Ah, yet another thread to veer into the why-I-hate-HDR discussions
But that's OK, I hate it too (except when
I use it
).
So... allow me to chip in and re-post what I said about a year ago, for the benefit (or not) of newer members (and with apologies to the old ones):
... HDR defenders would often say "let's not confuse
bad HDR (aka saccharin, nuclear, etc. HDR) photography with
good HDR photography". My view on this, admittedly extreme:
There is no good HDR photography! If it is that good, it is not perceived as HDR. If it is good AND perceived as HDR, it has, more likely, already crossed from photography into digital art. And again, that's cool... there are people who love digital art.
If i want to be generous to HDR and mellow the above statements, I would qualify them as pertaining to HDR resulting from the use of automated methods, rather than manual blending.
What's my beef with (automated) HDR? In a word: EVERYthing.
Good thing about HDR: tones down highlights and opens up shadows. Enhances details and colors.
Bad thing about HDR: tones down EVERY highlight and opens up EVERY shadow. Enhances EVERY detail and EVERY color.
It is like the difference between pornographic and erotic: some things are simply more exciting when covered, hidden or hinted.
Emphasizing everything defies the very nature and purpose of photography. It is often said that painters add and photographers subtract. Namely, a painter starts with a blank canvas and adds elements, but only those he chooses. A photographer, on the other hand, is faced with a world in front of him with too many already existing elements, hence he needs to simplify, subtract and hide those unimportant ones, by lens and standpoint selection, composition, and, often, post-processing. HDR, by revealing everything, reverses that effort and defies the purpose...
