Only if the person doing the HDR blending is hamfisted. Like any photographic technique, if you notice the technique instead of the image content there is a problem
“If you’re concerned about people stealing your photos, don’t post them on the internet.”
Spoken like someone who thinks theft is okay. Overwatermarking is obnoxious. though. Like I sauid before if you notice the technique rather than the photo, etc.
@Ellis Vener, Yeah, that argument is kind of like saying “if you don’t want to be hit by a car, don’t leave your house”. Technically true, but with a little cooperation from drivers, we can all be happy.
Wired have obviously never had content stolen or passed off then. A watermark, even a small one is a great way to both promote and protect your image once it’s been lifted “for research purposes” and lives on someone else’s drive/network/site.
To say a watermark on an image indicates somebody is hard to work with is horse-shit.
@Edward Maurer,
I agree, I hope it disappears along with bland wedding photography,and commercialized lifestyle portraits because god forbid any one would want to have fun with their digital process.
@Edward Maurer,
Thanks Edward, I value the fact that you have chosen photography as your lively hood and I hope you find even more success in the years to come.
@Cynthia Wood,
Your sooo right, how dare HDR try and compete with cutely named galleries featuring duplicated renditions of photo’s everyone else has seen and done!
Cynthia Wood Reply: September 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@Blue,
If you’re going to come here and (essentially) crap all over other people’s comments, the least you could do would be to let us see YOUR work! Crapping anonymously is in rather poor taste — just like most uses of HDR…in my humble opinion.
P.S. We are expressing personal opinions here, FYI. And there are ways to disagree, or express yours, that don’t involve snarky personal attacks on others and their work.
@Cynthia Wood,
You are 100% correct. As soon as I start taking photo’s I will share my work for all to see. Until then, I am merely expressing my humble opinion….. much like you are to any and all HDR shooters.
I am not really sure why you took personal offense at my obtuse comment, I certainly will not crap on anyones comments again, instead I will just crap on techniques and any desires to play with the different facets of the digital process.
*Blech* to personal attacks!
It seems like it was meant to be kinda funny, and the writer wasn’t awful, but it wasn’t hilarious. Could’ve been better or a little more edgy? Was just “enh”.
“I don’t have pet peeves; I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay.”
- George Carlin
Watermarking, I have discovered, is essential. It need not be intrusive or large, it only needs to say “Copyright (year) (name)”. It might not hurt to put a small web address in there, too, unless it makes the watermark too large. This clearly establishes ownership and, with the address, tells people where to find the rest of your work. Wired suggests that one invoice infringers — most attorneys will tell you that it makes their job far easier if you always remember to attach a watermarked copyright notice to the image. (I am not a lawyer).
[i]“For photo editors looking for potential photographers, the watermark is usually just a sign of someone who will be difficult to work with. Either because they’ve been burned in the past and they’re paranoid, or they just have an inflated idea of the market value of their work.”[/i]
Sounds like they are Creative Commons folks who think microstock is overpriced?
Time to “repurpose” their articles I guess. Why have a byline again? Oh yeah, content has value ….
I liked this much better:
“50 Rules of Photography for Morons by Ivars Gravlejs (50 photos)”
Actually, I can think of one legit use for watermarking, if your model is loss leader. ie, those folks who do the photo booth things at parties. Give away low res images, with your name on it, they get spread around and you get hired for the next party by someone who sees it.
Yeah, there’s bad HDR and good HDR. The “hyper stylized, over sharped, super dark moody clouds, etc.” is flat out cheesy, however. If the HDR can look real it allows the image to be seen in a latitude more like what the human eye can see. Just like any technique, only apply the right amount
An HDR is done it should be artistic like any other photograph. I have seen som really good ones and you don’t knw they are HDR. But I look at a lot of HDR works and I just don’t like them, they lack creativity and the true practice of being a photographer. How many people that have a decent DSLR have read any of Ansel Adams books on Photography. Those that shoot for HDR sould read them.
And It is not about handling a RAW File it is about getting what you SEE in the first place at the time you press that little button called a release.
What a nicely polarising post! I would modify this to say “Badly tone-mapped HDRs need to go the way…”
HDR can be a really useful technique and people see good HDRs pretty frequently without even realising that HDR was used. The problem is that a lot of folks use HDR badly and their pictures are the ones that give the technique a bad name, IMHO.
paul sherar Reply: September 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
@paul, @anthony, @doktor, @allen lee taylor,
I see HDR as a tool for making an image stand out. The images on my blog i mentioned before work well even without HDR, all the necessary elements of a good photo are there. Lighting, composition, content. For the client, however, I wanted to give them an image that POPS out. The point of these photos isn’t to please photographers that have seen too much HDR, the point is to grab the attention of someone walking down the street that sees the band poster, or picks up one of their CD’s. HDR reminds me of the auto-tune effect that many artists are using on their music. Have I heard the effect too much? yes, probably. does a song still stand out to me when i hear it, yes.
