I have recently seen some posts which are done with HDR or similar technique. Now some are really good at using it and some not so good. Do you prefer that it should be mentioned that the HDR tool has been used? I know it is similar to using GNDs but then you do mention GNDs used as it is perhaps more accepted. Do you feel mentioning HDR might have an adverse effect on how your image is perceived? (hmm, that's gimmick kind of reaction!?) I'm pretty bad at using HDR tools myself and prefer GNDs, wish I get good enough to use this technique effectively.
I think there is nothing wrong in mentioning that HDR has been used for an image. If mentioned, that would help the viewers to assess the image in a new angle and avoid questions from newbies as to which camera to buy so as to get such a wide dynamic range in their own images
The use (and mentioning) of HDR in no way lessens the photographer's value. The vision still has to be there and as far as the images have impact and "communicate" with the viewer, it is what matters most!
After some time, we'll "know" that an image has been made with the help of HDR even if the photographer does not mention it; just like we can tell (in most cases) whether a GND has been used or not. I don't mean that the use of a GND is apparent in the image but that, as experienced photographers, we "know" that the photographer must have used a GND to capture such balanced details both in the foreground and background of the image.
The HDR time will also come :-)
HDR, GND, etc, are all simply paint brushes or tools in my view. Use them to fulfill your vision.
HDR is kind of a fad right now, but eventually the thrill will pass and the next new best thing will be the rage. You're pretty cool right now when you announce you use HDR as well as to recommend HDR in a critique. Eventually it won't be worth mentioning except in passing, as should be the case for most tools. When it works, it's a great tool.
Discussion
2 repliesThe use (and mentioning) of HDR in no way lessens the photographer's value. The vision still has to be there and as far as the images have impact and "communicate" with the viewer, it is what matters most!
After some time, we'll "know" that an image has been made with the help of HDR even if the photographer does not mention it; just like we can tell (in most cases) whether a GND has been used or not. I don't mean that the use of a GND is apparent in the image but that, as experienced photographers, we "know" that the photographer must have used a GND to capture such balanced details both in the foreground and background of the image.
The HDR time will also come :-)
HDR is kind of a fad right now, but eventually the thrill will pass and the next new best thing will be the rage. You're pretty cool right now when you announce you use HDR as well as to recommend HDR in a critique. Eventually it won't be worth mentioning except in passing, as should be the case for most tools. When it works, it's a great tool.