"HDR is disgusting and it needs to die, it's worse than lens flares."

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by Policar

Just because someone is a purist doesn't mean they're a good photographer. It's an expression of taste, not of talent.

That said, can you direct me to a single photo from a so-called "purist" that is worse than any of those? They are very tacky pictures.

In terms of a purist I was implying about the individuals who totally dismiss the obscure and niche photographic genre's and who just tend to follow the typical norms. I'm not like that I love experimenting with different techniques. I'm currently in the process of learning The Brenizer Method for some wedding clients of mine.

If my photos were as you say "Tacky" they wouldn't get all the positive feedback that they get now would they or my work wouldn't have been exhibited now would it?

Lets see some examples of your work and lets see how it stacks up

Photography defines me, but most of all I enjoy it. Its a good relief agent from University Study.

I find it rather amusing that someone can slander my work on a forum after only looking at a couple of my projects.

You may think my HDR's are tacky, but the majority of those photos baring "one" have not been edited at all, The shots have all been complied into a single image in Photomatix pro out of many exposures. Thats how they turn out when fully completed.

[Policar]

Originally Posted by macnerd93

They would get negative feedback if they were as bad as you claim.

They did get negative feedback. From me.

I'll post some of my work, but I am a very nascent and inexperienced photographer and can't claim to have ever taken a good photo. But that's what I just said--a lot of "purists" might have good taste, but that doesn't make them good photographers themselves. Food critics aren't necessarily chefs, but they are knowledgeable authorities nonetheless. I'm not an authority, but I have studied the process of photography and art history more extensively than most and, while I like HDR, I feel most of the examples here are extreme overbaked.

If you want me to post some of my own photos, fine, but I can tell you that they're not very good and that my best work hasn't been scanned yet since I don't have access to a drum scanner or regular access to a medium format scanner. I also try to shoot with an 8''x10'' to 40''x50'' print in mind so more of a low contrast high detail style that doesn't translate over well on the web.

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by Policar

They did get negative feedback. From me.

I'll post some of my work, but I am a very nascent and inexperienced photographer and can't claim to have ever taken a good photo. But that's what I just said--a lot of "purists" might have good taste, but that doesn't make them good photographers themselves. Food critics aren't necessarily chefs, but they are knowledgeable authorities nonetheless. I'm not an authority, but I have studied the process of photography and art history more extensively than most and I have strong opinion.

And my best shots haven't been scanned yet (yes, this is the easy way out). But I'm not claiming to be a good photographer myself.

My photographic interest has all been self taught. I got into it, I guess because I was never that good at drawing and I saw it as an opportunity to express myself in someway in an art subject. I've been taking pictures for as long as I can remember, but it really got serious in about 2008.

I also do appreciate negative feedback if it actually has a valid argument about it, but yours really didn't other than slandering the pieces. Negative feedback, to me at least, would be to explain why it is "tacky" and what I can do to improve them.

[Policar]

Sure, sorry about that. If you want constructive criticism I can give it a try, but we might just have entirely different taste. This is an interesting topic to me because I have very different taste from a lot of people and generally get negative feedback on my own photography, heh, though I've got a couple shots people like okay.

What I mostly mean to say is that being a purist (and I'm not one, but I probably am more than the average person) has little to do with being a good artist. So don't dismiss a technique because you see purists using it until you look at the work of those who have inspired the so-called purists.

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by Policar

Sure, sorry about that. This is an interesting topic to me because I have very different taste from a lot of people and generally get negative feedback on my own photography, heh, though I've got a couple shots people like okay.

What I mostly mean to say is that being a purist (and I'm not one, but I probably am more than the average person) has little to do with being a good artist. So don't dismiss a technique because you see purists using it until you look at the work of those who have inspired the so-called purists.

Personally, I try and and be myself an individual. I mean sure i've been inspired by some of my photographic buddies work, they've also bee inspired by some of mine (vice versa). I try not to follow typical norms in photography I'm an experimenter quite a lot of the time.

I'd love to get back into film again too. I have four film SLR's just sitting collecting dust. I did black and white during my time at college and loved it, but I just haven't had time with University and stuff.

[dweezle3]

Originally Posted by macnerd93

HDR is wonderful it adds a sense of surrealism into the photos. Especially for my architectural type shots.

