Return of "rise of the radioactive hdrs".

[night86mare]

btw, there is also a new syndrome coming in, it seems that once people put disclaimers on their posts like "oh btw i am not doing this or doing that" they think they are naturally believed.

too bad, just looking at the posting here i think it's obvious to anyone and everyone alike what your true purpose is. what discussion is there? i went to re read all your posts to see if i was actually being overly sensitive, but i really, really cannot give you the benefit of the doubt, azul.

let me summarise the points from the ts (this thread's one):

1) i am not picking on anyone in particular
2) night86mare has to learn how to take his own medicine
3) oh maybe these new hdr people are like andy warhol
4) responds to eikin's comments - main gist is that night86mare is pissed by certain things - throws in certain things to make it sound as if he's really interested
5) oh night86mare should guide people instead of telling them off that they are doing things wrong
[on this point, i wonder how i should do that without telling them that they are doing things in a wrong manner from my pov]
6) night86mare doesn't seem to like a picture i like, oh why oh why?
7) oh, i don't seem to like night86mare's explanation that he did not say he doesn't like the picture

there is MORE on night86mare than hdr - night86mare 06, hdr 01 (andy warhol, wheeeeee!) thank you thank you. i am honoured.

 

[azul123]

firstly - i was questioning if he had cut and pasted the boy in. it doesn't seem like the boy was shot together and processed accordingly. was just commenting about that out of personal interest. anything wrong with that?

Nothing wrong, only thing wrong from all this is that if you want to dictate what is approved and what is not. Of course there are some bad ones out there, hey everybody have to start somewhere.

../azul123

 

[azul123]

btw, there is also a new syndrome coming in, it seems that once people put disclaimers on their posts like "oh btw i am not doing this or doing that" they think they are naturally believed.

too bad, just looking at the posting here i think it's obvious to anyone and everyone alike what your true purpose is. what discussion is there? i went to re read all your posts to see if i was actually being overly sensitive, but i really, really cannot give you the benefit of the doubt, azul.

let me summarise the points from the ts (this thread's one):

1) i am not picking on anyone in particular
2) night86mare has to learn how to take his own medicine
3) oh maybe these new hdr people are like andy warhol
4) responds to eikin's comments - main gist is that night86mare is pissed by certain things - throws in certain things to make it sound as if he's really interested
5) oh night86mare should guide people instead of telling them off that they are doing things wrong
[on this point, i wonder how i should do that without telling them that they are doing things in a wrong manner from my pov]
6) night86mare doesn't seem to like a picture i like, oh why oh why?
7) oh, i don't seem to like night86mare's explanation that he did not say he doesn't like the picture

there is MORE on night86mare than hdr - night86mare 06, hdr 01 (andy warhol, wheeeeee!) thank you thank you. i am honoured.

Sensitive aren't you... :bsmilie:

../azul123

 

[azul123]

point number 8

8) night86mare must remember that he can't go around judging people

night86mare 7 hdr 1

nice, i could keep this up all night, much easier than taking your posting seriously. and i will never give you the benefit of the doubt again.

Unfortunately, I can't got to catch a plane soon.

../azul123

 

[Dean AR]

HDR is just a tool. Just like a hammer.

A craftsman will create beautiful works while a worker will just use it to knock a nail.

Eventually, after the hype, the general public will differentiate between what is art and what is trash.

Stay Cool.

 

[ortega]

Ok that is enough

let me remind all of the terms of use

i will be going out of my office for a while, so any post after this post which goes against the terms of use (link above, please read it, in case you forgot) will be served with an infraction.

 

[zero o]

if you want to put it that way, then every long exposure shot will be gone case.

since when can your eyes see a blurring of water? :bsmilie:

when we talking about "what we see", is the fact that you should be able to see the details. the amount of detail you see; there is a certain way to control it. and i think maybe, some amount of visitations of labrador park is in order. i have seen far better than what is posted in labrador park, but whether i managed to capture and reproduce the scene as what i remember is subjective - i'd say that i only keep and post about 50% of all sunsets i manage to attend. i won't say that hdri will LITERALLY translate what you see with your eye into a picture, to say that it tries is more appropriate.

i think the idea is how "natural looking" the picture is.

night hdr is a very touchy subject in most hdr realists/overdone battles - there is no real way to judge what you see during the night, it is very different frmo the day. during sunset there is still enough light though.

most of the overdone hdr has the shadow areas bright, and the highlight shadows darkened, to the point where the whole picture is evenly exposed. that seems very weird to me. the SKY should be brighter still. the FOREGROUND should be darker still. if it turns out that the foreground looks the same as the sky, or the foreground is BRIGHTER (gasp) than the sky, then you really have a problem communicating what you actually saw. also turns out making the picture very "flat" and without depth. very 2d. which introduces the "cartoon paint effect".

