I like HDR, but there's a time and a place, and there's a very fine balance between making it look tacky. A perfectly exposed normal image will always be more of an 'art' than an HDR image, but anyone who knows their photographic history will know that photography has always been a mixture of science and art. HDR is just the next stage in the science process, but capturing 30 stop images rather than the 6 or so stops you'd capture in a non HDR.
I love the argument that if you shoot HDR you're not a real photographer, its ridiculous. I'd be interested to know how many people saying 'HDR is the work of a mediocre photographer' know how to darkroom print.
The problem with digital photography forums is too many people with ego's bigger than the houses they live in. Ego's dont mean that the person has a clue. I think this thread summises that.
I love the argument that if you shoot HDR you're not a real photographer, its ridiculous. I'd be interested to know how many people saying 'HDR is the work of a mediocre photographer' know how to darkroom print.
The problem with digital photography forums is too many people with ego's bigger than the houses they live in. Ego's dont mean that the person has a clue. I think this thread summises that.