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

[Policar]

I gave you lots of constructive criticism above and, as you asked, I posted examples of my feeble attempts to take what I consider to be good pictures. If you want I could criticize my own shots, too: the portrait lacks depth, has problems with skin tones and harsh highlights, and the composition is unbalanced given the very symmetrical pose and would do better with a soft backlight to screen right illuminating the hair in silhouette, except the spill from that would have brightened up my background too much and arguably the shape of the catch light is problematic, too. The portrait that inspired it is a better photograph. The horizon line is too even on the second one, too centered; I didn't have a shift lens and couldn't move it without distorting vertical perspective and with that taken into consideration I'm happy, though the top right corner needs to be darker for the sake of composition but can't be for the sake of retaining tonal hierarchy; the density of detail in the trees is too much for the otherwise very simple composition, etc. The third one is way overbaked and a picture of clouds for god's sake--what a cliche. I only posted these because you called me out as a bad photographer because I'm apparently a "purist." The Crewdson and Adams photos I posted I think are very, very good, but even they aren't perfect.

But more important than that: I don't like HDR and I probably won't have similar taste to those who do. There's no getting past taste. Some of the other photos you've taken are okay, none I saw are great, but very few are. Can we just move on?

 

[macnerd93]

I gave you lots of constructive criticism above and, as you asked, I posted examples of my feeble attempts to take what I consider to be good pictures. If you want I could criticize my own shots, too: the portrait lacks depth, has problems with skin tones and harsh highlights, and the composition is unbalanced given the very symmetrical pose and would do better with a soft backlight to screen right illuminating the hair in silhouette, except the spill from that would have brightened up my background too much and arguably the shape of the catch light is problematic, too. The portrait that inspired it is a better photograph. The horizon line is too level on the second one, too centered; I didn't have a shift lens and couldn't move it and with that taken into consideration I'm happy, though the top right corner needs to be darker for the sake of composition but can't be for the sake of retaining tonal hierarchy; the density of detail in the trees is too much for the otherwise very simple composition, etc. The third one is way overbaked and a picture of clouds for god's sake--what a cliche. I only posted these because you called me out as a bad photographer because I'm apparently a "purist." The Crewdson and Adams photos I posted I think are very, very good, but even they aren't perfect.

But more important than that: I don't like HDR and I probably won't have similar taste to those who do. There's no getting past taste. Some of the other photos you've taken are okay, none I saw are great, but very few are. Can we just move on?

Yeah I don't really like yours either, its all down to taste. I feel they don't say anything to me, but thats just my personal preference.

 

[Policar]

Yeah I don't really like yours either, its all down to taste. I feel they don't say anything to me, but thats just my personal preference.

That's fine (if not exactly constructive!). I would be the first to agree that my photos are pretty bad, and nowhere near the standards I wish they were up to, and even then they're among the best I've taken. I'm hoping to improve, though, once I get the money together to travel to more interesting locations--my current interest is in improving my landscapes, but the catch 22 of improving is it's hard to invest the money in something you're not already good at! I hope you'll check out some of the other photographers to whose work I linked earlier, though, since there is a lot to like there. Ansel Adams can stick up for traditional technique better than any of us ever could, even though I'm convinced he'd be shooting digital color HDR if he were alive and working today (only he'd skip the tone mapping for manual dodging and burning).

Look at the up votes you're getting. If you're wondering who's the better photographer based on popular opinion, it's you. So don't worry about us old school curmudgeons, we'll take care of ourselves. We just want people to understand where we're coming from (the whole point of this thread), and I think if you understand that, you'll also realize why my criticism and Doylem's should be irrelevant to you.

 

[macnerd93]

That's fine (if not exactly constructive!). I would be the first to agree that my photos are pretty bad, and nowhere near the standards I wish they were up to, and even then they're among the best I've taken. I'm hoping to improve, though, once I get the money together to travel to more interesting locations--my current interest is in improving my landscapes, but the catch 22 of improving is it's hard to invest the money in something you're not already good at! I hope you'll check out some of the other photographers to whose work I linked earlier, though, since there is a lot to like there. Ansel Adams can stick up for traditional technique better than any of us ever could, even though I'm convinced he'd be shooting digital color HDR if he were alive and working today (only he'd skip the tone mapping for manual dodging and burning).

