 |
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ [deleted] says:
yawn
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR is the future for untalented hacks who need tricks to make their work somehow stand out. Unfortunately, the effect is vomit inducing and lets face it, anyone who makes HDRs is in the 2 digit IQ range.
Where does that leave you, apart from making people vomit? Oh, and it takes a real coward to come in here under an anonymous nickname.
But lets put this to the test. Point us to ONE major publication or online publication that has published HDR. One magazine, give the link.
Because we all know, if you submitted HDR to any serious magazine, online or print you would get nothing but laughter. Nobody will ever accept it because it is ugly, garish and tacky, and as I said vomit inducing.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
but a powerful one that will gradually be employed by most if not all photographers.
You people remind me of the last film guys stuck in the desert with their exposed boxes of Kodak without any chemicals to process them with.
HDR IS the FUTURE of photography and street photography for that matter.
street photography has yet to really break into the art world
Street photography just doesn't have the complex multiple layers and nuances that other genres of photography can offer.
This is really very funny, and gave me quite a giggle this rainy Sunday morning
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
best post ever.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you think street photographers practice what they do to make a fast buck I'm afraid you are sadly deluded. Yes most of us would like to sell our pictures for thousands of dollars but realize that is most unlikely to happen. Apparently there is more to life than fame and riches.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
there's no way i can learn hdr, it's too complicated, i may as well throw away my cameras now.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Like it or hate it, HDR IS the FUTURE of photography"
with you're same crystal ball, couldn't you have looked to see if we give a shit?
I don't understand why you're being so defensive? photography is subjective and you should realise that some people just aren't ever going to like what you are doing.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@dontbuyit: answer them please! I love these threads...
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
RafaAlcacer edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
could you stand by your opinion by at least putting some profile details up.
otherwise it just feels like stirring for the sake of it.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
An eloquent troll, but a troll nevertheless.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
People who love HDR definetly have a soft spot for Bob Ross. no doubt about that.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm convinced this is a wind up now, come on whoever it is, step up and receive your merit for giving us a good laugh.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I guess that as far as you can shoot three frames at 1/2000 with mirror lock you could do hdr on the run on the street, is that the technology you're talking about?
maybe the author of the thread is slightly confused on what hdr is used for
anyway, great thread
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
At a guess Joni I'd assume they are referring to tone mapped images, rather than merged exposures which are perfectly fine if done to appear natural.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This could have promise...
www.flickr.com/groups/lowdynamicrange/
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't think true HDR would ever be possible with street... there is no way you can take 3 seperately exposed images and have stuff stay the same in street (unlike landscape and boats on beaches cars and all the usual shite).
what is the problem with shadows anyway. I like them
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ben: since when does tonemapping count as hdr? it doesn't have any hdr to start with! it's more like compression in cd tracks
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can confirm Posey is not controller of that troll.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Joni, that's the point, most people who think they are prducing HDR images aint.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I guess we can ditch nan goldin's slides... what a narrow range they had!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nan Goldin's work is nothing next to HDR'ed boats, bicycles, sunsets or glasses with beer.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What the fuck is HDR?!?!?!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The H must stand for hideous, D for dumb, R for rubbish
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
This is the same old boring argument about "HDR done right". The point is always that HDR techniques can be a great tool to surpass the limitations of digital sensors, blablabla...
Of course it can. But the fact is that the term "HDR photography" is used to describe a very specific kind of photography which, coincidentally, will make everyone with half a brain want to vomit his/her eyes out. "HDR photgraphy" simply does not include every single photograph for which bracketed exposures have been used to slightly expand the dynamic range. Not everyone who uses HDR techniques produces HDR photography. Just as not everyone who shoots on the streets produces street photography.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I like some of Gursky's ridiculously overpriced images. The 99 Cent Diptych is completely shite though.
I thought the point of HDR was to remove blown out highlights, not make them worse.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
Arty Smokes (deaf mute) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Not that I'm a big Gursky fan but I suspect his prints look slightly better in real life than as 650 pixel-wide jpegs.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How does that Gursky guy get his pics to exhibitions, etc.? I have never seen a poster tube that big.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Funny, I just saw the Art: 21 Episode with Sally Mann and she was still using wet plates. Apparently she didn't get the HDR memo.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
dontbuyit "So, Arty, as a starting point for you into your initiation into the art world..."
Hahahahaha. I had a look in www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/discuss/ and didn't see any discussions about art, artists or even famous photographers, like we have in HCSP. The HDR group is all about computer software, namely Photomatix and HDR Darkroom.
