Return of "rise of the radioactive hdrs".

[azul123]

From discussions here.

This is not meant to pick on anyone, but I wonder why would someone not like a certain photographic genre so much so that the above linked thread was started?

Probably he has seen really bad HDR that could have spoiled it for him, but it does no good to dismiss it totally either, it is like saying only Portraits are consider real photography, anything else should be put into a waste bin.

Artist like Andy Warhol had his early critics as well, because it was different... just like rap music.. I can never appreciate rap music but I now try to listen to the lyrics and from there at least I get to understand it bit by bit, still I find it hard to appreciate.

../azul123

 

[night86mare]

eh azul, this is becoming a stalking trend.. are you trying to become another member?

just kidding, but i want to clarify a few things. i LOVE hdr. i use it extensively because what i envision a picture to be is with the sky intact, with the foreground shadow details visible and not in silhouette. i love it so much that i wish it was better.

what i was specifically referring to, was overdone hdr.

this is a very specific definition, i don't really want to give examples of what i have seen because it is not really very nice.

some examples, if you had bothered to read what i was ranting about:

these are my photos, done from raw. i massacred them to demonstrate what i meant. the basic composition is not there, there is uncorrected tilt, and the people who produce these are more interested in the digital art effect even though it can be quite frivolous.

 

[azul123]

Sorry for multiple similar postings..

../azul123

 

[night86mare]

those were not radioactive enough. my greatest masterpiece yet:

 

[LittleWolf]

From discussions
This is not meant to pick on anyone, but I wonder why would someone not like a certain photographic genre so much so that the above linked thread was started?

If you restrict yourself to topics/opinions that don't have the potential of controversy, you'll never get an interesting discussion. All that people say/write will just serve to reconfirm your point of view.

I'd rather read more controversial photography related threads here.

 

[bahibo]

Some of the photos u linked look ok to me. Prob is it's not subtle , or close to reality, but then on fine art level they look ok , i actually like the bridge photo u linked.

 

[LittleWolf]

multiple post

 

[azul123]

eh azul, this is becoming a stalking trend.. are you trying to become another member?

I don't know why you always misunderstood my intention... but earlier threads have had some discussions and you made some replies without allowing others to have their say to counter and conveniently close thread because it is not going your way.

You have to learn to take your own medicine and accept critics with open mind. I don't really have time to stalk you but I think it is good to hear what those involved in HDR have to say before thread is closed.

../azul123

 

[leejay]

Thanks for extending the thread, zul.

My advice contains only two quotes:

"My job as a portrait photographer is to seduce, amuse and entertain."
-Helmut Newton

"Photography is still a very new medium and everything must be tried and dare... photography has no rules. It is not a sport. It is the result which counts, no matter how it is achieved"
-Bill Brandt


I think this is very clear already. If your photo can strike people's interests, the rest does not matter. Don't take it to heart how fervidly others criticise your works or even your brains. Also, to all newbies, never stick to mainstream for too long. It will kill you. Time has changed. The influx of more young and aggressive photographers in the industry makes it more critical to establish style and creativity. Why are there so many photographers and so few stand out? Because very few are unique. Therefore, if you think you have developed a unique style, defend your work and, by all means, share them with us.

By the way, the hdr style is quite an established form of photography. No need for such a heated argument.

 

[azul123]

eh azul, this is becoming a stalking trend.. are you trying to become another member?

Since topic relates to photographic tastes and warrant some more discussions, it may benefit you as well as these things are subjective in nature. At least get more insight from others who have delved into HDR more in-depth. I understand that you are not against HDR per se, but some post-processing methods as you say.

Take a look at Andy Warhol's works in the begining he too has many critics as his works is different... but his works spun off what modern art is now, isn't it.

../azul123

 

[night86mare]

eh.

you provide me of a proper critic who provides valid points , instead of personal attacks, and i will be more than glad to address them as i always have.

i certainly dont' do it for any of my photographs, and i certainly do it any other way. i was trying to avoid some flock of flaming replies against each other. i am not the only one who feels this way and i anticipated a lot of ..caustic replies flying back and forth, and a big hammer coming down. you want to open the pandora's box yourself, you can do it.

here's another overdone hdr from the files

 

[bahibo]

Some of the photos u linked look ok to me. Prob is it's not subtle , or close to reality, but then on fine art level they look ok , i actually like the bridge photo u linked.