Look at the up votes you're getting. If you're wondering who's the better photographer based on popular opinion, it's you. So don't worry about us old school curmudgeons, we'll take care of ourselves. We just want people to understand where we're coming from.

Yeah, I know my photos can be improved as well. I'm not saying my photos are perfect either. I like helpful criticism more than anything

 

[Doylem]

I like helpful criticism more than anything

HDR gets in the way of good photography. The benefits are few, the drawbacks are many. It blinds us to the subtleties and nuances of light, colour, tone, composition, etc, by affecting images in ugly, indiscriminate ways. It’s like cooking with chilli powder: what works for chillies and curries isn’t so good in a salad or trifle. Soon, before you know it, everything tastes the same.

We’re blinded by the way we can make our pictures ‘pop’; family and friends will look at them and go “Wow!” Then they see another, and another, and the novelty quickly wears off... as it does with most other photographic fads.

Learning about photography, IMO, is about looking at good photography, listening to people whose work we admire, developing an eye, a personal vision, and backing up this vision with technical competence. Anybody can go for the simplistic “Wow!” factor by moving those sliders in their chosen PP software all the way to one end or the other.

Posters have mentioned Ansel Adams, and, yes, he would have been interested in techniques that might extend his own photographic vision. He certainly tried to maximise the drama in a landscape and, in choosing black & white, he had more control over the way the final print should look. ‘Burning’ and ‘dodging’ was quite a skill, in the days of film, though, like HDR, it was easy to over-do the effect. But Adams had a sense of style, and he wouldn’t have transformed his images into day-glo cartoons like most of the pix posted here.

I can’t critique your photographs in the way you say you want; I can only suggest you give the chilli powder a miss and learn to cook properly.

 

[Policar]

I can’t critique your photographs in the way you say you want; I can only suggest you give the chilli powder a miss and learn to cook properly.

Let's see you post something better, then, without HDR. If his photos wow most spectators who aren't trained not to like them, aren't they good? Are we just setting up unnecessary restrictions by not using techniques we perceive as "easy." To extend your chili metaphor, are Thai, Mexican, and Indian food all less delicious because they're full of oil and spices? French cooking might be harder to make well, but it's also harder to appreciate. Does being harder to appreciate make it better or are we setting up arbitrary snob terms?

I've been a long-time HDR hater, but I will admit this thread (maybe not the particular photos, but still) is changing my mind a bit and I'm now considering trying to apply HDR to my own photos. Don't you think you're going a bit hard with that last comment?

The one photographer we all keep mentioning--Adams--pioneered HDR with the zone system and certainly would have gone much further than that (into color for sure) today. I personally dislike the "overbaked" look a lot because of viewer fatigue, but maybe that's just another example of developed snobbishness. The first HDR photos I saw wowed me, too, and the first time I saw the orange/teal look in a blockbuster I really dug it. Can't we address things on their own terms and look beyond learned biases--I tried to by addressing composition and converging verticals, even though that too is a matter of taste.

 

[Doylem]

Let's see you post something better, then, without HDR. If his photos wow most spectators who aren't trained not to like them, aren't they good? Are we just setting up unnecessary restrictions by not using techniques we perceive as "easy." To extend your chili metaphor, are Thai, Mexican, and Indian food all less delicious because they're full of oil and spices? French cooking might be harder to make well, but it's also harder to appreciate. Does being harder to appreciate make it better or are we setting up arbitrary snob terms?

I've been a long-time HDR hater, but I will admit this thread (maybe not the particular photos, but still) is changing my mind a bit and I'm now considering trying to apply HDR to my own photos. Don't you think you're going a bit hard with that last comment?