Thanks for the reply.

If someone insists that "blurring of water" is not something that we can see, and therefore based on that one fact renders the photograph as "cannot make it", then my suggestion is let him and his views be. No point arguing.

Thanks for explaining your concept of HDR to me. My understanding of HDR is better now. Much as we can try and pin down what a good HDR should be, the fact remains that HDR is subjective, much more so than a photograph - when i snap a picture, it captures the scene per se. The moment I start fiddling with the curve or apply HDR technique to the image, i am inputting more of my personal subjective interpretation towards it. The moment this happens, then terms like "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" and "one's man meat is another man's poison" will surely be applicable and probably magnified many times over as compared to the original photograph.

HDRI in its pure form or HDRI in the radioactive form, it is evolving as a trend amongst photographers. Is this evolution bad for photography as a whole ? Or it merely showcases the diverse usefulness of the humble camera, the ingenuity of photographers and the potential of photography as an art form in our modern world ? Just like the paintbrush is useful for applying paint to walls as well as being used to create masterpieces of art, perhaps someday, someone can use the camera and HDR to create a new art form that is embraced the world over.

just my 2 cents worth

 

[changster]

Thanks for the reply.

If someone insists that "blurring of water" is not something that we can see, and therefore based on that one fact renders the photograph as "cannot make it", then my suggestion is let him and his views be. No point arguing.

Thanks for explaining your concept of HDR to me. My understanding of HDR is better now. Much as we can try and pin down what a good HDR should be, the fact remains that HDR is subjective, much more so than a photograph - when i snap a picture, it captures the scene per se. The moment I start fiddling with the curve or apply HDR technique to the image, i am inputting more of my personal subjective interpretation towards it. The moment this happens, then terms like "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" and "one's man meat is another man's poison" will surely be applicable and probably magnified many times over as compared to the original photograph.

HDRI in its pure form or HDRI in the radioactive form, it is evolving as a trend amongst photographers. Is this evolution bad for photography as a whole ? Or it merely showcases the diverse usefulness of the humble camera, the ingenuity of photographers and the potential of photography as an art form in our modern world ? Just like the paintbrush is useful for applying paint to walls as well as being used to create masterpieces of art, perhaps someday, someone can use the camera and HDR to create a new art form that is embraced the world over.

just my 2 cents worth

well said. hdr will eventually become a norm, because photography will always evolve, be it technologically or aesthetically.

if one truly condiders photography an art form, then i don't think that it is appropriate to state if something is right or wrong based upon one's preconceptions or even what most think as a whole. after all, art is an expression of the self, and the most exciting and ground-breaking works are not achieved by obeying conventions and rules.

if someone wants to make his/her hdr 'radioactive' in look, so be it. maybe that person has a motivation for doing so (i.e. adding to the impact of a picture). even if not, people are free to experiment and post whatever they want. i think that this self-righteous posturing in determining what should be considered right or wrong is born of a 'holier than thou' attitude'.

of course, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and here i've made mine.

 

[Leong23]

well said. hdr will eventually become a norm, because photography will always evolve, be it technologically or aesthetically.

Yes and it is a very thin line, or there are not absolute right or wrong. To me, what is important is that the photographer should know what effect he/she want.

If the intention is to create a radioactive effect, then there is nothing wrong, many hollywood movie poster is having the same effect too.

If the intention is to recreate the natural feel, then it better be natural.

But sadly there are lots of cases that most people don't know what they are doing and using art as an excuse. Those people will evenually reach their bottleneck and can't go far in this hobby. (btw, it is only just a hobby)

Commerical and natural photograpy is quite different, i always jokingly complaint to my gf that why my Big-Mac don't look the same in the photo they present in the counter.

I mostly doing natural photography, let me quote an extreme example.
if someone posted a edited photo consist of insect with 2 heads and funny out of the world colour in the forum, i will just laugh and give some comments on it.
If happen the most of the people in that forum are giving :thumbsup: praises to it, then it mean that i'm in the wrong forum. Maybe that forum is for special effect, and that is nothing wrong with them, lots of people like them are making big in commercial world.

For me, as a hobbyist, i just stick to my world that i like, because hobby shouldn't be making me stress.

 

[hazmee]

Basically all night86mare is saying, if these 'radioactive' HDR wannabes actually bothered to read the manual, ask the right questions and the do the right thing, there will be less of these sort of images floating around the web. I too get quite frustrated sometimes with some folks who do it just because everyone else is doing it without understanding the purpose. Yes there is a proper and correct method if you read Photomatix website and there are plenty of tutorials in the web that teach you how to create a successful HDR image.

