OverHDR-ed portraits. Are they digestible to you?

<p>Is it only me who finds portraits like these:<br>

http://esharkdesign.com/index.php/archive/10-stunning-hdr-portraits/<br>

very unaesthetic, and disturbing? And by "disturbing" I do not mean artistic and mind-provoking disturbance, but sheer ugliness.<br>

It seems so popular now, that pseudo HDR effect in portraits. Alas, there are entire galleries here at PN that are based on this single glitzy effect. I posted a link from outside, only because I did not want to attack anyone personally, but some people seem to have completely fallen for it. But the effect makes pictures so difficult to look at...<br>

...or is it only me?</p>

<p>Gaaaah! My eyes!<br /><br />The only time I find that technique interesting is when its used for hipper-than-thou editorial purposes, or in some "edgy" ad, etc. But most of the examples in the set you linked to are terrible examples of this generally ugly style. The really bad choices of physics-defying layering on the faces, the glaring halos, the transition from muddy hues to garrish ones across surfaces where nothing else about the subject in that spot would normally change the hue or tone of the refected light... ugly. And not pleasingly executed even if you DO go in for that sort of thing. This sort of HDR manipulation is the set of add-on spinning chrome-finish plastic hubcaps on the 1992 Toyota Corolla of portait art.</p>

<p>I don't clutter my life worrying about how other people approach their own photography. Why should I? If someone likes those images and enjoys making them, then more power to them.</p>

<p>Woops, a dupe. But I agree with the above. Normally I'd never even comment. But you <em>linked</em> to it, and I stepped in it!<br /><br />Mind you, plenty of people have told me that my own photographs are the mediocre milquetoastesque mutterings of a middle aged man mawkishly mucking about in such mild-mannered stuff that I wouldn't know real art from merengue (the salsa kind, <em>or</em> the lemon kind).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not mean artistic and mind-provoking disturbance, but sheer ugliness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you. But hey, it's digital, and digital has the numbers on its side (sigh).</p>

<p>Digital's got nothing to do with bad taste, Vincent. It's just easier to create these disasters that way than it is in the darkroom. But the choice of medium doesn't <em>cause</em> a person to be, aesthetically, the sort that thinks wearing a paisley tie with a striped shirt and a plaid suit is going to get him all the women. </p>

" Are they digestible to you? "

 

The problem I have swallowing that style is that the images are already predigested, I like to chew my food.

 

 

Beyond the ugliness, it is the sameness that numbs my mind.

<p>Rob, I'm not that worried about what people like. I posted it, because the effect is very, very popular. So popular that at certain point I actually started to worry about my own perception of things.<br>

Matt, I do not regard your pictures mediocre mutterings. On the contrary -- excellent expressions. But that's not the point. What I meant is the surprisingly high popularity of portraits HDR-ed to the extreme, and some itching I had to express it publicly. Which I did.</p>

<p>You don't even have to use Photoshop to be a great photographer. Check out the new Pentax that will put all of your photos in the Top-Rated-Photos column at Photo.net.<br>

http://www.adorama.com/alc/blogarticle/11608?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=EmailTT052809&j=8127993&e=markachartrand@gmail.com&l=928833_HTML&u=78520458&mid=80238&jb=0</p>

 

<p>I know this is gonna be painful.....but I kinda liked a couple of em....The boy with the Chess set is kinda Harry Potterish sorta...OK let beatings commence.....</p>

<p>"Over" anything is by definition not good.</p>

<p>Again,<br>

To a small child with a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.</p>

<p>New tools are always overused and pushed too far when people first discover them...</p>

<p>I think I read somewhere "that it to shall pass"! The sooner the better in my opinion.</p>

<p>It used to be in vogue to make drawings of people that way... (Phillip Pearlstein comes to mind) and then paintings... it doesn't surprise me that the trend would eventually show up in photography, simply because it can be done.<br>

And to carry JDM's comment one step further... to an engineer with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.<br>

I wouldn't fret about it. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I have not suffered as a result of missing all the Freddy Kruger movies... just wasn't interested. The comparison is close enough.</p>

<p>I have experimented with demos of some this overdone style. I have made some prints and I threw them all out except one when someone liked the one below. I don't but there is a lot of it being done. It's like science fiction; some people like it. I don't. </p>

<p>It sure is not my cup of tea...however I can see that it would appeal to those that like illustrative type images. Something that is drawn or painted with surreal color and light. These images are not for and not meant to be for people who like photographic images in a more traditional sense, but rather for those that like the art work in a comic books or a CGI animated movies.</p>

<p>To each his/her own.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

 

<p>Dick, I have also experimented with HDR a lot. And I actually still use it occasionally – and subtly – in pictures of buildings. Some of them need it, in my opinion. A well-HDR-ed brick looks more like a brick.<br>

Where it bothers me most is the pictures of people; here, the distaste is very strong up to the point of repulsion.<br>

But Thomas and others, the "if you don't like it, don't look at it" attitude is just one. Some people when they see something disgusting just turn away, some express their disgust. I'd be the latter, maybe because I'm over talkative at times.</p>

<p>It's the 'Clowns on Velvet' of the digital age!</p>

<p>The disappointing aspect of so many photographic tricks like these (and I include analog tricks like "solarization" as well, film users aren't immune no matter what Vincent thinks) is that they are just way too overused. Everything has to be to 200% MORE than the other guy. Which is too bad because stuff like this can be really interesting and creative if done with an ounce of restraint.</p>

<p>But then again, people like what they like. If other photographers enjoy making these images, who am I to tell them that they shouldn't? If other people enjoy looking at them, who am I to tell them to stop? More power to them all. Photography is a big tent.</p>

<p>I just have little interest in it for my own images.</p>

<p>Adam I have nothing against HDR. I have experimented with it and it can really help in increasing dynamic range but the exaggerated stuff cited by the OP gets really boring fast. I think I must have deleted the picture I was going to post because I can't find it. It is in my PN gallery. You can't miss it; it's a distortion of a very good picture of the Nubble light house that I did and blew up to 18x24. </p>

<p>[[Rob, I'm not that worried about what people like. I posted it, because the effect is very, very popular.]]</p>

<p>What percentage of all photographs taken in the world over the past 365 days have been used to create HDR portraits like this?</p>

<p>I think a better sense of perspective is in order.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The funny thing about these photos is that they're not HDR at all.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Peter you right. They look like have been overdone with Lucis or somtething similar.</p>

<p>

 

<p>Josh, I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't. Still, I believe that if I don't like something, I should speak it out instead of turning away and pretending it's not there.</p>

<p>Dick, I know which picture you mean. You are right, I don't like it :). But I like your other lighthouses, taken without HDR.</p>

<p>Peter, I know. It's called pseudo-HDR, isn't it? Or something similar. Anyway, if models were able to stand unmoved for several shots, overdone HDR would give similar results.</p>

 

</p>

<p>Rob, I have not done any statistics, but the effect seems popular. However, you may be right here; I'm judging mostly by the pictures posted to "Photo Critique" forum, I may have lost some perspective.</p>

<p>I happen to have this month's "Shutterbug" magazine in hand. There's a multi-page spread featuring work by Chris Alvanas - showing exactly this sort of stuff, and rather gushing over it. He's on the cover, too. Some of it looks more like gen-u-ine HDR, some more like examples above.</p>