OverHDR-ed portraits. Are they digestible to you?

[phule]

<p>[[Nope. Not every followup to yours is a challenge to make your day.]]</p>

<p>If you choose to try and validate your argument with hyperbole don't be shocked when someone calls you on it. </p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>That is more clear Peter, Thanks.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>Those "photos" are ghastly awful! The newest fad I suppose. Bleak indeed.</p>

[jerry_schuler]

<p >I've recently view some video's by some pro photo shop experts. A lot of them were pointed at creating "THE LOOK" which is creating a photo that is like photos seen in cheep old rag magazines before lithography was perfected. This entails using high pass filters, grain filters, adding noise, and even cloud filters to simulate a dirty lens. Also, what seems to be part of "THE LOOK" is chopping off the top of peoples' heads in portraits. Most of these photos demonstrate that. The only thing that seems to be missing from photoshop is the dirty finger print overlay to simulate somebody handling film before it's dry.</p>

 

[george_morris1]

<p>Many of you commenting on this issue are coming across as very elitist, this technique is just another form of photographic expression. If you don't care for it, don't utilize it, don' t view it. You need to get over yourselves.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>George: there's nothing elitist about it. Similar images using these techniques are shown on the covers of internationally read photography magazines. They are presented ed <em>by the actual "elite"</em> as examples of skill and aesthetic wonderfulness. We're not talking about something that some 12 year old spent all weekend working on, out of a sense of fashion - we're talking about poorly handled images being presented as "stunning" works of art. When <em>someone else </em>trots out that sort of hyperbole, it's not only OK to call it what it is, it's something of an obligation. Your advice to "not view it" is good, except it's hard not to when someone drops a blind link with the word "stunning" attached to it.<br /><br />I stand by my very non-elitist negative reaction to the examples shown.</p>

[stamos]

<p>Photography is art. Not all artists have the same taste. PN is a great place where artists with different tastes meet.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Those are just brutal examples of some sort of Dragan effect gone even more wrong than usual.<br>

Someone's failed experiment, why even worry about them?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Mebbe it's the next wave in Fauvism, who knows? Or Fauxteauism.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"If you choose to try and validate your argument with hyperbole don't be shocked when someone calls you on it."</p>

<p>I wrote that in-camera hdr will become a common feature. And you task me about whether I've benchtested a K7. Besides the k7 has in-camera hdr, what is the connection? What argument? What validation? What shock? And what did you "call" me on?</p>

<p>TIA</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>I think they're ghastly. Artistic expression, not photographic expression, and not to my taste</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>DonE. wrote</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't look now, Rob, but in-camera HDR is a reality. Expect lots more like this. Photorealistic photographs, the wave of the future. Who knew?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But these aren't photorealistic, not even remotely, and I seriously doubt in-camera HDR will ever look like this.</p>

[larry_myers4]

<p>What's going on in the one with the Vin Diesel-looking guy and the tripod? I can't even figure out what I'm looking at there.<br /> All of these pictures are really lacking in subtlety, and to be honest I just don't think that HDR works very well for human portraits- more often then not, skin tones just end up looking ugly and 'goo-ey'.</p>

<p>I really like HDR when it's used on buildings/urban settings, though:</p>

<p>http://www.sghi.info/GL/img/HDR_01/School.HDR.II_by_NieckQ__CCbyncnd20.jpg</p>

[don_e]

<p>Brett, the term photographers are using for this kind of work is hyper real or super hyper real. In painting super and hyper real developed from photorealism.</p>

<p>The irony (or hyperbole, some prefer) is in the full circle from painting photographs to making photographs that look like paintings of photographs -- which is different from the complaint about "over processing" photos to look like paintings. Well, at least I find it amusing. Are we seeing a divergence in how HDR is used? There's the conservative approach: images more like the eye sees, and then there is this...creative...approach.</p>

<p>I find it comic. Others are offended it seems. One ought not to take photography too seriously, at least on weekends.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Yeah, I guess, hyper something at least. I think it's interesting and fine as an artisitc excercise. I would hope it doesn't become the norm somehow. You don't think manufacturers would ever implement an in camera system that produced results anything like this do you? Maybe as an option to another implementation where the goal was simply to extend the dynamic range to overcome the narrow exposure latitude of the camera. To me, HDR is great in that sense. If we could somehow get 4 or 5 stops at the moment of capture and have it look natural and realistic, that would be incredible.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I picked up the new shutterbug yesterday. They profiled at guy that does this type thing with portraits and scenics. I just do not like viewing it but I can see people liking it because it is a very artificial and strange effect...Maybe people feel that regular photography is just to mundane and want more "Wow" to a picture. HDR is kind of a love it or hate it type thing I suppose. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>No accounting for taste. I find these example undigestible too, Adam.</p>

