View Full Version : Reasons why you probably shouldn't put HDR, B&W, LDR, etc in your thread title
I've noticed a lot of people do this. I'm guessing its partly to attract people to the thread because its omigosh HDR but at the same time that will make some people not want to open the thread because its omigosh cliched HDR. You don't really see people put "Photos of lake (B&W)" or "Photos of daughter (Slightly sharpened, bit of levelling)". You shouldn't need to attract people based on your processing. It actually seems like quite a bad idea because the photo is then being judged as a "HDR" photo rather than simply being judged as a photo. Thats the most important bit. HDR shouldn't, imho, be seperate from normal photography. Its just a tool to process an image with. You HDR, then you black and white it and you're done. Post it on here and let people judge the final image, not because its HDR but because its a photograph. I try not to tell people I've HDR'd a shot because I don't want people to suddenly hate it because they hate "HDR" and I don't want people to love it simply because its been HDR'd. I want people to stand back and tell me if the photo works, thats it.
But surely thats just your view. Some people don't view HDR as a processing tool, they view it as a complete genre or style, overprocessed or not, and putting the genre in the title is a bad thing because.....?
nigelcampbell
10-08-2007, 09:15
It's a good point - you'll notice the same thing happens in the wider world if you say "Digital Photography" instead of just "Photography". To some people the Digital tag means that it's not ligitimate.
But surely thats just your view. Some people don't view HDR as a processing tool, they view it as a complete genre or style, overprocessed or not, and putting the genre in the title is a bad thing because.....?
You're not allowing your photo to be viewed by as many people as possible as you're scaring away people that don't like HDR before they've even seen the image. I've done a wide range of HDR and when people say they hate HDR to me it just means that they haven't seen it done well, or done in a different way. I don't think people should limit themselves like that. Like I said, you don't really see people putting B&W or Infrared or even Colour on their titles.
I agree with you Pete. I never put HDR in a thread title, can't see the point. What does it matter if it's an HDR photo or not?
On a realted note, I think the only people who get really het up one way or other about HDR are other 'togs. You're average Joe who likes looking at pics doesn't give a hoot one way or other (and probably doesn't even know what 'hdr' is).
I think you should put HDR in the title, everyone is entitled to their opinions and some people don't like HDR.
For example we put NSFW for not safe for work pics, and 56k warnings for posts with a lot of high quality pictures. This gives people the chance to choose whether they look at the post or not.
Can see both sides of the argument....but people can put whatever they want in the title.
I don't see any harm in putting HDR in the title in the same way some people put Macro.....it doesn't make me open the thread any more or less....may be that's just your perception Pete because you are so 'close' to HDR. (?)
nigelcampbell
10-08-2007, 09:24
What does it matter if it's and HDR photo or not?
Because it's wrong... I thought we'd covered this? ;) ;)(running and ducking)
Can people start labelling as LDR when appropriate please. I only like HDR photos, so would appreciate it if people could label the LDR ones so I can avoid those threads :P
I would agree partly, there seems to be 2 types of HDR, one that looks like a computer generated image where you imediately think "thats been photoshoped" in which case yes put HDR in the title
The second are images that are subtle where people like myself who are new probably wouldn't be able to tell that it was an HDR image and just think "wow nice photograph" in which case putting HDR in the title would have me thinking about how you photoshopped it rather than the photo its self so I wouldn't advertise it freeley as an HDR image
its all personnal perference I suppose but that's my opinion on the matter
I think you should put HDR in the title, everyone is entitled to their opinions and some people don't like HDR.
For example we put NSFW for not safe for work pics, and 56k warnings for posts with a lot of high quality pictures. This gives people the chance to choose whether they look at the post or not.
Ok so where does it end? Everyone should put LDR on their images if they're a low dynamic range shot. Why aren't people putting B&W on black and white photos? Why isn't anyone putting colour on theirs? Why is it only the HDR people? NSFW has a valid reason as it could get you fired. 56k is less valid these days but it saves people on slow modems being bogged down. Like I said, HDR has such a wide range of options that it shouldn't be pigeon holed into "HDR".