 

[eikin]

Since topic relates to photographic tastes and warrant some more discussions, it may benefit you as well as these things are subjective in nature. At least get more insight from others who have delved into HDR more in-depth. I understand that you are not against HDR per se, but some post-processing methods as you say.

Take a look at Andy Warhol's works in the begining he too has many critics as his works is different... but his works spun off what modern art is now, isn't it.

../azul123

sense of beauty does change with time, albeit slowly. for now, many of the HDR images we see online these days definitely don't make the mark for the prevailing sense of beauty of this time. and that is normal, because most of these pictures' authors are probably less interested in taking photography as an art than taking photography as another pastime to make some ''impressive'' images. coupled with the explosion of information via the internet, these images explode in numbers as well.

i'm not a fan of Andy Warhol's works, but his commentary on the state of affairs of the time via his work are in many ways meaningful and valuable, at least to art and social theorists. his works may have spun off a generation of people who copy his style, but very often these people copy the superficial aspects of his works without dwelling deeper into the issues, and the latter's works carry little archival nor critique value, though some pretty marketable. but that's what the consumerist culture do, consumption without questions asked. the craze in HDR images is itself a manifestation of this consumerist culture, people ''buy'' the idea that pictures that look like that are cool, impressive and remarkable. i don't think the comparison to Andy Warhol's works is an appropriate one, this is more like a bubble tea craze.

 

[night86mare]

Take a look at Andy Warhol's works in the begining he too has many critics as his works is different... but his works spun off what modern art is now, isn't it.

../azul123

this is taking it a little too far

this isn't quite andy warhol - this isn't some new blood introducing a rush of creativism into the market. this is just well, blind following and emulation of something which was taken too far - just blatant and mindless emulation because someone was wowed over by something which was different - something not commonly seen.

the best part that i cannot understand is these people call it a product of their creative juices.

how ironic is that? go look at the internet, such hdrs are a dime a dozen, because they are so easy to make! i can churn an ugly hdr out in 10 seconds, but a realistic looking one takes painstaking effort. i therefore view this as absolute laziness - a lack of desire to take pride in one's work.

hdr is a very, very very powerful tool which can overcome the limitations of a digital sensor, and present scenes as the photographer saw it to the world. i can understand it if someone could explain it to me why he did certain things, but so far most of them whom i have taken the trouble to comment on, whether on flickr, or on clubsnap have taken it well. the backlash reaction is the respond as you have seen in the other thread. some people have even happily created clone accounts on flickr to make multiple posts in my old pictures (the ones that are out of my stream, i only have a 200 cap because i haven't paid for a pro account).

you want alternative? you want creativity? give me something new. give me stuff like what mattlock has done in the past. if your effect or processing achieves something i can SEE VALUE in, all the more glory to you. if i cannot see the value, and you cannot even place a description or explanation as to what value you put in it, then you deserve all the comments i have given, all my feelings, and perhaps more.

 

[azul123]

sense of beauty does change with time, albeit slowly. for now, many of the HDR images we see online these days definitely don't make the mark for the prevailing sense of beauty of this time. and that is normal, because most of these pictures' authors are probably less interested in taking photography as an art than taking photography as another pastime to make some ''impressive'' images. coupled with the explosion of information via the internet, these images explode in numbers as well.

i'm not a fan of Andy Warhol's works, but his commentary on the state of affairs of the time via his work are in many ways meaningful and valuable, at least to art and social theorists. his works may have spun off a generation of people who copy his style, but very often these people copy the superficial aspects of his works without dwelling deeper into the issues, and the latter's works carry little archival nor critique value, though some pretty marketable. but that's what the consumerist culture do, consumption without questions asked. the craze in HDR images is itself a manifestation of this consumerist culture, people ''buy'' the idea that pictures that look like that are cool, impressive and remarkable. i don't think the comparison to Andy Warhol's works is an appropriate one, this is more like a bubble tea craze.

I didn't intend it to be a smiliarity comparison, my point is that differences are good, I am not at all into HDR, but it would have been prematurely terminating a discussion I think worthy of further understanding what TS's beef was.

From what I understood TS is pissed by lack of quality... but that goes with any kind of photography isn't it? composition is composition no matter what type of photography one is interested in.

