Landscape and HDR. Why do people hate on it?

Can someone please tell me why photographers seem to hate on HDR so much(when I one on Pixoto it gets smashed)? It's bizarre because regular people seem to love them. I like HDR because it pushes realism. I've attached an image of a local dealership which I felt was pretty boring until it use edited using HDR.

Please guys let me know your thoughts. I think a lot traditional photographers think HDR is somewhat cheating which doesn't make sense since the aesthetic is very different. Cheers

A) "People" have exceedingly bad taste. The pop of the HDR "look" attracts attention. Until the next squirrel comes along.

2) There is nothing wrong with pulling detail out of an image. The question really comes down to, does it serve the image? I see a lot of overprocessing that purports to make something out of nothing. A reliance on that type of processing is, for me, unsuccessful.

3) Your image is fine. If that is the look that someone wants, that's okay. The most interesting part of the image, for me, is the flags. I'm not sure the processing does anything to make the image more successful.

HDR is not cheating. But it can be a hammer when what is needed is a detailing too l.

For me.

I think a lot traditional photographers think HDR is somewhat cheating which doesn't make sense since the aesthetic is very different.

Shoot, we "traditional" photographers cheat all the time, have been cheating since the dawn of time.  It's usually the novice photographers who get their back up about cheating.  So you are wrong on that assumption.

The "very different" aesthetic is the crux of the issue.  That aesthetic brings us to the question of whether it is more attractive, or more evoking (which are not the same thing).  Not everybody is going to agree on what is attractive.  In my view your example is ugly, not attractive.  On the evoking question, you can score some points.  An image does not have to be attractive to evoke a feel or mood.  I do get a post-modern feel from your image.  So your image is a success, from that aspect.  Just not a feel that I want, so my eye moves on to other images.

Kelly Cook

OK, now that I have a little more time to reply:

Gary and Kelly have both made good points and I'm pretty much in agreement.

There was a time when much of what we did in the darkroom could have been considered cheating and by some, still is. From simple burning and dodging to techniques like solarization, there's always been some controversy. Photography is an art and art is subjective.

I think the point that gets overlooked when discussing HDR is that the concept is all about increasing dynamic range to overcome digital sensor limitations and approximate analog values.

It usually isn't HDR processing that gets rejected, it's overprocessing. That's where the hyper-reality line is crossed and that's the effect that many photographers shoot for. That's what I see in your image and it will appeal to many viewers. I personally prefer more subtle effects. 

So, there's my 2 cents.

PT Talker wrote: It usually isn't HDR processing that gets rejected, it's overprocessing. That's where the hyper-reality line is crossed and that's the effect that many photographers shoot for. That's what I see in your image and it will appeal to many viewers. I personally prefer more subtle effects. 

 

+1... My sentiments exactly...

Thanks guys. I guess what bothers me is that I feel HDR is generally seen as somewhat inferior to regular photography and gets dismissed. The flexibility of the platform offers amazing potential amount to be creative beyond what can be achieved with regular photography as software is evolving rapidly.

I use Pixoto as a learning platform and have updated the same image. So far this is the highest rank of the same image thus far. Personally I love the image and the amount of drama in it(obviously I'm bias) but it only has a 1:1 win ratio. My other more regular images rank much better.

People who do not know about HDR is still impressed by the punch.
Photographers who see it daily gets bored by it's over-use.
In shared photo websites where you can create groups, when you open a group with just HDR,
every photo screams for attention. I find the collective of HDR images on a page nauseating.
Most of it makes me think of those special effect filters you used to get in film days, like the old Star Burst filter.

There is a place for it, but I do not want to try and motivate it's (over)use now.
But then. I must be bias, as I never used it myself up to now.

HDR in itself just means High Dynamic Range (as we all know).

It's overdone crap that people don't like. Looks fake, cheap and is way overdone.

Done well it's an interesting tool, overdone it looks like you got a new editing program and didn't know when to stop.

Lee-Underwood wrote:

This picture has crossed the line to "illustration".  There's too much "glow" to things and the cars look like they're painted rather than real.  I mean, if you like this look then that's cool. But it doesn't look very realistic and IMHO doesn't look like a photo.

Screamin Scott wrote:

PT Talker wrote: It usually isn't HDR processing that gets rejected, it's overprocessing. That's where the hyper-reality line is crossed and that's the effect that many photographers shoot for. That's what I see in your image and it will appeal to many viewers. I personally prefer more subtle effects. 

 

+1... My sentiments exactly...

100%
I was just experimenting with a shot I posted in the wildlife section. The subtle HDR treatment really made the eyes pop. I have used HDR processing (Photomatrix) for a number of landscape and architectural shots that would have been DOA without processing. Like saturation, sharpening and other techniques, any can be overdone BUT, it is all about what you want to accomplish with the processing.

Lee-Underwood wrote: Thanks guys. I guess what bothers me is that I feel HDR is generally seen as somewhat inferior to regular photography and gets dismissed. The flexibility of the platform offers amazing potential amount to be creative beyond what can be achieved with regular photography as software is evolving rapidly.

I use Pixoto as a learning platform and have updated the same image. So far this is the highest rank of the same image thus far. Personally I love the image and the amount of drama in it(obviously I'm bias) but it only has a 1:1 win ratio. My other more regular images rank much better.

Please understand: I am in no way trying to be unkind.

But... have you considered the possibility that this is just not an interesting image? I mean, it's a car dealership and a somewhat interesting sky. I'm getting no story from this.

Stealthy Ninja : it's meant to push the boundaries of realism. The original image was boring so I thought I'd make it look somewhat more dramatic and interesting. Personally I love the contrast between to flags/building and the sky.


garyrhook : Of course you're not being unkind. It's for a potential client so my choice of subjects is rather limited .

I've played with HDR, and find it to be an interesting tool for specific purposes - exactly the same as any other tool in my toolbox. It seems to me that it's natural when practicing with a new tool to push it to its limits, just to find that sweet spot in the middle.

My only problem with HDR is that practice pieces often get pushed out into forums as finished pieces, and when that happens, the piece - especially in the case of HDR - feels as though it's shouting at me, when the subject and composition really only rate a single glance. Tools are designed to help shape a particular result, not to be the result.

The best HDR work I've seen is subtle. It has a purpose, and the purpose is to add something to the story the image is already telling. If the purpose is to elbow the other shouting images out of the way to win a contest, then that is its own reward.

One last thought: In my opinion, there is no such thing as "pure" photography. It's always been about the final vision the photographer wants to share - not a mechanical, two-dimensional reproduction of the 3-dimensional subject the photographer shot in the first place. Just as an oil painter interprets what he sees through the medium of oil on canvas, filtered through his own creativity and imagination, the successful photographer interprets what he saw when he pushed the shutter release through the medium of pixels in their RAW state. Without a vision, all we're likely to produce is noise.