Lets have an example.
http://www.vanilladays.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/img_9972-edit.jpg
That is a HDR photo. Now if I had put "HDR" on the title I might not have received the comments I did. I said I used HDR but went for a classic silhouette shot.
and for me it's far better for it ;)
Lovely shot - don't think it would look as effective in HDR....
As I said, it *IS* HDR. But it has elements of LDR on it because thats the look I wanted. So why should I have warned people? Why should I have said "Run away! HDR!" Its entirely possible some people may have skipped it because they have a preconceived idea of what HDR is. For me, that seems like a bad thing to be doing, warning people that they may have their bad ideas confirmed.
Can see both sides of the argument....but people can put whatever they want in the title.
I don't see any harm in putting HDR in the title in the same way some people put Macro.....it doesn't make me open the thread any more or less....may be that's just your perception Pete because you are so 'close' to HDR. (?)
Maybe it is, but I've seen plenty of people say that they flat out hate HDR. Why should you scare them off when you could instead show them something that might change their mind? We have a macro forum and no-one in their points out their shot is "Macro".
Why can't you accept that some people don't like HDR, let people choose!
Why can't you accept that some people don't like HDR, let people choose!
People hate black and white, yet no-one's warning people away from that. I also find the idea of someone hating high dynamic range a bit odd. I mean you don't see people running round screaming about their vision being too detailed do you? People hate "HDR", but used well they might like a photo as I've just pointed out.
We have a macro forum and no-one in their points out their shot is "Macro".
I see a couple of threads on the first page with HDR in them..."Ant Macro"..et al
EDIT: I also see people putting B&W and IR in thread titles.
..... but went for a classic silhouette shot.
Which is the bit I was really referring to when I said it looks better for it. That shot to me would be ruined if the typical HDR treatment had been applied.
I don't care if people put HDR into their titles or not. I'd still open the thread and decide whether or not I like it based on it's appearance.
nigelcampbell
10-08-2007, 09:47
I'm going to contradict myself now and just say that if it wasn't for the threads with HDR in the subject line - I wouldn't have posted my HDR is wrong thread - which in turn would have meant that I would not have spent time looking at Pete's images and being proved wrong (or at least qualifying my argument that Bad HDR is wrong!)
Slightly OT but I finally realized what it is that bugs me about bad (and what I like about Pete's stuff) is that he knows the value of a good black shadow - and a lot of HDR seems to eschew shadows or silhouettes in favour of full details throughout - which is not my cup of tea.
and a lot of HDR seems to eschew shadows or silhouettes in favour of full details throughout - which is not my cup of tea.
exactly :)
So a lot of (probably bad) HDR eschews the shadows... but do you not feel you could be missing out by avoiding all 'HDR' threads if images like the one above are possibly in it?
(dod excluded as he said he looks anyway :p)
I was going to ask - What's HDR? - but now I see it's 'high dynamic range'. So....can a relative newcomer ask what's high dynamic range?
I see a couple of threads on the first page with HDR in them..."Ant Macro"..et al
To be honest though, thats the macro forum. If that post didn't have macro on it and you opened it finding a macro, would you really be shocked and RTM it?
Which is the bit I was really referring to when I said it looks better for it. That shot to me would be ruined if the typical HDR treatment had been applied.
Exactly. So its entirely possible that there are people skipping your photos because they expect nasty icky overprocessed HDR photos when they see the label.
I don't care if people put HDR into their titles or not. I'd still open the thread and decide whether or not I like it based on it's appearance.
Yeah I'm not about to stop opening threads either. Its just an observation I've made and wanted to air my views on it.
I'm going to contradict myself now and just say that if it wasn't for the threads with HDR in the subject line - I wouldn't have posted my HDR is wrong thread - which in turn would have meant that I would not have spent time looking at Pete's images and being proved wrong (or at least qualifying my argument that Bad HDR is wrong!)
Thank you :) I knew I wasn't going crazy ;)
Pete - why are you so against giving people the ability to see if its a HDR before they open the post? We have different forum areas for General, Animals, Macro, Nudes etc, whats your problem with putting HDR in front of it.
At this rate anyone who isn't keen on HDR will just see a post by you and they may think oh its another blooming HDR I won't bother opening it. By putting HDR in the title or even B&W it gives people the chance to decide for themselves.