<p>I recall a crazy madcap and hilarious comedy film ( around 1980 ) called "The In Laws. "Alan Arkin is a dentist led on a merry chase by CIA agent Peter Falk -at his nutty deadpan best- to a Central American banana republic. General Garcia, the goofy military dictator, displays his collection of beautifully framed wall paintings in his mansion. <em>Portraits of nudes painted on velvet</em> (!), like the kind that were sold in Tijuana and were once popular tourist junk.</p>

<p>I don't know if "kitsch" is the right word,or what word to call the examples. Homely.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Check out the July/August 2008 issue of Digital PhotoPro.<br /> <br /> I was really surprised to see the HDR Portrait section, especially when I realized I had seen a bunch of these photos (by George Fulton) used in advertising but never really realized it. I just thought that the photos were actually cartoon/paintings!<br /> <br /> To me, the HDRed portraits look like artistic reproductions....and a very cartoony when they are tone mapped. It really isn't my cup of tea, but I think in certain situations they work very well. I must definitely say that I do in fact like George Fulton's photos, especially for advertising...it just works.</p>

<p>Here is a link to the article (web version of course)<br /> <a href="http://www.digitalphotopro.com/profiles/george-fulton-no-time-for-haters.html">http://www.digitalphotopro.com/profiles/george-fulton-no-time-for-haters.html</a></p>

<p>And a link to George Fulton's website:<br /> <a href="http://www.georgefulton.com/">http://www.georgefulton.com/</a></p>

<p>It seems like a lot of people dislike this style, but I'm of the opinion that if done <em>well </em> and in the right setting, it can be artisitcally appealing.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>So do we have a link to some that are done just right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Purpose of my link to George Fulton's work. just thought I'd mention that I think his is "done right".</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Fulton's samples are graphically interesting, Keith. A heightened sense of reality fits a few subjects. The one of the ladies in the kitchen and the anteater by the refrigerator is kind of fun in a four dimensional world sort of way. I notice that there are some conventions like perspective observed, but no other spatial clues in landscapes. Such as a haze in the distance or blurring of backgrounds. It is not unpleasant. And draws my attention in a billboard sort of way... I could enjoy these as eye candy (in a non negative at all sense of the word.) Thanks for these interesting linked examples.</p>

<p>One must keep an <strong>open mind, -visual cortex wise,-</strong> for sure, Keith. Yeah, to 'let the bats fly out' once in a while if nothing else:-)<br /> aloha, gerry</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Well, it's just more graphical illustration type work like you see all over the 'net now.</p>

[squeri]

<p>I don't think the HDR process needs to be used to such an extreme.<br>

<br />I tried a PS tutorial after reading this post and found it improved my image. The tut I used was a simplified version that didn't require bracketing. I basically created several duped layers then adjusted levels for specific "zones" in each layer. Blending modes and opacity allowed my to get teh best exposure for each area. It looked only slightly altered to my untrained eye. Certainly not the surreal look these examples have.<br>

<br />Maybe if I was a better photographer the HDR wouldn't be an improvement, but right now I think it is- especially for a quick first try. I think everything but the blown out clowds in the HDR looks better in my example.<br>

<br />HDR version: <a href="http://s562.photobucket.com/albums/ss69/jsqueri/architecture/?action=view&current=lookingupHDRcopy.jpg">http://s562.photobucket.com/albums/ss69/jsqueri/architecture/?action=view&current=lookingupHDRcopy.jpg</a><br>

<br />Original with normal PP: <a href="http://s562.photobucket.com/albums/ss69/jsqueri/architecture/?action=view&current=DSC_2400.jpg">http://s562.photobucket.com/albums/ss69/jsqueri/architecture/?action=view&current=DSC_2400.jpg</a></p>

[neal wells]

<p>To each their own... Somebody also had to create all the "Elvis on Velvet" hangings but it might be a stretch to include them in a book of tapestries. </p>

[cornell_tramontana]

<p>Nothing exceeds like excess.</p>

[mbwakali]

<p>Those photos are obscene. Honestly grotesque.</p>