I post pix regularly in the Pic of the Day thread, but don’t call them “better” or “worse” than anybody else’s pix. However, I suppose the fact that I’ve posted a pic at all suggests that I like it.

Photography, for me, is about seeing... and finding ways to see more clearly. My favourite photographic quote is by Dorothea Lange: “The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera”. It’s been a lifelong passion, and I hope there’s plenty more to come. Along that road there have been many speed-bumps, which slowed me down or distracted my attention. Now, in the digital age, these distractions are more numerous: easier to activate, harder to avoid. With one press of a button - whoosh! - I can change my photo into something that looks (a bit) like a pencil drawing or a watercolour painting. Wow! I can even convince myself that I am now an ‘artist’.

Simplistic ‘effects’ are available to everyone who has a camera and a computer, and we’re all free to do what we want. I’m free to have a sincere opinion, and you’re free to give HDR a whirl...

 

[Policar]

“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera”.

And Adams said "the negative is the score, the print is the performance." I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it is a bit rude not to meet someone halfway. You can be an artist by virtue of shooting with beautiful natural light (Tree of Life style), beautiful simulated and digitally manipulated natural light (No Country for Old Men) or beautiful stylized light (JFK and Shutter Island)--and I would wager that the cinematographers on those films are as talented as any photographers working today. That said it is also hard for me to analyze tone mapped photos in the same context as less manipulated ones because the effect makes depth cues work very differently.

 

[Doylem]

And Adams said "the negative is the score, the print is the performance." I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it is a bit rude not to meet someone halfway.

Erm... I haven’t issued a fatwa, promising “Death to HDR infidels!” I’ve just expressed my opinion, while acknowledging that everyone can do whatever they want. Isn’t that meeting you halfway?

I want to see a picture; I don’t want to be distracted by a technique or a trick or the frame it’s mounted in. Anyway, that’s enough from me...

 

[Policar]

Enough from me, too. I need to get out an shoot something. Or save up for a tilt/shift lens so I can stop worrying about converging perspective.

 

[dweezle3]

So, now that everyone's done arguing, any chance I could get some feedback on a picture of mine? I know that the colors and such are obviously overdone, but that's the effect I was going for (there's not many better ways to amaze someone who's sees this dreary, old, lifeless town hall everyday than by going crazy with the color) The only thing that really annoys me about this picture is the sky - obviously the crazy haloing such doesn't really add anything constructive to the picture...

 

[MacNut]

So, now that everyone's done arguing, any chance I could get some feedback on a picture of mine? I know that the colors and such are obviously overdone, but that's the effect I was going for (there's not many better ways to amaze someone who's sees this dreary, old, lifeless town hall everyday than by going crazy with the color) The only thing that really annoys me about this picture is the sky - obviously the crazy haloing such doesn't really add anything constructive to the picture...

I am going to be perfectly honest, it looks like a painting not a photo. If I didn't know that place really existed I would say it was fake.

 

[dweezle3]

I am going to be perfectly honest, it looks like a painting not a photo.

Haha that was the intent (more or less)! I understand that it's definitely extreme, but most of my HDR's are. Although everyone around where I live that will see this picture (again, it'll likely just remain on my computer, not printed) have seen the real building, so there'll be no dispute over it's existence here

 

[MacNut]

Haha that was the intent (more or less)! I understand that it's definitely extreme, but most of my HDR's are. Although everyone around where I live that will see this picture (again, it'll likely just remain on my computer, not printed) have seen the real building, so there'll be no dispute over it's existence here

If you are going to make a picture look fake and unrealistic why bother to take it at all?

 

[Policar]

That's a pretty good composition (major compositional elements on the third lines and a nice symmetry), but the horizon line is just slightly tilted and the converging verticals on the building hurt the composition (either use a tilt/shift lens or fix them in photoshop if you want to do architectural photography in this style; it makes a big difference versus them being subtly off as they are here, making the building a slight trapezoid with leading lines that draw compositional focus to a point far out of frame).