People maybe short of time and not want to look through posts which don't appeal to them. On the otehr hand there are people who like HDR and there may only want to view it.
HIMUPNORTH
10-08-2007, 09:53
God Pete is good.
There we were quietly moving along sharing pics and talking about good/bad service, copyright rip-offs and so on when Pete decides that a good old HDR bust up is needed! And then we all join in!
With leadership skills like this Pete I think you should give up photography and join a trade union or something! :p
:D
God Pete is good.
There we were quietly moving along sharing pics and talking about good/bad service, copyright rip-offs and so on when Pete decides that a good old HDR bust up is needed! And then we all join in!
With leadership skills like this Pete I think you should give up photography and join a trade union or something! :p
:D
Don't trade unions believe in democracy?
People maybe short of time and not want to look through posts which don't appeal to them. On the otehr hand there are people who like HDR and there may only want to view it.
Very true. If I'm short on time and there are two threads in front of me with one marked "Street" I'd tend to skip it in favour of the other one. Worse than HDR they are ;)
Pete - why are you so against giving people the ability to see if its a HDR before they open the post? We have different forum areas for General, Animals, Macro, Nudes etc, whats your problem with putting HDR in front of it.
Um every point I just made :p I expect to see descriptive titles after all your posts now or clearly you agree with me :p HDR was an example as its a major one people do, but putting B&W is just as valid imho. Why limit yourself to one stereotype?
http://www.vanilladays.com/images/pah-20070810-110029.jpg
:razz:
Pete - why are you so against giving people the ability to see if its a HDR before they open the post? We have different forum areas for General, Animals, Macro, Nudes etc, whats your problem with putting HDR in front of it.
When it's done properly and with some self restraint, you can barely tell it is HDR, so why should everyone need to label it based on the processing they've employed.
People don't label when they use the Orton effect, something I personally hate in general.
I've updated the thread title because I think its perfectly valid that you don't mention your processing style in the thread title so you don't scare people away. I M H O !
Um every point I just made :p I expect to see descriptive titles after all your posts now or clearly you agree with me :p HDR was an example as its a major one people do, but putting B&W is just as valid imho. Why limit yourself to one stereotype?
http://www.vanilladays.com/images/pah-20070810-110029.jpg
:razz:
I would prefer not to be seen agreeing with you, so I will make sure my posts do have descriptive titles!
But are you going to do the same?
I was going to ask - What's HDR? - but now I see it's 'high dynamic range'. So....can a relative newcomer ask what's high dynamic range?
Had the same question but go have a look in the tutorials section of the forum and find the thread on HDR guide there is an exceptionally well written website link in there that explains it all and has really helped me understand what it is and how it works
*feels like he must be on half the forums ignore list*
I would prefer not to be seen agreeing with you, so I will make sure my posts do have descriptive titles!
But are you going to do the same?
Um? What am I meant to be doing since I already don't add my processing to the thread title?
Jimmy_Lemon
10-08-2007, 10:14
Does any of this really matter?
Take a photo, if you like it post it! Call it what ever the hell you like and people may or may not look at it.
End.
(Or have I missed the major life altering effect the title of your post has)
The point was that you could be scaring people away due to preconceptions about what your post may contain, and that no-one else is really putting their processing list on their thread titles. It only seems to be the HDR crowd.
If Im honest, I think its because its a relatively new style of processing, one that's taken the world by storm, in that most people are just 'giving it a whirl'. That's why.
You'll find if it's out of someones 'norm' they'll add the new style to their thread titles.
And HDR is out of most peoples norm, hence you see it more often.
Personally though I'm not bothered if I'm scaring people off, although on the scale of bad thread titles, putting a processing style is right at the bottom of them, thread titles like "How?" or some such cryptic stuff come top instead :D
I've always been one to actually think about my thread titles, to get it to appeal to the most people.
I've always been one to actually think about my thread titles, to get it to appeal to the most people.
I think the award for the best titles goes to janice :woot:
Just had to check my spelling then - in case I got a slap
Jimmy_Lemon
10-08-2007, 10:29
I think the award should go to Photomad :D
Chuckurbarla
10-08-2007, 10:35
Out of about 350 posts on General Photo Sharing and Landscapes and Scenery there are
1 B&W
5 HDR
4 56K
1 Proud Dad Warning.
I think most folk are already doing what you suggested originally Pete.