My 2 cents.

../azul123

 

[azul123]

the best part that i cannot understand is these people call it a product of their creative juices.

how ironic is that? go look at the internet, such hdrs are a dime a dozen, because they are so easy to make! i can churn an ugly hdr out in 10 seconds, but a realistic looking one takes painstaking effort. i therefore view this as absolute laziness - a lack of desire to take pride in one's work.

That's the thing... when you have done HDR for so long of course it looks down right lack of quality compare to the images you deplore, imagine someone just started learning the techniques and you said "I implore all alike to stay away from these" how are people going to improve?

Everybody got to start somewhere somehow... Guide them, if you still cannot stand then leave them be and that was why I say don't like don't see.

../azul123

 

[Lolrence]

Nightmare, nothing personal, but I think you should reread what you wrote in your initial post, 3rd paragraph, and try to reword your sentences next time. Sometimes, we might not mean anything in particular, but because of the way we phrased our sentences, it could mean something else to other people. (or other intentions for that matter)

I think everyone starts off somewhere. When I first learnt PS, everything in the 'Filters' tab looked cool. But after a while, it just died off, and I moved on to better use of particular filters.

 

[eikin]

Thanks for extending the thread, zul.

My advice contains only two quotes:

"My job as a portrait photographer is to seduce, amuse and entertain."
-Helmut Newton

"Photography is still a very new medium and everything must be tried and dare... photography has no rules. It is not a sport. It is the result which counts, no matter how it is achieved"
-Bill Brandt


I think this is very clear already. If your photo can strike people's interests, the rest does not matter. Don't take it to heart how fervidly others criticise your works or even your brains. Also, to all newbies, never stick to mainstream for too long. It will kill you. Time has changed. The influx of more young and aggressive photographers in the industry makes it more critical to establish style and creativity. Why are there so many photographers and so few stand out? Because very few are unique. Therefore, if you think you have developed a unique style, defend your work and, by all means, share them with us.

By the way, the hdr style is quite an established form of photography. No need for such a heated argument.

well if your photo can strike people's interest, you'll need to know who these people are who have been so struck. to say that critique doesn't matter is undermining the intelligence of any artist. fundamentally, you need to know what you are doing and want to do, and why in order to be able to separate good critiques from useless ones. to feel a certain pride from choosing to only listen to some anonymous praises and ignore other criticisms will lead to stagnation and self-satisfaction, that's very bad for creativity.

naturally, sticking to the mainstream is indeed no good for those who seek to do things out of the mainstream. otherwise, there's nothing wrong following or not following a certain ''mainstream,'' as long as you're good in what you're doing. actually, i don't even know if the word ''mainstream'' has any meaning now in the post modern era, where all kinds of art are possible, even without anyone running across the street protesting about some imagined tyranny from a thing called ''mainstream.'' the key point here is being good in what you do, not whether you're in mainstream or not. to deliberately make a style is probably the worst advice any artist would give, style is embodied in the works naturally after an artist found his/her ways to go about doing what he/she is good in. to look for some style for the sake of style will mean the artist is forever in the race of something superficial and nothing concrete. there's no shortcut about it, you want to be unique, first show us what you've really got and whether you can stand your ground, without being the next copycat in the line.

 

[azul123]

Travelling tomorrow, so going to sleep now.

../azul123

 

[night86mare]

Nightmare, nothing personal, but I think you should reread what you wrote in your initial post, 3rd paragraph, and try to reword your sentences next time. Sometimes, we might not mean anything in particular, but because of the way we phrased our sentences, it could mean something else to other people. (or other intentions for that matter)

I think everyone starts off somewhere. When I first learnt PS, everything in the 'Filters' tab looked cool. But after a while, it just died off, and I moved on to better use of particular filters.

hi there bro

yes, i know, at times i have to reread my posts, i often tend to post on the more strongly worded side. working on this, actually. it probably comes from a culture where i have been encouraged to put forth my points in a firm manner (though not offensive, but can be taken to be such), and also from some part of a person's nature. cheers, and i understand your intentions.

and yes, everyone starts from somewhere, i always try to remember this when i am giving comments - and it also pleases me when someone is happy that i am giving criticism. this is however, not the case sometimes, and it doesn't exactly anger me - i only have myself to blame for wasting my time.