What's your reaction when you see an HDR image?

As long as it's not overly processed, I like them. Once they go into the "eye candy mode" they lose me right from the start.

Check out www.flickr.com/photos/gryphon1911

there is a folder there called HDR. 2 images. One taken as the camera meter reported it, the other with 2 alternate exposures to help bring visibility to the highlights and eliminate the blown out area behind the doorway.

To me, this is a "good" use of HDR in "standard" photography.

However, if you are taking an artistic stance with the image, then maybe the over processed tone mapping of the HDR is what you were looking for.

To each their own...I jusy don't enjoy looking at the over processed images as much as the ones that give you a "closer to the human eye" dynamic range.

I think its pretty cool. I havnt learned how to do it yet, but I still like it. Its just another form of art. Some of the people here think if its done on the comp its not a real photograph or not real art or whatever. I saw someone a while ago say HDR was an insult to the artists that can paint.

Do you people not realize that it takes talent to do comp editing in a manner that is asthetic to people other than teenagers? Yeah, I know people try to compensate for poor shots in the first place, but you can almost always tell thats whats going on. So ignore those people or give them something constructive. I notice that a lot of your comments are very negative and presented negativly. I get that you probably did film for longer that I have been alive, but why are you so prejudiced against the people who are jumping into what the future is? Not to mention whats more affordable. If it werent for my digital camera (and yes I have filters and lenses and a tripod and I set my scene and all that) I wouldnt be able to do anything because I cant afford the chemicals and rent for a dark room.

I got off a lil bit there, but my main point is HDR is just another artistic way of digitally editing. I think its pretty but like everything else, it shouldnt be over done.

The more I see HDR, the less I like it. The first time I saw one, I admit to thinking 'Wow! That's interesting!'

However, they all now seem to be overdone - over cooked.

I recall thinking back to my kiddie-hood and seeing postcards in the store at the beach, where there was a rack of 'views' which were all heavily hand-tinted (Yes - I go back that far). At the time, I thought that they were 'tacky' - I still do. That is how most HDR efforts strike me but there are the few rare exceptions ...

I'm about like you and Draagon. It depends on how heavy-handed it was done, though. If it is a means to balance out an exposure, it's not so bad. It's just showing us what the eye thinks it sees anyhow. If it's an "eye candy" job, it looks okay if the print is large enough (16x20 or so) and you are far enough away not to realize how processed it is, but when you get closer and see what's happening, you think, "I wonder what this really looked like..."

Me, too. Then I think.. "hmmm... this is really not the way I see things in real life"

It's funny how most saturated HDR images are not portrait.

The HDR pictures I've seen remind me of photorealistic paintings. Indeed, it was after seeing HDR that I finally "got" photorealistic art.

lol I love most HDR's but some people way over do it.. and then some people start using it for everything they shoot, and that to me is a no no it is not meant for everything imo

I think it's a powerful new tool in the right hands, just like any other darkroom or computer effect.

Now THIS is funny!

Nestor is picking on Che

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSmakhno.htm...

Added next day:

I see Nestor has left the building. His post was a personal attack on the asker.

If done correctly, I think they can beautiful. I enjoy creating them. I prefer to do the manual way rather than the automated way in Photoshop, it looks so much better.