Does any of this really matter?
Take a photo, if you like it post it! Call it what ever the hell you like and people may or may not look at it.
End.
(Or have I missed the major life altering effect the title of your post has)
:agree:
Some of us like HDR, some of us don't. (I'm not the latter btw, but I do still think people are entitled to an opinion).
davidbridges
10-08-2007, 10:41
It seems like its HDR vs nearly everyone, But i agree with the first point, HDR shouldnt be put in the title it is still a photograph, but if someone asks how you did it tell them its a HDR
Out of about 350 posts on General Photo Sharing and Landscapes and Scenery there are
1 B&W
5 HDR
4 56K
1 Proud Dad Warning.
I think most folk are already doing what you suggested originally Pete.
http://www.vanilladays.com/images/hdr-20070810-114228.jpg
http://www.vanilladays.com/images/hdr-20070810-114228.jpg
OK, you've made your point. Still don't see why it matters :shrug:
Chuckurbarla
10-08-2007, 10:51
OK Pete, but I was looking at the number of thread title HDR's in relation to all threads.
I can see pete's point here. However the first HDR image I saw (not on TP) I would never have known it was, unless it mentioned it in the thread title. I looked at the photo purley out of intrest. Since, I've searched and researched for other HDR pictures to see how other people use the technique as well as find out how to do it. These I wouldn't have found unless HDR was mentioned in the title (or caption data) in some searches.
But in contrast, those people that just dislike HDR or B&W wont bother to look at what may be an otherwise good picture. More so with HDR, if done properly the viewer may never know how the picture has been processed. While Pete is known for HDR, due to his tutorial and other publications, doesn't mean that he uses this processing method all the time, and I'm sure only uses it where the picture has too great a range to capture the scene without blown highlights and dark areas of black nothing.
In conclusion to my post, perhaps it should be up to the person submitting the thread as to whether they want people to see how it was processed, of just leave viewer to guess and maybe add the details after a few comments have beeen posted and surprise the anti HDR brigaide that perhaps HDR was used (it's easier to work out the B&W was used).
I can see pete's point here. However the first HDR image I saw (not on TP) I would never have known it was, unless it mentioned it in the thread title. I looked at the photo purley out of intrest. Since, I've searched and researched for other HDR pictures to see how other people use the technique as well as find out how to do it. These I wouldn't have found unless HDR was mentioned in the title (or caption data) in some searches.
But in contrast, those people that just dislike HDR or B&W wont bother to look at what may be an otherwise good picture. More so with HDR, if done properly the viewer may never know how the picture has been processed. While Pete is known for HDR, due to his tutorial and other publications, doesn't mean that he uses this processing method all the time, and I'm sure only uses it where the picture has too great a range to capture the scene without blown highlights and dark areas of black nothing.
In conclusion to my post, perhaps it should be up to the person submitting the thread as to whether they want people to see how it was processed, of just leave viewer to guess and maybe add the details after a few comments have beeen posted and surprise the anti HDR brigaide that perhaps HDR was used (it's easier to work out the B&W was used).
You wrote that a hell of a lot better than I wrote my posts :D I personally don't try and point out what processing I've done because I want the image to be judged as in image not a technique. I will happily tell people how I did it if they ask. I completely agree though, its up to the person if they want to put HDR or LDR or B&W or whatever. I just felt I needed to air my views on why it could be a bad thing to do, and it seems that some people understood what I was getting at so at least I'm not crazy. :)
so at least I'm not crazy. :)
Oh no...you are.
Chuckurbarla
10-08-2007, 11:21
You're not crazy Pete (although I'm not sure about your avatar), and your images are brilliant in my view. But I still maintain that most people already do what you suggest. If you go back to your search of HDR titles you'll find there have only been two this month. If you search this month's threads for HDR in the entire thread there are many more pics posted.
I can see Pete's point totally!
I think Im one of the sort of peeps he is actually referring to, because generally speaking ...I am a little put off by seeing HDR in the title ... especially when I am pushed for time.
My reasons are simple, your average HDR isnt my cup of tea, and your worse than average HDR is a definate no-no ... for me!