While I agree that grossly tone-mapped HDR is horrific, HDR is far superior to any other capture for a few subjects. Many beautiful things in nature being one of them, and I don’t mean just traditional landscapes. Although HDR is better for most landscapes….
It is always the grumpy sad naysayers who get left behind.
Comments 20
Only if the person doing the HDR blending is hamfisted. Like any photographic technique, if you notice the technique instead of the image content there is a problem
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 9:15 am ¶“If you’re concerned about people stealing your photos, don’t post them on the internet.”
Spoken like someone who thinks theft is okay. Overwatermarking is obnoxious. though. Like I sauid before if you notice the technique rather than the photo, etc.
[Reply]
Eric Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 9:57 am
@Ellis Vener, Yeah, that argument is kind of like saying “if you don’t want to be hit by a car, don’t leave your house”. Technically true, but with a little cooperation from drivers, we can all be happy.
[Reply]
Arty Farty Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@Eric,
Exactly.
Wired have obviously never had content stolen or passed off then. A watermark, even a small one is a great way to both promote and protect your image once it’s been lifted “for research purposes” and lives on someone else’s drive/network/site.
To say a watermark on an image indicates somebody is hard to work with is horse-shit.
[Reply]
A Photo Editor Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Yeah that one was bullshit. Spoken like someone who makes a living making top 10 lists.
[Reply]
I agree 100%. HDR needs to go away now.
[Reply]
Blue Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
@Edward Maurer,
I agree, I hope it disappears along with bland wedding photography,and commercialized lifestyle portraits because god forbid any one would want to have fun with their digital process.
[Reply]
Edward Maurer Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
@Blue, Thanks for expressing your true feelings. I value constructive criticism even with your unorthodox approach at delivering it.
[Reply]
Blue Reply:
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@Edward Maurer,
Thanks Edward, I value the fact that you have chosen photography as your lively hood and I hope you find even more success in the years to come.
[Reply]
Ha! I couldn’t agree more. HDR = *blech*
[Reply]
Blue Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@Cynthia Wood,
Your sooo right, how dare HDR try and compete with cutely named galleries featuring duplicated renditions of photo’s everyone else has seen and done!
Fight the power Cynthia!
[Reply]
Cynthia Wood Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@Blue,
If you’re going to come here and (essentially) crap all over other people’s comments, the least you could do would be to let us see YOUR work! Crapping anonymously is in rather poor taste — just like most uses of HDR…in my humble opinion.
P.S. We are expressing personal opinions here, FYI. And there are ways to disagree, or express yours, that don’t involve snarky personal attacks on others and their work.
[Reply]
Blue Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
@Cynthia Wood,
You are 100% correct. As soon as I start taking photo’s I will share my work for all to see. Until then, I am merely expressing my humble opinion….. much like you are to any and all HDR shooters.
I am not really sure why you took personal offense at my obtuse comment, I certainly will not crap on anyones comments again, instead I will just crap on techniques and any desires to play with the different facets of the digital process.
*Blech* to personal attacks!
[Reply]
It seems like it was meant to be kinda funny, and the writer wasn’t awful, but it wasn’t hilarious. Could’ve been better or a little more edgy? Was just “enh”.
“I don’t have pet peeves; I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay.”
- George Carlin
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 10:18 am ¶Watermarking, I have discovered, is essential. It need not be intrusive or large, it only needs to say “Copyright (year) (name)”. It might not hurt to put a small web address in there, too, unless it makes the watermark too large. This clearly establishes ownership and, with the address, tells people where to find the rest of your work. Wired suggests that one invoice infringers — most attorneys will tell you that it makes their job far easier if you always remember to attach a watermarked copyright notice to the image. (I am not a lawyer).
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 10:21 am ¶[i]“For photo editors looking for potential photographers, the watermark is usually just a sign of someone who will be difficult to work with. Either because they’ve been burned in the past and they’re paranoid, or they just have an inflated idea of the market value of their work.”[/i]
Sounds like they are Creative Commons folks who think microstock is overpriced?
Time to “repurpose” their articles I guess. Why have a byline again? Oh yeah, content has value ….