The tone mapping is incredibly strong, so of course I don't like that aspect of it, but if you do, then you should be happy with it, the composition is not bad and could be improved to good easily.

My main issue with tone mapping is that it gets rid of the global tonal hierarchy, which is a critical depth cue. So the image pops as a 2d composition, but when you try to lose yourself in the space it's hard to know where you are. Halos just make this even worse. That's why I think waiting for the best light is so valuable. Of the landscapes I referred to earlier, I think this is the strongest kind of image:

(You can tell I didn't take it because it's so awesome!)

It has the feel of HDR in that every area has similar levels of high local contrast, but the photo is taken under real lighting conditions (storm clouds in the background, light overcast in the foreground) and because of that the shading is striking in 2D and yet it retains a 3D feel because there's no tone mapping. Also notice that perspective has been corrected; this was taken with a view camera. This is why Doylem and I can't find good photos of our own taken; we are trying to approximate that kind of look without HDR, but being able to do that takes incredible patience and attention to craft. Some day!

 

[pdjudd]

So, now that everyone's done arguing, any chance I could get some feedback on a picture of mine? I know that the colors and such are obviously overdone, but that's the effect I was going for (there's not many better ways to amaze someone who's sees this dreary, old, lifeless town hall everyday than by going crazy with the color) The only thing that really annoys me about this picture is the sky - obviously the crazy haloing such doesn't really add anything constructive to the picture...

I like it but I am no professional critic by any stretch of the imagination.

If you are going to make a picture look fake and unrealistic why bother to take it at all?

For artistic reasons? I've seen people make paintings look like photos why not do the opposite if you aren't a good painter but a good photographer.

 

[dweezle3]

If you are going to make a picture look fake and unrealistic why bother to take it at all?

Because it looks cool? Why take macro pictures if they're enormously blown out of proportion to the original item you're taking a picture of? Because they look nice. Why use photoshop to make photo manipulations if they don't look realistic? Because they're eye catching and make people stop and look for a while and capture people's attention. That's the whole point of a photo, isn't it? I don't want people to look at my photo and say, "Aw, that looks really realistic!" when they see hundreds of realistic photos every day. I want them to look at it and say, "Aw, that's cool, I haven't seen something like that before!".

That's a pretty good composition (major compositional elements on the third lines and a nice symmetry), but the horizon line is just slightly tilted and the converging verticals on the building hurt the composition (either use a tilt/shift lens or fix them in photoshop if you want to do architectural photography in this style)

I didn't even realize it was tilted until you pointed it out, and now I can't look at it the same way ever again And ya, I'd definitely invest in a tilt shift lens if I could afford one, I've always been really interested in the effects you can make with those. This picture is a 3 exposure HDR that I just took handheld while walking around the town square, waiting for my appointment at the Apple Store. So I feel like a bit of justification for it being slightly skewed

Edit: Attached the unedited original for comparison.

It has the feel of HDR in that every area has similar levels of high local contrast, but the photo is taken under real lighting conditions (storm clouds in the background, light overcast in the foreground) and because of that the shading is striking in 2D and yet it retains a 3D feel because there's no tone mapping.

I really like this one! I wish there was a bit more contrast in the leaves of the trees so that it didn't all look like one big glob of yellow though.... But I can definitely see what you're talking about with the natural lighting and depth! Could you explain exactly what tonal hierarchy is though? You've mentioned it quite a bit, and I think I understand what it is, but a google search isn't turning up many specifics.

 

[Phrasikleia]

If his photos wow most spectators who aren't trained not to like them, aren't they good?