I would much rather open an image purely entitled 'Railway' ... then if the image pleases my eye, I will then take the time to read what the tog has written about his capture underneath it, and if I read his processing technique involves HDR my reaction is usually one of 'well I never' and it doesnt effect my judgement of the image one way or the other, whereas when I open an image expecting an HDR I find Im looking for the technique often before I 'see' the picture.
Obviously people can call their threads what they wish, but why limit your audience by advertising your technique!
:lol:
*Insert your own image of a handbag here please*
I think I totally agree with Pete's sentiments here.
I'm not sure I've seen him say that it should be law, just a suggestion that it may have adverse/beneficial effects.
I have stated before that I think HDR is possibly taking away the point of taking a photograph for some people. And stand by that.
But I'd still rather look at an image first to decide if I like it on it's own merit rather than have some pre-conceived perception of what it may be.
The emotive effect may just be enough to disregard the technical method of getting it.
All those Tour de Farce folk may be taking drugs but with or without, they can still ride a bike faster than I could hope to.
A good image is still a good image, does it need to be tagged to get your approval?
I personally don't put HDR in my thread titles.
Mostly because I have no idea how to use HDR. :shrug:
Edit for typos and to agree with Glo.
DarknFuzzy
10-08-2007, 12:08
At the end of the day people will name their threads whatever they want, regardless of what is discussed here.
I personally don't enter/avoid threads by processing information in its title.
For example, a thread called "Fantastic Shot! (HDR) would win my click over another thread called "Marcels Garden Gate. (HDR)" . The fact they are both HDR would not really enter it. (I hope I am making sense at this point.)
I guess what I am trying to say is, let people do what they do, if that means they dont look at your photos then so be it. You can't please everyone.
Just my 2p.
I guess what I am trying to say is, let people do what they do, if that means they dont look at your photos then so be it. You can't please everyone.
Just my 2p.
I'm not sure I've seen him say that it should be law, just a suggestion that it may have adverse/beneficial effects.
What Ratty said. I have no power over the forum or what people post. I'm simply airing my view on the subject in the hope others agree with me.
DarknFuzzy
10-08-2007, 12:17
What Ratty said. I have no power over the forum or what people post. I'm simply airing my view on the subject in the hope others agree with me.
Which is the same as what I am doing. I really like your HDR shots, some of them are fantastic. I understand though how theywouldnt appeal to everyone.
I just dont think the fact of thread titles and what they contain matters. If someone doesnt like HDR and they enter a HDR thread by mistake, 9 times out 10 they will just leave it again.
let people do what they do
Sorry, just that line that threw me. I'm sure someone else made the point too. Nowhere in this thread has anyone with any real power over the forum said that they will be dictating forum titles. I'm not either, just typing out loud.
Jimmy_Lemon
10-08-2007, 12:24
For example, a thread called "Fantastic Shot! (HDR) would win my click over another thread called "Marcels Garden Gate. (HDR)" .
Really? I know this is a whole different topic but if it the thread title just says "Great Shot" or "Look at this" I tend to avoid it, where-as with "Marcel's Garden Gate" I would know what to expect and that it might be something interesting.
DarknFuzzy
10-08-2007, 12:29
Really? I know this is a whole different topic but if it the thread title just says "Great Shot" or "Look at this" I tend to avoid it, where-as with "Marcel's Garden Gate" I would know what to expect and that it might be something interesting.
I wasn't meaning in literal terms, I was just trying to make a point. I guess i should have used "Interesting title (HDR)" Vs "Not an Interesting Title (HDR)".
nigelcampbell
10-08-2007, 13:05
...if it the thread title just says "Great Shot" or "Look at this" I tend to avoid it, where-as with "Marcel's Garden Gate" I would know what to expect and that it might be something interesting.
Really - So you've seen Marcel's Garden Gate, and you know that it's interesting?? :thinking:
So, spill the beans? When did you see it? What was it like?? (was it as big as everyone says???) ;);)
"Great shot" shows the poster thinks it's great ... I might not.
"Garden Gate" would get my curiosity !
I'm fairly sure that someone has posted "Great shot" on here once before :)
DarknFuzzy
10-08-2007, 13:35
"Great shot" shows the poster thinks it's great ... I might not.
