Purist or Creationist?

When it comes to HDR, I'm definitely a creationist. I tend to go over the top and heavily process my images, but I know that there are many people that are repulsed by the overdone look. The purists, as I affectionately call them, feel that HDR was created for a specific purpose: to enhance a photo just enough to where it looks like it did in person.

So, are you a purist or a creationist?

Melanie

Hmmm, I think I like them 50-50, not too much one way or the other. I don't like them "overdone", but I guess it depends on the pictures themselves.
Sylvia

I'm both. I like both methods and am quite happy to do extreme or subtle. I see HDR as a tool that can be used in many ways.

Like Mike I too see HDR as a tool and for me it is quite often a stage in a whole process. Sometimes it is used as the end product, but more often it is used to bring out the dynamics in a photo before I use something like Flexify or Fractalius to add further to the ongoing creation.

I would have to say I'm a 90% purist - I use HDR to enhance a picture to better replicate what I see.

Carl.

I try to make it look as natural as possible, using it for shots that I couldn't do without HDR, such as blown out windows or sky. But every once in a while I get in the mood to do something more artsy.

I am 50-50 with HDR.

I go both ways *{;-) It all depends on what my subject is and what I am trying to convey.

I thing it up to the image, but most of the time i like the the illustrator look
nice to be here ....

I consider myself a 90% purist. I like it when my images are realistic but with a subtle surreal touch to it that makes people look longer....or look twice. Just visit my personal gallery in this forum for a few examples of my work (more will be added soon!).

At the moment I would say most of mine are fairly purist, but I really like both and plan to do both types of HDR from here on out...I enjoy them all!

Hello all,

I shoot bracketed sets 90+% of the time. Which way to process and how extreme to process depends on how the images look and feel when it comes time to process them.

hugh

Follow these links for examples.


HDR Grunge

Some of Both

Wow, I LOVE the beachaccesspxg photo. What a great capture. And the egret photo. And the McDonalds.

Melanie

Hi Melanie,

Thanks for the "Wow" Glad you enjoyed the images. HDR is where it's at Whatever 'it' might be.

hugh

yes some very excellent HDR there hugh, the diner was very cool, thanks for sharing.

Xrider wrote:yes some very excellent HDR there hugh, the diner was very cool, thanks for sharing.

Thanks Xrider. It's been a steep curve, but I'm getting there

hugh

I'm an HDRI purist. The whole idea of HDRI is to overcome the limitations of the dynamic range of film or sensors and output an image that's closer to what the human eye can see. It's a tool, though, and not the be-all/end-all for photography. It should fit the concept the photographer has of what an image should be, and learning the digital processing techniques aside, it really shouldn't be done just for it's own sake.

That said, I do enjoy the occasional image with more or less souped-up tonemapping, as long as it says something. Too many folks are simply jumping on the over-tonemapped bandwagon because they have a computer and a camera, and seeing all those overdone images is getting old fast.

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but no technique will ever make up for a lousy subject, poor composition, poor technique, etc. I see too many overcooked images being done just for their own sake, or to cover up flaws.

For me, the ideal is to have the viewer see a photo and go 'wow' without being consciously aware that it's an HDRI image. Maybe if I really apply myself, one day I'll produce an image like that. At least that's my goal.

Cheers,
Bill

I couldn't agree more. The technique should add something meaningful to the image, and in too many cases it just doesn't. What you see is only the technique, and as soon you know the technique, it gets very boring and repetetitive.