Definitely! It's a technique to add something different and artistic to a photo, just as photoshop is. Anyone that condemns HDR for being unrealistic and not pure photography should also condemn photoshop (or any other editing program) used on any photo. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they shouldn't even be using a flash in their photos because they're altering what the original photo would look like

With that said, I think your photos are really nice! I love the color in them (although the last is maybe a bit dark, but I suppose that's the mood you were going for) and the sky in that first one is just amazing! And like you said, I think HDR is great for things like architectural photos because it's an awesome technique for bringing out all of the details in buildings. However, I (and I assume Policar included) think that the large amount of haloing and surrealistic features are pushed just a bit far in your photos. I am definitely glad that you didn't do the same with the colors though, I'd much prefer a photo with haloing over one that's so filled with color it practically gives you a seizure

----------

Originally Posted by macnerd93

I find it rather amusing that someone can slander my work on a forum after only looking at a couple of my projects.

To be fair, you have only provided us 4 pictures with which to judge your ability. Where can we view the rest?

[Josh220]

Real HDR is different than the fake HDR such as the options on phones.

That being said, even after making that distinction, there are good HDR's and horrendous HDR's. Most HDR's are over processed, as shown by the work presented in this thread. More often than not they appear "overcooked" which gives a cartoonish appearance, as well as completely over saturated.

Specifically related to the ones in this thread, most are overcooked, underexposed, over saturated, and there are massive amounts of haloing.

Do I do them occasionally if I need the dynamic range and filters will not suffice? Yes. Are those the images that sell? No.

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by dweezle3

Definitely! It's a technique to add something different and artistic to a photo, just as photoshop is. Anyone that condemns HDR for being unrealistic and not pure photography should also condemn photoshop (or any other editing program) used on any photo. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they shouldn't even be using a flash in their photos because they're altering what the original photo would look like

With that said, I think your photos are really nice! I love the color in them (although the last is maybe a bit dark, but I suppose that's the mood you were going for) and the sky in that first one is just amazing! And like you said, I think HDR is great for things like architectural photos because it's an awesome technique for bringing out all of the details in buildings. However, I (and I assume Policar included) think that the large amount of haloing and surrealistic features are pushed just a bit far in your photos. I am definitely glad that you didn't do the same with the colors though, I'd much prefer a photo with haloing over one that's so filled with color it practically gives you a seizure

----------



To be fair, you have only provided us 4 pictures with which to judge your ability. Where can we view the rest?

Thanks for the feedback much appreciated the kind words.

Yeah I'm not a fan of massively over colouring shots, although sometimes its useful. I do like lot of definition in my HDR type shots more than anything though.

You can view my photos on my flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/macmad

or my 500px at : http://500px.com/Ryan_Nicholson

Peace

[Dagless]

I've seen a lot more photos of it looking horrible than good (so far). I think it's something best left to the pros.

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by Dagless

I've seen a lot more photos of it looking horrible than good (so far). I think it's something best left to the pros.

I guess its all down to preference. There are so many ways you can make a HDR type shot. You can virtually create using a typical signal shot, which I think looks pretty poor 80% of the time and generally comes out extremely grainy, not nice.

You can also use film, although I assume thats rather complex. There are also varied techniques digitally from changing each exposures shutter speed, Aperture or even ISO to achieve bright and darker effects. Personally, altering shutter speed I feel works the best then compiling them in an App such as Photomatix pro for processing.

http://www.hdrsoft.com

[BiteMyApple]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yeph-tTK0Kc

This guy has a nice little Photomatix tutorial that shows an example of HDR photography that I think has just the right amount of it. I really don't appreciate overcooked HDR photos, but this looks excellent imho.

[dweezle3]

Originally Posted by macnerd93

I also appreciate negative feedback if it actually has a valid argument about it.

Why classify that as "negative" feedback? Seems like it's just feedback to me, neither negative nor positive, just constructive. Mind if I offer some?

Local Cemetery - I really love the sky in this one! The exposure I think could be a bit brighter as I think that the detail in the foreground looks great, but my eye is immediately led away from it by the bright sky. Also, there's a bit of fringing on the rock beds and the trees. Overall though, very nicely composed!