"Garden Gate" would get my curiosity !
*makes a mental note to not attempt examples in the future and to post literally* :bang:
Edit:
Sorry Pete, It wasn't my intention to derail your thread, I was just trying to make a point!
:lol: :thumbs:
Sure Pete doesn't mind , we're still talking thread titles. I think.
staffitaxi
10-08-2007, 14:01
From a newbie point of view it makes no difference to me what someone puts as a title. I look at pretty much every image posted regardless for two reasons.
Firstly I need to learn and it helps to see what others are doing and the feedback they get.
Secondly for inspiration. And god knows I need plenty of that at the minute as I haven't got any of my own!!
I don't like an image becuase its been processed in a particular way, I like it because I just do.
I can say that there are things that have been posted on here that have changed the way I look at images. I now consider what went into making a shot, not only the processing but the thought as well and I can appreciate something which before I would just have dismissed because it wasn't my cup of tea.
This was supposed to be a quick reply. Sorry.
What Ratty said. I have no power over the forum or what people post. I'm simply airing my view on the subject in the hope others agree with me.
and if you don't agree he will still air his view anyway!
Why not just create an entire forum HDR section and then everyone will be happy
and if you don't agree he will still air his view anyway!
You didn't seem to get the point, and clearly still don't if thats your feeling on the matter. Are you planning on putting your processing technique in your thread title to warn off people?
Why not just create an entire forum HDR section and then everyone will be happy
Because then we'll need an infrared forum. A selective colour forum. A colour forum. A black and white forum. Then no-one will post according to subject matter but by processing technique and the entire forum will simply be all about processing of images rather than taking them.
and the entire forum will simply be all about processing of images rather than taking them.
And that would make it pointless IMO.
:thumbs:
Because then we'll need an infrared forum. A selective colour forum. A colour forum. A black and white forum. Then no-one will post according to subject matter but by processing technique and the entire forum will simply be all about processing of images rather than taking them.
My comment was firmly tongue in cheek btw :thumbs:
Ah, well just to be safe in case someone thought that was a good idea ;)
Why not just create an entire forum HDR section and then everyone will be happy
Whats wrong with that idea, then people can choose to view what they want,
Whats wrong with that idea, then people can choose to view what they want,
So if someone doesn't put HDR in the title of the thread with a HDR image in it then people can't choose what they want to view and everyone on the forum will read that thread?
Whoa deja vu. (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=30154) :D
then people can choose to view what they want,
Can't they do that already ?:shrug:
Whats wrong with that idea, then people can choose to view what they want,
It starts splitting off topics into processing techniques not photographic subjects and if that were to happen, this place may as well be called talk|photoshop
...now there's an idea :thinking:
busterboy
10-08-2007, 16:00
It starts splitting off topics into processing techniques not photographic subjects and if that were to happen, this place may as well be called talk|photoshop
...now there's an idea :thinking:
I think that is a very good idea..:thumbs:
Marcel, sister forum, go go go!!!
I can see why this debate has arisen, but surely it doesn't truly matter?
What matters to me is that there are people who are prepared to prejudge the quality of a certain image on the basis of the processing technique. A prejudice that others seem to be quite happy to perpetuate. It's like the advent of digital all over again. 'Oh, you don't use film? Your not a proper photographer!' It is not a reason to discard an image out of hand.
I couldn't give a boiled monkeys scrotum if a shot is HDR is not. What matters to me is that it's a good photograph. The criteria that that entails is then purely dependant on MY subjective experience of that photograph.
My own personal views on HDR are that it's just another way to process a shot, same as selective coloration, cross processing, fish-eye, lomo. It's not the saviour of mankind or the worst thing since a field of burning cows. It just is!
As a famous welsh rapper once said 'I tried to see things from his point of view, but I couldn't fit my head up his asshole too!'
Can we please just forget all about this B/S and get on with the job at hand, one which so many people on this forum are brilliant at, and that's......