It sounds as though you're suggesting that the general public has good taste. It reminds me of an experiment that 500px conducted last year. They decided to disable their "dislike button" for one day just to see what would happen. That day their "Popular" section completely changed its character as it became overwhelmed with photos of soft porn, kittens, and full-blown, nuclear HDR. That's what the masses like: pin-ups, Hello Kitty, and really bright colors. One of the very top photos that day was a picture of a woman lying on a bed pointing her bare genitals at the camera, snapped without any hint of artistry. It created a huge brouhaha in the comments beneath the photo and in the blog section of the site, with dozens of photographers protesting the photo and enumerating the reasons why it did not rise to the level of quality that a "top" photo should. But hey, it showed something that all of those carefully crafted, tasteful nudes did not: genitalia! And lots of internet users thought it was great and voted for it. That's the kind of thing that your average Joe really, really likes. Ditto for cute animals, regardless of the care taken in photographing them, and for anything that looks unusual--which for most people would include HDR.

So the question of 'quality' really comes down to identifying the audience that matters to you. If you want to appeal to the masses, then go for shock value, cuteness, or superficial eye candy. But if you want to create something that will transcend the level of sugar coating that so appeals to the public at large, then you need to look beyond the short-cuts. You then need to do the hard work that appeals to people who have seen it all and aren't swayed by cheap tricks. Such people know "good" HDR when they see it because when it's done well, it's a means to an end--it either meshes with the concept of the photo or else it subtly enables a photo to replicate a real experience of human vision. Good HDR is not a party trick applied at random--it's not lipstick on a pig, but the average Joe would disagree. If you regard the people who recognize the difference as a "snobbish" elite, then don't shoot for them. It's really that simple.

 

[Policar]

I really like this one! I wish there was a bit more contrast in the leaves of the trees so that it didn't all look like one big glob of yellow though.... But I can definitely see what you're talking about with the natural lighting and depth! Could you explain exactly what tonal hierarchy is though? You've mentioned it quite a bit, and I think I understand what it is, but a google search isn't turning up many specifics.

Printed huge I'm sure there's more detail in the trees, but they are a bit mushy and over-saturated here. It's pretty nice, though, and I feel like it kind of puts all of us to shame, to be honest. The Adams prints really do.

I might have invented the term tonal hierarchy or copied it from someone else who invented it, but what I mean is that light and shade are depth cues that accompany linear perspective in a way that our eyes are trained to see. Take, for example, a hallway that's painted plain white with a soft light at the end and we photograph down the hall. The depth would be easy to see in a regular picture but it would be invisible or really screwed up in a tone mapped photo because the software would try to keep it even and all the same level of brightness. Introduce some texture into that (some clearer perspective-based cues) and you get this weird sense that linear perspective and light-related depth cues are fighting with each other. Tone mapping has a tendency to destroy light-based depth cues because it messes up contrast so much and so indiscriminately, and I get the impression that a lot of people shoot with ultra-wide lenses to compensate for that, because ultra wide lenses introduce a dramatic sense of linear perspective distortion. So if you don't use HDR you don't have to worry about it, but it's a trade off. Photos can neither capture the contrast range nor 3D depth that your eyes see, and using HDR you gain one but lose the other. If you do use it (as Adams does) if you can bury it in artful dodging and burning that respects how the eyes see light and keeps light on every given surface roughly even and believable across that surface (rather than global tone mapping) then you get the drama and depth and contrast without the lack of depth that requires using cheesy wide lenses to compensate for it.

I'm not so sure the argument that the public has bad taste holds water, though. Criticize movies like the Transformers series all you want, look what happens when a less talented (but still very talented) filmmaker goes and tries to copy them--you get some really dumb like Battleship, which lacks the visual grandeur. Michael Bay movies are basically soft core porn with every bad habit in the book applied to it, but the man has the best eye in Hollywood. Justin Timberlake songs might be pretty accessible, but the production on his last album was incredible. I feel like some of these artistic restrictions purists impose on themselves, while useful for developing specific traits (of course you'll ignore converging vertical lines if distracted by the much more obvious HDR effects), are ultimately just hindrances when you want to produce something accessible to more people.