Howden Minister - 15 exposures?! Gosh that's ridiculous It definitely pays off in the amount of detail in the picture though! I really like how much detail you pulled out of that tower, however, it's difficult to focus on for long because that spot of sky on the left is so bright and distracting. Maybe I'm just easily distracted.... The only other thing I see is I think the trees sticking into the frame on the right could be removed, and there's a small dark band running along the bottom that I can only assume is a simple cropping issue.

St. Paul's - This is great for a single exposure! Although it's certainly caused from the haloing (something I would reduce a bit), the sky just around the spire on the right just looks incredible. Any way you could make the entire sky look that vivid? Additionally, I think the clouds on the left especially look a bit too fake (I know the point is to make them look surreal, but I feel it's just a bit much in this case when the rest of the photo looks relatively natural).

Building Storm - Wow, this one's intense. I really like it though, so I'm hesitant to point out what to improve, but I think that looking closely at the bridge it looks almost like something in Runescape or something.... The sky looks a bit ghosted (that spot just to the right of the bridge for example), however I like the ghosted people. Generally I don't like having HDR's showing blurred and ghosted people, but in this case I think it adds to the sense that time is passing really quickly, that the storm is building. Also, the whole picture seems a bit off focus ( although maybe it's just that the quality of the uploaded version of the photo isn't too good). The composition is really great! The lines along the steps lead the eye up to the bridge and the photo is fairly broken into distinct thirds, very pleasing! I feel that this is one of those "stay on a computer" pictures that I mentioned earlier rather than a "50 inch wall print" that Policar prefers for sure, but overall a very nice, very dramatic picture!

[kevinfulton.ca]

I don't think the use of HDR is necessarily BAD. However, it is being ridiculously over used by too amateur photographers as a crutch to make their images "look better". It's the same reason why a lot of people like Instagram filters. They are being used to salvage an uninspired photo. I don't mind the use of HDR, but it's gotten wayyy out of hand and away from its original purpose.

I'm guessing the next thread of this type will be about the "long exposure waterfall" shots? If not I'm sure that will be coming shortly

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by dweezle3

Why classify that as "negative" feedback? Seems like it's just feedback to me, neither negative nor positive, just constructive. Mind if I offer some?

Local Cemetery - I really love the sky in this one! The exposure I think could be a bit brighter as I think that the detail in the foreground looks great, but my eye is immediately led away from it by the bright sky. Also, there's a bit of fringing on the rock beds and the trees. Overall though, very nicely composed!

Howden Minister - 15 exposures?! Gosh that's ridiculous It definitely pays off in the amount of detail in the picture though! I really like how much detail you pulled out of that tower, however, it's difficult to focus on for long because that spot of sky on the left is so bright and distracting. Maybe I'm just easily distracted.... The only other thing I see is I think the trees sticking into the frame on the right could be removed, and there's a small dark band running along the bottom that I can only assume is a simple cropping issue.

St. Paul's - This is great for a single exposure! Although it's certainly caused from the haloing (something I would reduce a bit), the sky just around the spire on the right just looks incredible. Any way you could make the entire sky look that vivid? Additionally, I think the clouds on the left especially look a bit too fake (I know the point is to make them look surreal, but I feel it's just a bit much in this case when the rest of the photo looks relatively natural).

Building Storm - Wow, this one's intense. I really like it though, so I'm hesitant to point out what to improve, but I think that looking closely at the bridge it looks almost like something in Runescape or something.... The sky looks a bit ghosted (that spot just to the right of the bridge for example), however I like the ghosted people. Generally I don't like having HDR's showing blurred and ghosted people, but in this case I think it adds to the sense that time is passing really quickly, that the storm is building. Also, the whole picture seems a bit off focus ( although maybe it's just that the quality of the uploaded version of the photo isn't too good). The composition is really great! The lines along the steps lead the eye up to the bridge and the photo is fairly broken into distinct thirds, very pleasing! I feel that this is one of those "stay on a computer" pictures that I mentioned earlier rather than a "50 inch wall print" that Policar prefers for sure, but overall a very nice, very dramatic picture!

Hello thanks for the response.