JUST MAKING BRILLIANT PHOTOS
Well to sum up this thread, I had some thoughts to air. Some people thought it doesn't really matter. Some people thought it did matter and that threads without HDR in the title made them change their opinion on HDR, the very thing that I was hoping would happen. Some people thought that threads need a HDR warning, yet not a B&W warning even though some people don't like B&W and would be very depressed to find a B&W shot inside a thread. I'm glad at least some people got my point.
I just opened a small bag of Haribo Starmix and it was full of those foam hearts and egg things which I hate. What is the world coming to?
robmiller
10-08-2007, 17:10
I just opened a small bag of Haribo Starmix and it was full of those foam hearts and egg things which I hate. What is the world coming to?
Are you kidding me? Eggs and hearts are the best things in Starmixes by far.
Na, cola bottles are the bomb!
I did get your point Pete, it's just that I feel it's easy to lose sight of whats important sometimes and the HDR debate has rattled on long enough for my tastes.
ShawWellPete
10-08-2007, 18:38
:popcorn:
I must have a go at HDR some time. Pete, I reckon you're a bit bored today, surely you don't really care what people choose to use as a subject title?
cjnicolai
10-08-2007, 20:30
Just food for thought:
On my portrait website, I've avoided seperating the galleries into the usual children / families / maternity / headshots categories that people have come to expect. That's because I don't want people to have the option to only look at the one specific thing they're interested in. I want them to see everything I do. Quite often I've had clients look me up specifically for family portraits, and then get sold on having me photograph their family vacation as well. Last week a girl went to my website for business headshots and ended up also booking a funky portrait session.
It's not that it's WRONG for other photogs to specifically label their galleries, but it does tend to make galleries easy to avoid. I think it's the same in labelling posts.
(And I will readily confess to skipping pretty much every image post with HDR in the thread title, simply because I'm not a big fan of the look. I'm probably missing images that I might have liked simply because of the HDR title, but it's so very easy to skip them....)
- CJ
HuntingMartians
10-08-2007, 21:19
HDR is the devils work :D
Na, cola bottles are the bomb!
I did get your point Pete, it's just that I feel it's easy to lose sight of whats important sometimes and the HDR debate has rattled on long enough for my tastes.
This isn't a HDR debate. If you got my point you'd have seen that. My point was, picking mainly on the HDR users because they seem more vocal, that you shouldn't put your processing technique in the thread title because it may limit the number of people who view your work.
:popcorn:
I must have a go at HDR some time. Pete, I reckon you're a bit bored today, surely you don't really care what people choose to use as a subject title?
Nope I don't care what they put, but I do care that people may be missing out on some stunning photos because of preconceived ideas about B&W or HDR or etc.
This isn't a HDR debate. If you got my point you'd have seen that. My point was, picking mainly on the HDR users because they seem more vocal, that you shouldn't put your processing technique in the thread title because it may limit the number of people who view your work.
Sorry dude, not very good at making myself clear sometimes....
By advising people not to put HDR in their thread titles it's bound to create a discussion on the merits of HDR because it's such a contentious issue on this forum at the moment (I don't know about anywhere else)
The two are inextricably linked because of this. By telling people not to do something as some are prejudiced against it, you merely serve to highlight the prejudice and make it an issue open for discussion, in which peoples views on the subject are bound to come out as it's hard to make a point for or against without expressing your own views on the matter as a basis for your opinion.
I think the thread would probably have been better titled 'avoid putting clues about your processing techniques in the thread title as it may put people off' Not as snappy I know lol.
I understand and respect you for the fact that you champion something that's generally seen as a fad or gimmick (not by me, I use HDR quite often, I just don't tell anyone as I don't think it's important) You've done a great deal to raise the profile of this technique and it's part of your own personal style, something a lot of people lack today.
Nice to see somebody being community minded too btw.
I hope that clarifies my point of view somewhat, sorry it's a bit wordy. But I am such sometimes lol.
Well I'm an old fart with 'stick in the mud' views on soem stuff. Apparently I need to try a new invention called 'audio CD' :shrug:
Anyway, I decided to read through Pete's tute on HDR and see wha tthe fuss was all about. And even with my extremely limited puter/potatochop abilites I managed to improve the look of one of my pics. Subtle enough so that you need to view it next to the original to realise it's HDR'ed but does show that it's the (poor/over)use of it that often upsets not the actual process.
