they've always been around; from the beginning:
hdrs with massive haloing, hdr with much too much fine detail (and somehow, oversharpened) for even the human eye to see, hdr with over-saturated colors, hdr with radioactive elements, hdr with uneven lighting;
in short, hdr overdone in my own opinion. you can see a lot of examples of these here in flickr.
from a personal point of view, i implore all alike to stay away from these; i do not know how it can be twisted and warped into "art". i mean, certainly nobody was harmed in the process, but in short, i cannot find the effect pleasing; i find it immensely disturbing that anybody could either.
in fact, it doesn't really help when some magazines publish works and articles where hdr is overdone in there as well.
i think there's been a brewing storm about this idea about art : it seems that people seem to advocate a "never say die" attitude of "my work is art, and i am going to do it" - and when you push it further they will no doubt come up with old arguments involving how blah artist was blah criticised and how blah he is oh-so-famous today. and then at one point of time or another, somehow the same old names will fly out - dave hill la, etc. YES, there are cases of these, that is in the past - today we have a lot more diverse art forms than we had in the past, and it can only grow; as people emulate the old and produce new ways. and dave hill has done his "surreal processing" in a manner which remains somewhat grounded in reality. in short, it works. not everything is like that. if radioactive hdrs (as i call them) can be called art though, i'd eat my hat.
on another note, i was quoted other photography forums when providing opinions. most of the other photography forums i visit have 2 main ways of responding - one would be to blatantly ignore whatever is posted, the other is to remark that it is perhaps, overdone.
someone once said that if there were people who felt that your picture was overdone, it probably was. if it wasn't, then well, they won't have spotted it in the first place, would they?
so what do you think? is realism more than just keeping the elements that were there together? does art have to be at least, somewhat grounded in reality, other than jsut presenting the scene?
i think as usual there will be people who accuse me of riding on a high horse; well, you can think that way, i'd say first. frankly, i do not care. i think there is possibly an application for this form of processing, but what i have seen it being used on so far, is very depressing for me.
hdrs with massive haloing, hdr with much too much fine detail (and somehow, oversharpened) for even the human eye to see, hdr with over-saturated colors, hdr with radioactive elements, hdr with uneven lighting;
in short, hdr overdone in my own opinion. you can see a lot of examples of these here in flickr.
from a personal point of view, i implore all alike to stay away from these; i do not know how it can be twisted and warped into "art". i mean, certainly nobody was harmed in the process, but in short, i cannot find the effect pleasing; i find it immensely disturbing that anybody could either.
in fact, it doesn't really help when some magazines publish works and articles where hdr is overdone in there as well.
i think there's been a brewing storm about this idea about art : it seems that people seem to advocate a "never say die" attitude of "my work is art, and i am going to do it" - and when you push it further they will no doubt come up with old arguments involving how blah artist was blah criticised and how blah he is oh-so-famous today. and then at one point of time or another, somehow the same old names will fly out - dave hill la, etc. YES, there are cases of these, that is in the past - today we have a lot more diverse art forms than we had in the past, and it can only grow; as people emulate the old and produce new ways. and dave hill has done his "surreal processing" in a manner which remains somewhat grounded in reality. in short, it works. not everything is like that. if radioactive hdrs (as i call them) can be called art though, i'd eat my hat.
on another note, i was quoted other photography forums when providing opinions. most of the other photography forums i visit have 2 main ways of responding - one would be to blatantly ignore whatever is posted, the other is to remark that it is perhaps, overdone.
someone once said that if there were people who felt that your picture was overdone, it probably was. if it wasn't, then well, they won't have spotted it in the first place, would they?
so what do you think? is realism more than just keeping the elements that were there together? does art have to be at least, somewhat grounded in reality, other than jsut presenting the scene?
i think as usual there will be people who accuse me of riding on a high horse; well, you can think that way, i'd say first. frankly, i do not care. i think there is possibly an application for this form of processing, but what i have seen it being used on so far, is very depressing for me.