Ironically, one of the most beloved proponents of HDR techniques has (almost) the same name as me. www.flickr.com/photos/artiephotography/
He says on his profile "I have been in IT ever since I graduated from University... I have only became interested in photography since 2003... I've been into DSLR photography for around 9 mths at this point in time :) I've to truly admit now that i'm totally obsessed with HDR photography/processing :D in fact can't stop imagining of how everything will look in HDR everytime i see a subject... I am still an amateur photographer".
Like I said, the HDR group is full of computer geeks, not artists. HCSP contains people who not only have knowledge of the history of photography, but are also up to date with current trends. We read books and visit galleries to see not only the classics, but also the new stuff.
You only have to see the "books" and "films to see" threads to realise that HCSP members have a keen interest in art. The HDR group does not. They have a keen interest in computer software.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR actually *is* the future, but not as we know it today. We need better image container formats (not JPEG, but perhaps JPEG XR), better monitors (not 6-bits per channel as most of today's LCDs are, not 8 bits as today's display cards, but 10-bits or more) and also 10-bits or more display modes at the operating system level, then we'll all enjoy High Dynamic Range over the whole path from camera sensor to image file to display adapter to monitor and printer and we'll live happy without banding artefacts in sky gradients, with less blocked shadows and less blown highlights etc. Just allow a year or two and it will all come together.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Acrylic: the future of painting?
...that's not fair, of course: some artists have done good work with acrylic. Not so HDR.
edit: it's interesting that some people seek technological justification for their tastes. Like technological equipment "proves" that liking a particular thing is the "right" choice. Such a strange mindset, like the Futurist movement aligning itself with Mussolini. Why did 1930's technology necessarily mean that that nutbag's government must be "the future"? In retrospect, it's a joke, of course. A total non sequitur.
also, not to be too high-minded here: HDR looks like poop.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
krameroneill edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
@Axel: you sort of remind me that those things don't happen if you work on analogue... maybe fully analogue is the future?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Dr Karanka: what is analog in digital photography and computer imaging, besides the individual camera sensor cells and the individual monitor LEDs? Everything in between (the "data path") is digital and subject to bit depth constrains and dynamic range truncation.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Subtlety is the key to good HDR:
www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/03/10/35-fantastic-hdr-pict...
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"what is analog in digital photography "
erm... the fucking thing you capture.... LIGHT!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Paul: I hope you're kidding
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
wait, isn't light quantic and therefore... ugh, like bits and such?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
PS: I've never seen a good HDR image... never... ever.
maybe i've seen good photographs where HDR or it's techniques were used, but it wasn't something the photographer went on about.
that's what pisses me off with things like this... it's all about the software, the cameras, the technique and not the end results.
I've been to a load of fairs today where a few photographers had stalls and I honestly couldn't bring myself to look through that boring landscape HDR shite... it's dull and it's coming to a time where not fucking up your images actually makes your photography seem a little more unique.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dr Karanka ye, and digital sensors work more like analogue than film which work more like digital.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Rafmad. Yes.
I just like the way those were examples chosen where it had been "Applied carefully".
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>"what is analog in digital photography "
>erm... the fucking thing you capture.... LIGHT!
Wow, a genius just spoke. And how light gets captured by digital cameras?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR's been on the BBC. It must be credible...
...musn't it?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR must be the best thing that has happened to CAS.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Axel Rietschin are you asking questions or being an arse?
this is so boring. are all people who love hdr as boring as this? genuine question.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
More to the point, why are they making posts in a street photography group? Are they trying to enlighten us?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think the problem is that we don't just talk about street photography so we become a bit of a victim group for attacks from everywhere!
seriously tho, why give a fuck if some random people on the internet don't like what your doing? and why try and convert them... maybe hdr is some crazy cult?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think they don't like us flagging their submissions and ridiculing them. Why don't they just go in their own groups and start a new thread and ridicule anyone who has deep black shadows and overexposed highlights.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Here's a "subtle" HDR image that almost counts as street photography. It's still too gaudy, but I can definitely imagine this sort of thing becoming more common. (If only the bottom half had been left "natural".)
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
Arty Smokes (deaf mute) edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
yebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobut
yebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobutyebutnobutyebutno
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
it just looks like tonemapped / oversharpened / oversaturated all at the same time in terms of processing to me... not actually the smooth gradient of light levels that you'd expect of hdr
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
it's not hdr... it's probably mapped from the same raw file (different exposures from it). that's not increasing any dynamic range just bringing out what was there... you could get a better result with dodging and burning... or different levels when hand printing film etc...
or you know... you could just keep the shadows? shadows are nice.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Paul Russell99: oooh! that one of the eye with all but the iris in black in white is just wow...