It is simply a technical requirement on the photographers part to understand how things work first before jumping into the bandwagon. HDRI is very technical and it takes a meticulous person to plan his shots followed by a lot of effort put in post production. I noticed that most people seem to pass off HDR as gimmicky which is in fact not at all. Not long ago in Flickr, everyone was into the 'dragan' effect without having a single clue how Andrzej Dragan lit his subject and post process his images. Hence, you see poor imitations which mushroomed like crazy. People think a Photoshop filter would do the trick. I can only sigh.

This discussion is not about art and I think we should not even go there unless you want the discussion to go south. It happens all the time.

To sum it up, talent + skill + opportunity + gear + attitude = exceptional work. Cheers!

 

[Leong23]

To sum it up, talent + skill + opportunity + gear + attitude = exceptional work. Cheers!

I fully agreed. There are no short cut.

 

[night86mare]

HDRI in its pure form or HDRI in the radioactive form, it is evolving as a trend amongst photographers. Is this evolution bad for photography as a whole ? Or it merely showcases the diverse usefulness of the humble camera, the ingenuity of photographers and the potential of photography as an art form in our modern world ? Just like the paintbrush is useful for applying paint to walls as well as being used to create masterpieces of art, perhaps someday, someone can use the camera and HDR to create a new art form that is embraced the world over.

yes, i get what you mean zero o - that perhaps someone might come up with something new just because they were doing what i deem as trash. that has happened before in the past, that has happened before in the present, that will be happening in the future.

but one trouble lies with your argument - the point that the radioactive hdr crowd - i won't say all of them, but most of them aren't exactly "doing new stuff". it isn't fresh, it isn't new, it's been done to death on flickr, on pbase, on all sorts of sites that i have seen. i don't give critique on those sites, but when i give critique here - i have received defensive responses like "oh, on xxx site a lot of people are doing it and no one said anything"; or another variety where "hey, it's my version of art, if you don't like it, go fly a kite".

the first response is just plain ludicrous to me. i think we can all see why. as for the second; well, let's just say that there is a thin fine line between really believing in what one is doing, versus using "art" as a blanket defense against criticism - and that is one thing i cannot tolerate.

 

[night86mare]

if one truly condiders photography an art form, then i don't think that it is appropriate to state if something is right or wrong based upon one's preconceptions or even what most think as a whole. after all, art is an expression of the self, and the most exciting and ground-breaking works are not achieved by obeying conventions and rules.

if someone wants to make his/her hdr 'radioactive' in look, so be it. maybe that person has a motivation for doing so (i.e. adding to the impact of a picture). even if not, people are free to experiment and post whatever they want. i think that this self-righteous posturing in determining what should be considered right or wrong is born of a 'holier than thou' attitude'.

art = immune to criticism?

nothing, save something a person cannot control in his life, like physical defects, race, eye colour - is immune to criticism.

it is ironic when you call art a freedom of expression and in the same breath say that this freedom of expression is immune to other people's freedom of expression, i.e. their critique or feelings - which for the most part of mine, never personal.

let me throw you a question - if indeed your concept of art is correct; and i think there is this controversial artwork being discussed not long ago, that of someone tying a dying dog up in a museum and calling it art - what if this dying dog was replaced by an african child who is starving?

looking at that very example, i think you'll see how hypocritical human beings are - they could not care less about dying dogs on the street, or dying african children on the street - but when it comes to dying things placed in front of them, they will explode into fury and make big gestures and a lot of noise. art as freedom of expression being immune to criticism? such a concept is utopian and self-defeating, it does not take the nature of people into account.

 

[night86mare]

But sadly there are lots of cases that most people don't know what they are doing and using art as an excuse. Those people will evenually reach their bottleneck and can't go far in this hobby. (btw, it is only just a hobby)

yes, correct.

blindly following, without understanding what hdr encompasses, or how to harness it is just as bad as buying a dslr and never (note, by this use of 'never', i mean in the long run) ever finding out how to control the settings.

i mean, sure, you're entitled to it; by all means, let your hdr dragon run amok, and always put your dslr in auto mode. but don't ever deny that you don't know what you are doing, and that you have no vision, and you are lazy.

i guess this paragraph from hazmee says it best:

It is simply a technical requirement on the photographers part to understand how things work first before jumping into the bandwagon. HDRI is very technical and it takes a meticulous person to plan his shots followed by a lot of effort put in post production. I noticed that most people seem to pass off HDR as gimmicky which is in fact not at all. Not long ago in Flickr, everyone was into the 'dragan' effect without having a single clue how Andrzej Dragan lit his subject and post process his images. Hence, you see poor imitations which mushroomed like crazy. People think a Photoshop filter would do the trick. I can only sigh.

if i did not like hdr so much myself; i couldn't care less - note that i don't go ranting about other things which are problematic on the photographic scene from my point of view. but hdr hate groups sprouting out on flickr? people starting to question what is more important - the basics or achieving special effects to impress whoever they intend to impress? if anything i think it holds back the development of hdr into something bigger. i mean, by this i mean the whole scene, not just clubsnap. you could hardly expect a small country's photographic community to be influential on the global scene, by numbers alone.