Local Cemetery the reason as to why this is quite dark is because it was dark. Almost pitch black in fact. The long exposures and multiple shutters on top of one another helped brighten it up. I very rarely shoot higher than an ISO of 400, simply because I can't stand digital noise. Sometimes ghosting can't be helped on HDR's simply because of the amount of shots involved and if you knock the tripod ever so slightly sections of the shots can become misaligned.


Howden Minister Again taken almost in the dark, and yeah the issues round the edge which I've only just noticed must have been a save error when compiling it out.

St. Paul's This was done using two plugins for Aperture 3.0 the first HDR EFex Pro. After I applied the chosen HDR filter there was no Haloing on it. I added a lens effect using Colour Efex Pro to give it a more powdered kinda appearance. Thats why it may look haloed slightly it was suppose to alter the tones of the image.

Building Storm Thanks for the comments on this!!. Yeah this was extremely difficult to do, especially when I didn't have a tripod and I had to balance my camera on a small railing outside City Hall. I was taking this right next to a load of Chinese diplomats standing posing for photos too. I guess due to the Olympics. I don't think they where happy as they kept pushing into me, so I had to be rather quick with getting the shots of this image.

Peace

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by macnerd93

Thanks for the feedback much appreciated the kind words.

Yeah I'm not a fan of massively over colouring shots, although sometimes its useful. I do like lot of definition in my HDR type shots more than anything though.

You can view my photos on my flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/macmad

or my 500px at : http://500px.com/Ryan_Nicholson

Peace

A lot of these are well taken, but I'd argue that, on some, the HDR effect is actually holding them back.

St. Paul's actually has solid composition, why bother with HDR? For me it actually takes away form the shot.

Same with Big Ben. Good composition, but them then my eye is being pulled away by the strange looking clouds. To me to me it's unnecessary.

Now the Minister Ruins it works! This is because it's giving a worn look. It looks awesome and it's well composed! This is where HDR works for me. It needs to add something and not distract from the subject.

Keep up the good work, but maybe ease of the HDR for a little. Your photos stand up perfectly fine on their own and it's holding them back IMHO.

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

A lot of these are well taken, but I'd argue that, on some, the HDR effect is actually holding them back.

St. Paul's actually has solid composition, why bother with HDR? For me it actually takes away form the shot.

Same with Big Ben. Good composition, but them then my eye is being pulled away by the strange looking clouds. To me to me it's unnecessary.

Now the Minister Ruins it works! This is because it's giving a worn look. It looks awesome and it's well composed! This is where HDR works for me. It needs to add something and not distract from the subject.

Keep up the good work, but maybe ease of the HDR for a little. Your photos stand up perfectly fine on their own and it's holding them back IMHO.

Thanks a lot for the kind words. Its much appreciated

[Policar]

Here are a few photos I found on my hard drive. They're not very good (the other ones I quoted from other photographers I think are great), but you can see what I'm trying to do--get an elegant, undistorted composition in decent light and have some detail that would hold up and be interesting on a larger print. The third one is my over-exaggerated and feeble attempt at a high contrast style. I would keep it lower contrast, but I want to try hanging with the cool kids.

I do think the difference between HDR and low contrast photography has to do with the print size. The landscape photographer whose photos I posted used filters when he shot 16mm film documentaries, if I remember our conversation correctly, but he does not use filters on 4x5. But for me tonal hierarchy has to be consistent enough that the HDR effect doesn't strip the sense of linear perspective and generally I find architectural and landscape shots to work poorly unless perspective is corrected with a tilt/shift lens or photoshop. Anything that flattens perspective (tone mapping) or makes a mess of it (UWA lenses, uncorrected converging parallels in architecture or geometric landscapes e.g. trees) ruins the effect wholesale for me. Portraiture can go without perspective correction.

Here's my constructive criticism; keep in mind that this is from the perspective of a critic more than it is from the perspective of a capable photographer:

I don't really get the first one but the composition could be improved. The area of interest is right at the center, which doesn't work well for an asymmetrical composition. So I would move the area of interest into the upper third and then re-angle the camera placement so that the trees framed it better, less wasted space in the sky and more of a frame within a frame. As with all architectural photos that are about the space rather than the subject that inhabits it (street photography, environmental portraiture), it really needs corrected perspective so I would shoot with a T/S lens or fix that in photoshop. The HDR destroys a sense of tonal hierarchy and thus the depth is lost so I would bring that down a lot, and you have really, really bad halos here. I just don't see the point with this one at all.