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
super ape edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
@Arty
sorry, that photo is still crap, what's your point?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
...and the SlapChop© is the future of cooking. Analog knives are a waste of time. Adapt or be left behind.
Gursky has one. In fact, he ordered in the 20 minute window, because you know Vince can't offer it all day, and in fact has two.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Gary, I actually had one of those, but it took longer to clean than chopping with a knife and then wiping it clean.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Vince lied to us?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No i'm just shit at washing.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
this appears to be getting a bit cyclical
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
wow, vince is cool
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Oh my...
Please, before this thread is locked, tell me, someone, anyone, why can't a person who believes in something so strongly pose an argument using their real identity instead of hiding behind their troll? It's not like we're the gestapo. This is a discussion about art (or arty) for god sakes... and nothing more.
edited: for much needed clarity.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
WAXY: "why can't a person who believes in something so strongly have an argument with a real identity?"
I don't know, WAXY ;-)
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
Dr Karanka edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
Hah. Maybe I should edit that. :)
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR is unsuitable for street shots as it requires a tripoded camera and multiple shots of a still scene. Most street photography deals with moving subjects.
It's easy enough to obtain a desired exposure in camera anyway. Achieving results in camera is what photography is about in the first place, techniques such as HDR move things into the digital art realm which makes everything look a lot more fake.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
_barb_ edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
From what I've seen, most people doing HDR on Flickr are using one photograph that is tone mapped into three or five versions which are then combined using automated software; it's more like a simulated HDR accomplished using the help of a mindless robot. It's hardly art and is certainly not creative. When overdone, which is often the case, these tone mappings yield halos. Then, in the believe that more is better, users ramp up the saturation. This combine effect of tonal range and colour doesn't look real, or even hyper-real -- but more like a tai dai t-shirt on shrooms!
One of the only HDR'ish photographers whose imagery looks OK to me is Scott McFarland. But in his case, he uses numerous photographs and then combines them using digital manipulation, which inserts the element of time into a still photograph. I'm not in love with the images but I think the concept is good and they are certainly better than the stuff of dontbuyit:
You can read about McFarland's work by clicking on the link.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ [deleted] says:
I've done some research and found guy named Jim Austin ( it might be him, but I am not 100 % sure - www.flickr.com/photos/jimaustin/ )
''Composing high dynamic range (HDR) photographs is like conducting an orchestra with the settings as the individual musicians. Cue the right notes, at the right time, and silence all the other players. Success lies both in the cuing and the silencing. Think of a well-composed HDR photograph as a Symphonic Moment.''
www.apogeephoto.com/sept2009/jaustin92009.html
and apparently it's not a joke
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@James Dodd: Axel Rietschin are you asking questions or being an arse?
I just adapt to my interlocutor and you obviously did not understand my first post. The dynamic range that can be captured is a function of the capturing device or media and, like it or not, this particular characteristic is improving all the time with DSLRs. Some of today's cameras capture more dynamic and tonal gradations that what can be stored in current image formats and displayed on current monitors, but I now understand that those considerations are too abstract for you. That's okay, though. Be stubborn and stick with your idea of "HDR" as a 3-frames post-processing trick if you like, this is *not* was I was talking about.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ [deleted] says:
hdr art with one click - sweet
www.flickr.com/groups/single_jpg_hdr/discuss/721576049703...
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This isn't closed yet? Good, it's hilarious.
Also, I've seen shots (from people in here) where I looked at the thumbnail and thought "Who the hell is a contact of mine that made that obviously HDR'd image?" Then I look at it bigger and realize it's film and photoshop.
Whatever, it's tone dynamics... any photo processing path has something that allows you to mess with that. And anyone can use it to make some butt ugly shit.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR - the past of photography?
digitalcollections.lmu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=...
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR is the New Pictorialism. We all know what happened to the old one.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
“You people remind me of the last film guys stuck in the desert with their exposed boxes of Kodak without any chemicals to process them with.”
Sounds like an honor to me. ..and like these HDR people without a computer would be any different. I can't wait for the day the 1s and 0s stop working.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
bad//faith edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
... Sounds like the very real future for those who don't finish those rolls of Kodachrome in their freezer.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Waxy IMO that photo of McFarland is nice in spite of being HDR'd not because of it. Its nice because it has good composition, subject and timing and the colour must've been quite pleasing before the HDR snot got smeared allover it.