 

[Policar]

Phrasikleia, I just looked at your gallery, which is excellent, but most of your photos suffer from a lack of depth due to tone mapping and it seems like you try to compensate with a UWA lens and with near/far compositions. The great subjects and compositions more than make up for it, but it's a little hypocritical of you to criticize HDR when you use it and your photos suffer from its weaknesses, whereas those who you are criticizing try to embrace and celebrate those apparent weaknesses as a stylistic trait. That said, I'd love to know where you took the Wanderlust photo, and many of the others, some of which even look like composites to me in a way (which is a good thing when the light falls realistically, and sometimes it does). They're all very good, but I feel like the HDR is the weak point in them, which is ironic given your comment on other posters' photos.

My criticism--and this my analytical and not creative mind speaking; your work is much, much better than any of mine--is that your HDR effects go far enough to wreak havoc on the sense of depth so that those photos would feel very lifeless enlarged much beyond an 8x10 print. I can't get lost in a space where the light does not fall naturalistically. I feel like with a bit more judiciousness in your technique, less HDR and less of a reliance on tacky wide lenses (though you hide the corner distortion well by avoiding detail in the corners--really nice), would elevate what you're doing, which is already very good.

This is why I think Crewdson's and Adams' photography is so amazing, because you can't tell where the dodging and burning ends and begins, but they also had the luxury of hiring out or waiting on the best light there is, a luxury afforded to very few, and even Crewdson has some really tacky shots. Great shots and great eye, though, and if you'd be willing to tell me where some of those locations are, I'd really appreciate it so I can hunt them down myself some day when I can afford to. I wouldn't even mention this criticism except that the topic is HDR and the trend is constructive criticism, so I feel a bit obligated!

 

[Phrasikleia]

Policar, you're kidding, right? I don't even own an HDR program, none of my photos are "tone mapped," they are almost exclusively single-exposure compositions, and at least half of them were shot with a telephoto lens.

 

[someoldguy]

Just a quick post of thanks to both Doylem and Phrasikleia for expressing my opinions on HDR in a far more reasoned and articulate manner than I'll ever be able to do .

 

[dweezle3]

Policar, you're kidding, right? I don't even own an HDR program, none of my photos are "tone mapped," they are almost exclusively single-exposure compositions, and at least half of them were shot with a telephoto lens.

Wow, you do realize he was actually being nice to you, right? A lot of your photos really do look tone mapped and what is there to distinguish a telephoto shot from a wide angle when you're so far away from the subject? You could stand a mile away from those mountains and zoom in with a telephoto to get the same shot that you could with a wide angle from much closer. And I know there'd obviously be some differences between two photos like that, but seeing how heavily edited your pictures are, I assume you could remedy those differences easily enough.

 

[chrono1081]

So, now that everyone's done arguing, any chance I could get some feedback on a picture of mine? I know that the colors and such are obviously overdone, but that's the effect I was going for (there's not many better ways to amaze someone who's sees this dreary, old, lifeless town hall everyday than by going crazy with the color) The only thing that really annoys me about this picture is the sky - obviously the crazy haloing such doesn't really add anything constructive to the picture...

I honestly don't care for it. The haloing and colors you already mentioned but the uneven tones across the whole image makes it look dirty and unappealing. It also gives it an amateurish look.
Unfortunately thats a side effect of tone mapping. (Sorry to sound harsh!)

What I'd suggest is do a true HDR using multiple exposures, brushing, and masking and if you want to pop the colors use traditional photoshop techniques to bring out the shades that you want to stand out. It's a lot of work but your pictures will look 10 times better I promise.

----------

Policar, you're kidding, right? I don't even own an HDR program, none of my photos are "tone mapped," they are almost exclusively single-exposure compositions, and at least half of them were shot with a telephoto lens.

I just wanted to say "Decay in the Morning Dew" is freaking fantastic! Gorgeous shot!

 

[dweezle3]

What I'd suggest is do a true HDR using multiple exposures, brushing, and masking and if you want to pop the colors use traditional photoshop techniques to bring out the shades that you want to stand out. It's a lot of work but your pictures will look 10 times better I promise.

I thought about it, but decided it was too much work And ya, uneven tones are a bit tough to control with tonemapping unfortunately....