The second one has blown highlights that are brought down and you get this uniform gray. It's really bad in the clouds. The areas of clouds that are not blown out being darker than the front of the building ruins the sense of depth. The edges of the tree feel more like a distraction than an intentional aperture frame, so I would pan left a little. I would definitely shoot this with a tilt/shift lens and correct perspective and use the column on the right to balance out the leaves on the left. This is a decent composition that needs a little work and perspective correction. The HDR effect destroys the sense of depth but does not provide any detail in the sky where it's missing; if used more subtly (fill light in photoshop and multiple exposures to bring the sky down) it could do better.

The third one has a decent composition, but the HDR is a complete nightmare here. As a thumbnail the contrast is attractive, when you really look at it it's just a mess, I'm sorry, that's just my opinion, but it's how I feel. The sky on its own looks cool, and I think clouds might be the best place to use HDR effects, but the rest looks radioactive.

[dweezle3]

Originally Posted by Policar

They're not very good (the other ones I quoted from other photographers I think are great)

Are you kidding? These are great! would you mind if I saved a copy of the second one to use as a lockscreen on my iPhone?

[Policar]

Thanks, of course you can, I'm flattered. These are definitely among the best shots I've taken, but I want to shoot something worth spending the money for a big print, and I feel like I haven't gotten there yet.

[OreoCookie]

@Policar
I love the portrait, if you hadn't told me it's an HDR, I wouldn't have noticed. That's exactly the kind of HDR that I like. I assume you've used it to bring out the bruises, cuts and hematomas? What's the story behind the picture?

[Policar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

@Policar
I love the portrait, if you hadn't told me it's an HDR, I wouldn't have noticed. That's exactly the kind of HDR that I like. I assume you've used it to bring out the bruises, cuts and hematomas? What's the story behind the picture?

Thanks, it's actually not HDR, but I wanted to give it an HDR-like style with a lot of local contrast to bring out the texture (someone asked me to post some of my photos taken without HDR because I usually don't like it). I was inspired by Martin Schoeller's portraits, where he lights very evenly (vertical kinoflos on either side based on the catch lights: http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/5548 ) and shoots symmetrically with a lot of contrast and with deadpan expressions and a slightly wider lens than is usual with portraiture, I think he uses a 140mm on a 6x7 slr. But the short story is my grandmother fell and was injured and both she and my parents wanted me to photograph her soon after she left the hospital, before the swelling went down (she said it wasn't as bad as it looked). So I put up a cheap 1k softbox very close to her face to get a soft, even light and and I shot with a digital rebel xt and old manual focus 35mm nikon lens at around f2.8 or f4 I think. I have trouble getting subjects to smile so the unhappy expresion was easy. Then I boosted the contrast and dodged and burned to get more texture. I feel like Schoeller's style looks a bit like HDR, but it is done through even lighting in the first place, which I prefer.

I'm glad you like it--it's my favorite portrait I've taken for sure and I think it's a good shot for an amateur with inexpensive gear. I just don't think it's very good in the context of what very skilled professionals shoot, but of course it's not.

[Doylem]

HDR obviously arouses strong feelings, as evidenced by the length of this thread. But it’s a cul-de-sac, a one-way street; there’s no way through. I guarantee that even the most enthusiastic advocate of HDR will wake up some morning, a few years hence, and realise he’s been wasting his time, and that instead of learning about photography, he’s just been stuck in a rut with his tyres spinning, going nowhere. He will find he knows less about the potential of photography than he did on the very first day he picked up a camera, because now there’s a load of junk to unlearn before he can move on. At that point he’ll slap himself on the forehead and either vow to assemble some of the basic building blocks of photography, or just give up and swap his camera gear for a set of golf clubs.

For anybody hoping to make money one day, as a pro or semi-pro photographer, please be aware that a portfolio of over-cooked HDR shots will have you out the door in seconds flat. In any professional context, this type of picture is a joke; you might as well wear a badge stating ‘rank amateur’.