It saddens me that digital cameras have given people who spend too much time on their computer a chance to spend even more time in front of it. Half an hour of shooting, 3 hours of massaging pixels. These people never had an interest in art, never bought a photography book or visited a gallery or a museum and their new DSLR hasn't changed that one bit. Just another "creative" timewaster like PS3 or overclocking their computer.
If photography ever dies a slow, painful death it will be because of IT hobbyist like that who want to make everything in life a simple matter of selecting the right equipment and following online instructions.
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
_Pachinko_ edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
Clone Stamp: the future of photography?
You heard it here first, folk.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR might be the future of photography, but will it survive as long as a roll of undeveloped Ilford HP5 with Dylan images?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
james.morris [deleted] says:
Ok, I'm convinced.
www.flickr.com/photos/themaleimagesf/3052209412/
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and give Pachinko a big thumbs up on that comment.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If it is the future then the future looks bloody awful.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
HDR sucks !
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I always thought that this image showed promise for HDR stuff. The subject matter isn't that interesting (although it is 'street'ish), but I thought the technique was good and could be applied to something else. He used to have more info up about how he did it, but unfortunately it's been removed.
The same guy also has this one in his photostream that I also thought was good.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The OP is a joke, right? I LOLled a few times whilst reading it.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Axel Rietschin, are you the Axel of the RAW codec for Windows? If you are, thanks!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I can't decide whether to close this crap thread or not. Show of hands?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I dunno. what Pachinko said at the end, sounds a little elitist.
That's almost to say if it were not for all the hobbyist/amateur photographers out there taking their own photographs that photography would be better off.
(some of the effects of that world would be that photography would remain a province of "professionals" and thus (arguably) quality would be higher (but would it with less competition?) and prices for photographic services would remain artificially high -due to fewer photographers, among other things. Sounds like those old trade guilds.)
It's almost as if IT professionals were to decry the simplification and commoditization of computing. "Oh, now people with their home computers will be able to fix their own computers, for the most part without having to have me come in as a professional to repair their equipment". It's like saying computing went down the drain once people didn't have to compile their own kernels anymore.
It sounds a bit luddite to me.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Can I just jakeroll it? That usually kills threads pretty effectively.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I dunno, it has some decent content in between. I like the conservative vs. liberal view of what photography is. Legacy vs. New & Modern. It's nice to see people's takes and how they can be contradictory but still make perfect sense.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No, I see it as being about fetishization of this process. As we say in the trade: shit in, shit out. Bad pictures can't be made good by anything on the lens or anything done afterward. Good pictures can be improved by knowing what the hell you are doing during and after shooting, yes. But anyone blabbering on about a process that can make shit shine like diamonds is a crap photographer. Period.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I agree with those sentiments insofar as they apply to those who only care about process and nothing else. I'd hope those would be a stubborn or insular few.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Maartyn nobody cares who fixes peoples' computers or takes photos, or how they do it or what with, as long as the result is good. When the result is so blatantly shit, there is a problem. In the various "Software/gear-wank" groups, the problem is that they have demoted photography to pressing a few buttons in the correct sequence like a trained monkey, thus ignoring everything else that requires a brain, things like concept, content, aesthetic, artistic influence etc etc. These things are irrelevant to them, they are not even discussed. And instead of making an effort to address this problem, they prefer to try to convince the rest of the world that shit is actually very good. And yeah, when this attitude is gaining momentum I think its a worry. Still sounds elitist?
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
_Pachinko_ edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
|
Well, said Pachinko, I gree with what you say about the end product and all the thought that should go into it. What I will disagree a bit with is the concern. Not that I would not prefer your alternative, it's just that I think there's little chance holding the back of the instant-gratification impulse in the majority of people (myself included at times)
On the other hand, scientists (in this case CS) are always at it trying to make things esier, better, cheaper, if synthetic -but they do it out of good intentions -if misdirected at times.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
dontbuyit [deleted] says:
Just got back from a tremendous day taking photos in my downtown shopping arcade. Judging by the number of people who have responded it would be safe to assume that most of you never leave your computers...? I suggest that you get out once in a while and actually take photos - that is what your expensive cameras are for.
Now, back to the topic at hand - it would be safe to predict that HDR will have an impact of photography like Bresson's Decisive Moment or the work of Paul Strand@ Stieglitz. Mark my words, 15 years from now there WILL be a retrospective at the MOMA featuring work from photographers who employ HDR. You heard it here first.
Granted, HDR is a tool just like a multiple frames per second, but once photographers understand its inner workings, then they will embrace it in droves. I think your collective criticism over HDR more stems from ignorance or having failed to understand the instructions. It takes time, but you will get there.