 

[zero o]

Using night86mare as an example - we all have no issue with his HDRI images for he has been at it for a long time and he can consistently produce quality images via his methods that awe the HDRI purists in us.

Now,consider "night86mare nemesis". He is into radioactive HDRI. He has spent long hours at it and he can also consistently produce images that awe his own group of followers, albeit in the radioactive HDRI form.

Can both groups have their own supporters and followings ? Can the products of both be labeled as an art form ? If one can be labeled as such, then i would think that the other can too be labeled as such.

The point that I am trying to bring across here is simple - if we want to discuss HDRI and its evolvement as an art form, then we must compare apples to apples, and not pitch photos produced by GWC who sees something that interests him and decides to try it out for the 1st time against someone who has the talent + skill + opportunity + gear + attitude like night86mare (for his HDRI) or Leong 23(for his macro work).

If we cannot see beyond this, and continue to pitch works of different standards together as comparison to support our case, then i would agree with hazmee rght here and now that the discussion will surely head south.

 

[night86mare]

Now,consider "night86mare nemesis". He is into radioactive HDRI. He has spent long hours at it and he can also consistently produce images that awe his own group of followers, albeit in the radioactive HDRI form.

Can both groups have their own supporters and followings ? Can the products of both be labeled as an art form ? If one can be labeled as such, then i would think that the other can too be labeled as such.

yes, zero o, i certainly see what you mean; and i cannot agree more -

and it is only fair, what you say. the only trouble is that there are few, far and between in the radioactive group who seem to know what they are doing.

i might never see eye to eye with someone who goes for "extreme detail" or too much surreality, or what someone else here as called "cartoon art" - but i can appreciate how people can appreciate it, no doubt about it. here's an example of.. something i cannot appreciate, but i understand that others can see some value in it - link. on a side note, i wonder what imran has been doing, he hasn't been updating his photoblog.

another good example would be some of hazmee's portraits. like this one or this one.

when i looked through lews2001's flickr profile i saw this quote that really struck a chord with me - it was by franz kafka, i had seen it before but hadn't taken up photography then; it goes like this:

"we photograph things to drive them out of our minds."

interpreting it personally, i think it encompasses the essence of photography - the flow of the vision from one's mind onto the final product , i.e. the image. and i seriously question this presence of vision behind all those works i have been ranting about here - because frankly, i don't think so many people have nightmares at night. :bsmilie:

 

[changster]

art = immune to criticism?

nothing, save something a person cannot control in his life, like physical defects, race, eye colour - is immune to criticism.

it is ironic when you call art a freedom of expression and in the same breath say that this freedom of expression is immune to other people's freedom of expression, i.e. their critique or feelings - which for the most part of mine, never personal.

let me throw you a question - if indeed your concept of art is correct; and i think there is this controversial artwork being discussed not long ago, that of someone tying a dying dog up in a museum and calling it art - what if this dying dog was replaced by an african child who is starving?

looking at that very example, i think you'll see how hypocritical human beings are - they could not care less about dying dogs on the street, or dying african children on the street - but when it comes to dying things placed in front of them, they will explode into fury and make big gestures and a lot of noise. art as freedom of expression being immune to criticism? such a concept is utopian and self-defeating, it does not take the nature of people into account.

well i was half expecting this kind of a reply. i am arresting my dive "southwards".

 

[LazerLordz]

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

Honestly, this one has potential to be used as a base for further compositing.

In this sense, it's beyond photography already, it's more of mixed-media effects that so-called "overdone" HDR can be used as foundational appliques.

Sometimes, why not apply the maxim of "to each his own?".

 

[zero o]

.. the only trouble is that there are few, far and between in the radioactive group who seem to know what they are doing.

Hahah ... yea ... tats why i used "night86mare nemesis"
I have seen the works of hazmee and imran before this.
They are good .. at least in my layman's eyes.

This is where i think CS is a step above many other forums. The diversity of its members and their relentless pursuit of their genre of photography never ceases to amaze me.

 

[night86mare]

Sometimes, why not apply the maxim of "to each his own?".

i hate that line of thought - if taken too liberally then you will have one messed up world where there are no absolutes.

i mean, if you want to be all liberal and say that hey, everybody has a right to his point of view - just imagine a murderer in court - the judge bangs the gavel down and says:

"oh well, he just sees things in a different way, to each his own. case dismissed."

life isn't all diverse, it isn't all uniform either - it's a mixture of both. which is why there can be discussion about so many things. yes, art is subjective; one man's meat can be another's poison - but i do think that at any point of time, there will be a relatively uniform concept of beauty - what do you think of this?