Feb 17, 2009, 23:57
I thought the comments on this article were interesting - the author is basically getting flamed for too much HDR and claiming that it is the key to "advanced photography". Some nice pics there... but I agree - there's more to photography than HDR.
 http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/02/...hy-skills/ 
Feb 18, 2009, 12:17
Soem HDR I really like, but a lot of those just look surreal to me..maybe by design... guess I am more of a fan of what I consider "true" pictures, I want it to look real or my perception of real at least.
Feb 18, 2009, 18:05
I also find overkill with a lot of HDR. If it is done tastefully for landscapes an such it is OK. I think Irma got it right most of the time. The ones with the monster truck thing was superb, but you could not go that far with landscapes. IMO.
Having said that, looking at millions of photo's on the web is quite trying. The class ones (HDR or not) do stand out, but finding them among the dross is like finding a needle in a haystack. Lumix LX5. Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag. 
Feb 19, 2009, 16:37
Why do they bother labelling it? Just show the photo and let us judge it. I don't have to know how it was done. HDR is not a new species, just a technique.
Nikon D3100 with Tokina 28-70mm f3.5, (I like to use a Vivitar .43x aux on the 28-70mm Tokina), Nikkor 10.5 mm fisheye, Quanteray 70-300mm f4.5, ProOptic 500 mm f6.3 mirror lens. http://donschaefferphoto.blogspot.com/ 
Feb 20, 2009, 19:01
HDR should be tool used in creating the photo, like a tripod; not the point of the photo.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) |