Arty, like I said before - I could also take some of you down to the local library and hold your hand while explaining art trends in photography over the last 150 years, but that would be a shortcut. Art and photography have a somewhat tumultuous past and put simply photography as a genre has improved with the advent of the latest cameras and technology. Do you think Brassai could have taken the Eddie Adams photo in Vietnam with such a slow, large format? Not a chance. Incidentally, I also recently read in an interview that Stephen Shore would be taking up HDR technology.
Pachinko's referral to software gear/wank groups is uncalled for. We just love our equipment like everyone else and the fact that we have taken the time out to learn the latest technology that is compatible is an important milestone.
I also see that it is now safe to return to this thread after the hostilities that I encountered at the other thread at the hands of Krameroneill, calling me a 'douchebag'. Pure class. Although our opinions may differ on art, HDR and its impact on photography, there is no reason to use a callous insult to get your point across.
Please grow up and refrain from using childish insults and only then will you gain acceptance on flickr as an important group with valuable opinions. Instead of this group where bullying dominates if somebody steps outside common consensus. It really doesn't sound like a place for healthy debate, does it??
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
HDR. Wasn't that the competing technology that eventually lost to Betamax before its own demise to VHS? I'm pretty sure I'm correct about this...
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Work of Paul Strand @ Stieglitz? Stieglitz wasnt a place hence Strand couldnt have worked at Stieglitz. This sentence alone shows me what a moron you are.
The HDR group is vomit inducing. Stick to it. Stick to your bicycles and beer mugs and the usual mind numbingly boring subject matter common in the HDR group.
Kramer was kind. You are far worse than a douchebag.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This is the same problem I have with digital photography. The potential is always remarkable. But the medium never settles. Each year there is a better camera to buy and new software to download. The user never has time to become comfortable with the tool. Consequently too much of the work is merely about the technology. The HDR and QTVR fads are good examples. Instead of focusing on the subject, users obsess over RAW conversion, Photoshop plug-ins, and on and on. For good work to develop the technology needs to become as stable and functional as a typewriter. - Alec Soth - Soth, Alec. "Toy Fatigue", Alec Soth - Blog, November 26th,
-------------------------------------------------
www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=917&name=Soth,...
Basically Soth says that HDR is all about the process and not about the SUBJECT matter, he calls is a fad, a toy.
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm so loocking forward to that HDR retrospective at the MoMA!
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Pachinko is actually dead on, luddite sounding or not. In short, a gear head would love to have laser sights on his nail gun when all a craftsman has ever needed is a hammer.
But Mr. dontbuyit? Sorry, I don't buy it. Every art director, editor or industry creative I know does not care for the look of HDR when that is the first thing that gets their attention in an image. If it is used in subtle fashion like burning or dodging, then it works and simply plays second fiddle to the raw talent a photographer has inherently like any other tool. And I hate to tell you, but the pace that developments occur now are so fast that even HDR is not the future, it is already the past if technology is your only source of focus. I have been using digital cameras for 16 years now, it is not the new thing but the same old thing to me at this point.
So maybe some will make use of HDR a trademark of their style as time goes on, some won't and that will not have any bearing on what the final outcome of the future of photography will be. For despite what you may think, no matter what new tools or technologies come along, blistering raw talent will always push the tool used into the shadows as who the image maker is as an artist takes center stage. And that is the way it should be.
Personally, I think 99% of HDR imagery looks very gimmicky, flat, boring, false and unimaginative, it lacks depth and dimension. Often if you take the typical HDR image and bring is back to it's natural state, it is just plain boring. So just like most photoshop fantasy born of the lunch break of some poor soul stuck in his cubicle, it is a crap image rescued to look like something it never was in the first place.
And finally, the future of photography is what each individual decides it is to be, not what a bunch of techno-geeks think. You just don't see brilliant photographers trying to figure out if they fit into some hokey trend like HDR or not, they have better things to do like shoot real photographs.
By the way, what is a "shopping arcade" and do you have any photographs to show the fine people in this thread?
Originally posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
The Kodachrome Project edited this topic 30 months ago.
|
|
A lot of HDR reminds me of those 'make your photo into a watercolour with one click' filters ( and be a real artist instantly ).
God knows what Steven Shore would do with it. At least he knows a bit about colour. . . Not that we'd get to see the results, doesn't he just do loads of very small print run books for stupid money these days?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hi guys, i have some advance tickets for the 2024 HDR Retrospective at MOMA. $25/pop if anyone wants one?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've heard they come with a free flying pig ride from the airport to the museum?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ dontbuyit -- why don't you link to some examples of what you consider to be good HDR?
Posted 30 months ago.
(permalink)
|
HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) discussion threads