Well, it's only my opinion, and I've played with HDR quite a lot... trying to find subjects and situations where it would do more good than harm. I've thrown most of these experiments away, though, leaving maybe just twenty pix, taken outdoors, where HDR seemed to work (it still seems like a useful tool in the box for some interiors)...
The HDR 'look' is so familiar now, that a pix says 'HDR' to me... long before it says anything else. It gets in the way of seeing. Plus, the Lakeland light is so changeable and dramatic that it seems almost perverse to get rid of the shadows. But I appreciate that treatments like HDR inspire strong feelings, for and against. And I don't want to start an argument...
U
Maybe you could say what you like about it...
That's a good way of looking at it
I've posted this up here before, but most pictures (and yours doylem are more of the exception here) are edited in some way, weather it is just a slight bump in curves or sat or contrast etc.
Take the basketball above, it has clearly had a vignette added, so most 'realistic' photos are not real at all, but rather pictures that have been enhanced. With 'unrealistic' photos it's clear the picture has been altered. This to me is more honest.
I remember a picture posted on flickr that had a profound effect on me, it was a lightning strike in Amsterdam taken from the other side of a canal so the strike was only 10-15m away. it was shot on a point and shoot it was blurry, some of the room was reflected back in the window, that he shot through.
However the moment that was captured was remarkable, a lighting strike that close was tremendous. Had that picture been perfect shot in focus with no reflection, I doubt I would have 'believed' the photo. I would have thought the moment to extraordinary and that it had been photoshopped.
I remember another thread showing a lake in America I think where water is drawn down huge pipes below the surface (for hydro electric power?) these create huge whirlpools. This thread was debating if these whirl pools where photoshopped. the majority of people decided it was a photo shop effect, it was in fact real and would have been very hard to photoshop.
This to me creates a problem, if you show something extraordinary in a photo (and who doesn't want their pictures to be extraordinary) most people are going to think it was photoshopped, unless like the lighting shot it looks so amateur that people will 'believe' it.
With an unrealistic photo, people jump to the it's photoshopped conclusion, so relax and start to enjoy the photograph for the art that it is, a lot of what I try to do is say this view, is amazing, if it was a picture you would look at it and be amazed, but because it's real you pass it every day and don't take note, I guess I like to make the Ordinary extraordinary, to show the beauty that is all around.
Hope that makes some sense and sorry to everyone who reads this ramble I sure most people will just think tl;dr
Also apols for spelling and grammar posting from phone