I liked this much better:
“50 Rules of Photography for Morons by Ivars Gravlejs (50 photos)”
http://thechive.com/2009/08/50-rules-of-photography-for-morons-by-ivars-gravlejs-50-photos/
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 11:19 am ¶HDR isn’t the problem, atrocious tone mapping is. Or really, just bad taste, plain and simple.
HDR’s been around since the dawn of photography, first by compositing negatives in the darkroom.
re: watermarking. stop it, its ugly. anyone who bothers to steal the image doesn’t have the money to pay for it in the first place.
that doesn’t make it right, but at least you won’t turn off legit clients who have taste
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶Actually, I can think of one legit use for watermarking, if your model is loss leader. ie, those folks who do the photo booth things at parties. Give away low res images, with your name on it, they get spread around and you get hired for the next party by someone who sees it.
[Reply]
Bruce DeBoer Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
@craig, Also, if it’s unobtrusive, it can be helpful to identify where to find the original artist when the campaign is approved.
You’re spot on @8 as well in my opinion.
[Reply]
“HDR needs to go the way of the animated gif and blinking HTML text.”
Followed immediatly by Top Ten Lists.
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 12:19 pm ¶For a more fulsome list, with a few rude words, try http://www.flickr.com/groups/peo/ and scroll down to “The Offences”
[Reply]
Blue Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
@Martin Phelps,
Wow, great list, especially credible and valid because they are on Flickr.
[Reply]
*claps*
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶Yeah, there’s bad HDR and good HDR. The “hyper stylized, over sharped, super dark moody clouds, etc.” is flat out cheesy, however. If the HDR can look real it allows the image to be seen in a latitude more like what the human eye can see. Just like any technique, only apply the right amount
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶Problem is when HDR looks like you can’t handle your RAWs in the first place.
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 12:50 pm ¶An HDR is done it should be artistic like any other photograph. I have seen som really good ones and you don’t knw they are HDR. But I look at a lot of HDR works and I just don’t like them, they lack creativity and the true practice of being a photographer. How many people that have a decent DSLR have read any of Ansel Adams books on Photography. Those that shoot for HDR sould read them.
And It is not about handling a RAW File it is about getting what you SEE in the first place at the time you press that little button called a release.
I did have a cup of coffee before I read this.
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 2:34 pm ¶What a nicely polarising post! I would modify this to say “Badly tone-mapped HDRs need to go the way…”
HDR can be a really useful technique and people see good HDRs pretty frequently without even realising that HDR was used. The problem is that a lot of folks use HDR badly and their pictures are the ones that give the technique a bad name, IMHO.
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 3:17 pm ¶sorry, i still think HDR is as amazing as sliced cheese. take a look at what it did for some band portraits i did.
http://www.thegoodlight.com/archives/471
[Reply]
Anthony Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
@paul, I hope that black hole eats you and your computer.
[Reply]
Allen Lee Taylor Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@Anthony,
LMAO !
[Reply]
doktor Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@paul, either your irony is concealed very well or …
[Reply]
paul sherar Reply:
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
@paul, @anthony, @doktor, @allen lee taylor,
I see HDR as a tool for making an image stand out. The images on my blog i mentioned before work well even without HDR, all the necessary elements of a good photo are there. Lighting, composition, content. For the client, however, I wanted to give them an image that POPS out. The point of these photos isn’t to please photographers that have seen too much HDR, the point is to grab the attention of someone walking down the street that sees the band poster, or picks up one of their CD’s. HDR reminds me of the auto-tune effect that many artists are using on their music. Have I heard the effect too much? yes, probably. does a song still stand out to me when i hear it, yes.
[Reply]
Don’t watermark my photos? Hah.
I watermark my photos the way I do because a WIRED blogger stole my images!
And here’s the proof: (note the watermark cut off the bottom of the images)
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/03/hackers-decorat/
http://ericschmiedl.com/hacks/index18.html
[Reply]
Michael T Murphy Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
@Eric Schmiedl,
Kinda proves their point, doesn’t it?
You sound like you have a real sense of entitlement. Sort of like you think you *own* the photos or something! (joke, just in case ….)
[Reply]
um, except animated gifs are fucking awesome.
[Reply]
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶While I agree that grossly tone-mapped HDR is horrific, HDR is far superior to any other capture for a few subjects. Many beautiful things in nature being one of them, and I don’t mean just traditional landscapes. Although HDR is better for most landscapes….
It is always the grumpy sad naysayers who get left behind.
See ya!
Nearly all images on my site are HDR.
http://troycone.com/
[Reply]
Posted 01 Oct 2009 at 4:54 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[...] reading A Photo Editor’s post from this week, and I’m finding myself a bit split on the main phrase of the post (”HDR needs to go [...]
Post a Comment