View Comments

1. Donald Schwartz says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:11 pm

   It doesn't have to be real. In certain respects, it's closer to the way we see.
2. Nathan Swan says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:13 pm

   HDR Photography was a great style in its infancy, however today now that it is a common trend, its over-used and can become boring and ugly unless done and used correctly, for example Dave Hill's photos.
   However, I cannot deny the HDR's technique to bring out more detail in a photo. Works effectively when overlaying an HDR at 50% over the original photo, to produce great contrast between the highlights and shadows.
3. lizziebelle says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:14 pm

   I like it when it's like the photo above: an enhancement to the picture, not overdone. Most of the HDR that I see is way overdone, too saturated. It should make you say “wow,” not “whoa!”
4. Jonathan Wannemacher says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:18 pm

   i like it when its subtle, alot of times people get carried away with the sliders when tweaking a photograph and turn it into a monster haha
5. paulbrace says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:21 pm

   HDR is another tool in the artist pallet.

   Image if you will, that you are and Eagle what you see is not what you and I would recognize as a perception of normal. Now substitute the word Eagle for animal of your choice or even alien. Perception of what you are seeing is again changed. HDR is no more that a change of the possibilities that is any artists entitlement to explore.

   Paul Brace
   http:///www.image-in-usa.com
6. Damean Ravichandra says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:24 pm

   In a sense, it is an effect that dramatizes an otherwise less dynamic image. Given this, its more of a playground for amateur photographers than a widely used tool for professionals. I think keeping this in mind will let people survey what's out there appropriately.
7. Nathan Swan says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:29 pm

   Even some of the top pro photographers in the world used HDR and overlay them over their photos.
8. Jerry J. Davis says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 6:44 pm

   I love HDR when you're going for something surreal. It's more expressionistic. But I wouldn't use it for just any photo, just like I don't keep a polarizing filter on all the time, or a cross-screen, or leave it in B&W mode.

   Use it like a tool, and know when to use the right tool.
9. Adina says:

   Nov 12, 2009 at 7:08 pm

   looks great,too bad it becomes a “fashionable” style and everyone starts using it.
10. Qube says:

    Nov 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    The extent of HDR processing seems to be entirely a matter of taste, rather than artistic or photographic rules.
    Personally, I find heavily HDR'd photos to take on an almost sinister appearance, like a still from a Tim Burton movie. But, depending on the photo, it can work well as a creative effect.
    I like HDR when it serves to impart the drama of a scene as the eye sees it. It can work miracles to transform a photo by restoring blown highlights and pulling out detail in shadows.
    I immediately dislike any photo that has HDR halos. Always seems like an amature playing with a new toy to try and con people that their poor or mediocre shots are cool.
    Blech!
11. Ariel says:

    Nov 13, 2009 at 4:52 am

    90% of what is done with HDR is just plain horrible. The rest is absolutely stunning and beautiful. I don't do it myself, as I come from the time of film and I enjoy spending more time shooting than postprocessing, but I truly enjoy the results when it's well done.
    I think the learning curve is tough, and intermediate results shouldn't be shown, but people normally don't have a good criteria to tell crap from beautiful, and they just publish everything.
    I have hope in HDR, meaning that probably camera producers are probably researching ways to increase the dynamic range directly in camera, so I am willing to see the day when results will come in form of new in-camera techniques.
12. Ariel says:

    Nov 13, 2009 at 4:52 am

    90% of what is done with HDR is just plain horrible. The rest is absolutely stunning and beautiful. I don't do it myself, as I come from the time of film and I enjoy spending more time shooting than postprocessing, but I truly enjoy the results when it's well done.
    I think the learning curve is tough, and intermediate results shouldn't be shown, but people normally don't have a good criteria to tell crap from beautiful, and they just publish everything.
    I have hope in HDR, meaning that probably camera producers are probably researching ways to increase the dynamic range directly in camera, so I am willing to see the day when results will come in form of new in-camera techniques.
13. pannage says:

    Nov 13, 2009 at 5:22 am

    Mis-use of HDR is like over-seasoned food – it is arresting but ultimately it ruins your palate.
14. dawilson says:

    Nov 13, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    Like any other technique, HDR has to be used appropriately and well. You can't make a poorly composed image good by shooting and processing it as an HDR.

    I very much enjoy HDR both for its artistic potential and also to allow natural looking results in difficult lighting situations but there really are a whole lot of horrible examples out there.
15. Zach Stern says:

    Nov 17, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    You don't feel that Dave Hill is overphotoshopped?

    I feel like he is less a photographer and more a graphic artist that uses photography as a base.
16. Michael Zhang says:

    Nov 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Where would you draw the line between photography and graphic art? At what point does it become “too much”?
17. Zach Stern says:

    Nov 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    You don't feel that Dave Hill is overphotoshopped?

    I feel like he is less a photographer and more a graphic artist that uses photography as a base.
18. Michael Zhang says:

    Nov 17, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    Where would you draw the line between photography and graphic art? At what point does it become “too much”?