Originally Posted by macnerd93

Tower Hill (9 Exposures: This is possibly my best I'm loving how the sky turned out)

Building Storm by Ryan J. Nicholson, on Flickr

If this is your "best", then I'd hate to see the worst. And, btw, not liking your work isn't "slander", it's just expressing an opinion...

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by Doylem

HDR obviously arouses strong feelings, as evidenced by the length of this thread. But it’s a cul-de-sac, a one-way street; there’s no way through. I guarantee that even the most enthusiastic advocate of HDR will wake up some morning, a few years hence, and realise he’s been wasting his time, and that instead of learning about photography, he’s just been stuck in a rut with his tyres spinning, going nowhere. He will find he knows less about the potential of photography than he did on the very first day he picked up a camera, because now there’s a load of junk to unlearn before he can move on. At that point he’ll slap himself on the forehead and either vow to assemble some of the basic building blocks of photography, or just give up and swap his camera gear for a set of golf clubs.

For anybody hoping to make money one day, as a pro or semi-pro photographer, please be aware that a portfolio of over-cooked HDR shots will have you out the door in seconds flat. In any professional context, this type of picture is a joke; you might as well wear a badge stating ‘rank amateur’.



If this is your "best", then I'd hate to see the worst. And, btw, not liking your work isn't "slander", it's just expressing an opinion...

Maybe you should read my description as to how I came about that specific HDR shot. Its not actually processed at all other than being run through Photomatix pro to actually build the image. The sky pretty much was that dark, it looks epic at full resolution with all the little details and what not.

I accept all constructive criticism if it actually has a point, but just saying its rubbish without an argument is pretty lame and it means nothing to me as I am unable to improve my work. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if people called your work tacky and didn't explain themselves anymore other than calling it "tacky and bad"?

I don't think I did too bad making a 9 exposure image without the use of a tripod.

Maybe you should check out all my HDR shots and see what you think is best. In terms of drama I still think my Tower Hill shot is the most epic though http://www.flickr.com/photos/macmad/...7630093379386/ thats my HDR set

Although I did forget these two shots

I snapped this back in the winter. Another one of my favourites

Living the Dream HDR by Ryan J. Nicholson, on Flickr

And this on my Thames Boating Holiday

Waterfront Estate HDR by Ryan J. Nicholson, on Flickr

Both forgotten favourites

[Policar]

Originally Posted by macnerd93

Maybe you should read my description as to how I came about that specific HDR shot. Its not actually processed at all other than being run through Photomatix pro to actually build the image. The sky pretty much was that dark, it looks epic at full resolution with all the little details and what not.

I accept all constructive criticism if it actually has a point, but just saying its rubbish without an argument is pretty lame and it means nothing to me as I am unable to improve my work.

Now if this image was as bad you say it wouldn't have had all the positive feed back it has now would it?

I don't think I did too bad making a 9 exposure image without the use of a tripod

Why do you care what we think if other people love it and you love it, too? You're talking with two people who strongly dislike most applications of HDR, why would we be persuaded to like a very, very extreme implementation of it? You've already received more positive feedback on your images than I'm guessing either of us has on any of ours--what more do you want? Even the most successful artists have to have a thick skin, either that or they take criticism as an opportunity to do better. You'll never convince everyone to like what you do--no one has ever done that. I don't like any of the photos you've posted, but I don't like any of Trey Ratcliff's photos, either, though I think he does have a good eye for composition. You're barking up the wrong tree. If you're happy with the majority of your work you've achieved more than most of us could dream of.

[macnerd93]

Originally Posted by Policar

Why do you care what we think if other people love it and you love it, too? You're talking with two people who strongly dislike most applications of HDR, why would we be persuaded to like a very, very extreme implementation of it? You've already received more positive feedback on your images than I'm guessing either of us has on any of ours--what more do you want? Even the most successful artists have to have a thick skin, either that or they take criticism as an opportunity to do better. You'll never convince everyone to like what you do--no one has ever done that. I don't like any of the photos you've posted, but I don't like any of Trey Ratcliff's photos, either, though I think he does have a good eye for composition. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I Just think you could have put your statement a little more subtle Why don't you like my work? What is wrong with it? Perhaps you should check out my flickr and give us some feedback. I very rarely do HDR's, but when I do I try and make them "special" to stand out.