people who do over the top HDR have their lounge walls covered with Thomas Kinkade prints?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Jim Skea I totally agree. Way unnatural.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why does photography have to be "natural"? I find the imagination of photographers like CammyJams(sorry, not worked out how to link his photostream) inspirational. I wouldn't do what he does to my own images, but at least he shows some imagination and effort in his work.
Overdone HDR can work very well with some images to my eyes. Personally I don't find a grainy psuedo film, B&W, arty farty shot of a homeless man sheltering from the rain in a shop doorway, shot with a 10mm wide angle lens, the least bit interesting to look at.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Nonac_Digi edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
As eluded to earlier, it's in the eye of the beholder. If HDR looks like a color postcard from 1930, it's way out of line to me but there are those who like that stuff.
Some of the newer DSLR's with built-in HRD abilities; I say HDR does have its good points or they wouldn't add it.
Case in point, look at pics from the soon to be released Pentax K7.
(I've seen a few camera based HDR shots but can't remember where.)
www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-7/?ef_id=1780:1:9c4be91b50c1c...
www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/61786-pent...
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&messag...
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
George E. Norkus edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I think the majority of HDR is like the tone deaf people in American Idol that think they can sing. Just because you move a couple of sliders too far to the left or right in Photomatix won't turn your photo into "art". Just looks like a bad acid trip or something. If you like your overdone hdr then fine, whatever. I've seen some really good ones, but for the most part I think they're eyesores.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
,
I don't know, why would you arbitrarily group the fantastic diversity of folks doing extreme HDR into one group? Very few artists whether straight photogs, HDR folk or what have you ever reach a true state of artistic greatness.
Mark my words, there will be HDR practitioners who will qualify as great artists, though there will be those who argue (like they always do for photography, ceramics, etc) that it's craft and not art. That said, I have absolutely no doubt we will see a "great" artist become known as great by the history books for their HDR work. And I don't mean great in the Kinkadian commercial viability sense. I am positive that since HDR is essentially just another paintbrush/tool that someone will paint brilliance with that brush (imho some already have).
And really, it shouldn't be a surprise that the most famous current HDR work is more pop art than fine art, after all that's how it became so widespread and fell into your inbox for criticism. Look to the margins for the more interesting extreme HDR stuff and maybe dial back on the stereotypes a bit. It wasn't the brushes the masters used that made them great and it's not the camera or technology that makes a photographer great. It's more about creativity and vision.
I wonder if when pastels were invented if people thought it was somehow cheap, heh. Anyone care to reminisce about back when many/most critics claimed color photography will never qualify as fine art? That color stuff is just too garish and saccharine! And if I see one more picture of X (insert favorite hated subject here: cats, bokeh, water droplets, etc).... ;-)))
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
~ fernando [deleted] says:
Fort Photo wrote Mark my words, there will be HDR practitioners who will qualify as great artists So it can go the way of The Velvet Underground, or the way of George W Bush (being vindicated in 50 years time)?
In the case of the Velvets, there was no incompetence involved and an emotional component that influenced a lot of bands. In the case of GWB, I think incompetence will keep him from that redemption in whatever date he has set for his reckoning.
So, then, it may be simply to ask if (extreme? HDRxt?) HDR practioners are competent in the art, and will survive the current ridicule, or there is no way saving them (like so many other trends). In the words of the OP: is this faddish? yep.
Fort Photo wrote Anyone care to reminisce about back when many/most critics claimed color photography will never qualify as fine art? That color stuff is just too garish and saccharine! I don't see the relevance of this to HDR... not all new trends will go through that kind of fundamental shift. Meaning, BW to colour was a fundamental shift, while HDRxt does not seem to draw the masses, nor is it a fundamental shift.
In printing, there are some equivalent... you can find bromoil printing or daguerreotype to be on the fringes of tastes. These were alternative techniques while something more resilient and consistent came along. It looks unreal, and it has retained an appeal, but it is in the fringes. Perhaps because these have a closer link to painting, they have survived and remain appealing in the art world. I am not sure what HDRxt has to cling for being more than faddish. (Nothing wrong with being a fan/practicioner, craftsman/artist of it.)
there will always be naysayers, and those that are trying to save their rigid point of view. However, that does not mean that every fad warrants a comparison to previous debates about fine art vs. not so fine art. It seems this is more destined for the Canon vs. Nikon dustbin.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So it can go the way of The Velvet Underground, or the way of George W Bush (being vindicated in 50 years time)?
So what you are saying is in 50 years people will look at HDR as the worst thing ever and wonder how the hell anyone ever started and used such a stupid and destructive program?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
I don't understand why you would care so much about how other people process their photos.
""overdone HDR" - tautology "
""overdone HDR" - tautology "
: Can a HDR be overdone? For my own taste, yes, some can be overdone. For other's people's taste, answers may differ. In fact, there's no right answer in this topic.
I got Pepsi and popcorn, will that do? ;-))
,
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