Would I now post the pic up with HDR in the title?
Not a chance.
I think the thread would probably have been better titled 'avoid putting clues about your processing techniques in the thread title as it may put people off' Not as snappy I know lol.
Well I did change it :p I did mention B&W yet no-one seemed to spot that, many times too. I'm assuming because its not a real issue so why should it be with HDR? This *isn't* the place to debate the finer points of HDR. I won't comment on that. Its simply, and this is what so many people seem to not get, about putting processing tags in your thread title. HDR was a prime example because it seemed to jump out for me. The fact that B&W didn't was probably because no-one feels they need to warn people off from the evil scary mono tones from the dark side of the moon.
I've seen this on other forums when a trend appears. "15 photos of my cat in lomo." "I just lomo'd my nipples." "A cherry. [Lomo]" I guess B&W isn't a trend hence the lack of "My sock puppet [B&W Danger Danger! High Voltage!]"
Anyways, I'll just stress my point one more time :D I had a feeling, and it was proven valid by at least 1 person and missed by almost everyone else under a cloak of highly dynamic responses.
I thought some comments were boring & worthless myself, lacking definition really.
See what we did there?
If the point is that the image should be paramount, then I can agree totally with that.
How it was processed should be an afterthought, not a reason to view (unless for instance you're researching a particular method etc). A picture speaks a thousand words, and the first few usually are either "nice", or "crap" :D. Pre-empting that decision with a thread title (because we all react differently to the title according to our own taste in processing) detracts from the initial judgment. I keep finding myself looking at images in photography magazines and wondering where the .exif display is.. now that's worrying.
That, I think, is a nice summary :thumbs:
If the point is that the image should be paramount, then I can agree totally with that.
How it was processed should be an afterthought, not a reason to view (unless for instance you're researching a particular method etc). A picture speaks a thousand words, and the first few usually are either "nice", or "crap" :D. Pre-empting that decision with a thread title (because we all react differently to the title according to our own taste in processing) detracts from the initial judgment. I keep finding myself looking at images in photography magazines and wondering where the .exif display is.. now that's worrying.
I was wanting to put something in this thread along those lines, I think it exactly agrees with what Pete's saying and I agree too.
You put it so much better than I could. :)
Tsukiyomi
11-08-2007, 11:02
I think Pete should change that I hate HDR to HDR Slave.
I knew I shouldn't have let this thread to get to three pages before I read it. Now I'm all :bonk::bonk:
I think Pete is bang on the money though. It's become far to easy to judge a photo on the processing style when HDR is involved and I do think that using HDR software is totally different to saying it's B&W, or Macro or whatever. We are confusing a process technique with a style of photography and I'd much rather judge my liking of an image purely on how it makes me feel..... and then go on to find out about it's creation if I'm interested.
There have been many (in my view) dreadful uses of HDR shown here and some really sublime ones. It's exactly like using filters I suppose. I don't tend to go for shots where I can see what filter has been used and where. I like a subtle style and my preferences on HDR are excatly the same. If it's there in your face, very much in front of the image chances are that it won't float my boat but it if it's been used with skill and subtlety, great.
If we were all to decide that HDR shots should be tagged as such, what do I do with shots made on my Leaf back, which has a 12 stop dynamic range? Should I declare them as 16bit capture, so people can decide before they click if they want to see an image that might have a greater dynamic range than the nomal 5 stops?
We are all very good at talking......... but the images are still far far better at it. :D
We are all very good at talking......... but the images are still far far better at it. :D
How can you possibly say that ?:thinking:
you've seen some of my pics.
Oh yeah, both rubbish. :coat:
I fully agree with Pete. As I understand him he is not saying there should be a rule preventing people from being able to label their threads according to the type of processing they have used. Instead he is warning people that if they do so they risk turning people away.
This is something for which I myself would own up to being guilty. In general I would say I do not like HDR because the majority of HDR shots I have seen I have not liked the effect. It is a fake look that to me is no less gimmicky than using one of Photoshop's artistic filters to make something look like a drawing. The end result is pretty similar.
But I have also seen some truly fantastic photographs that have looked far more realistic because of their HDR treatment and would have been poorer without it. Mohain's (I think, sorry to whoever if I am wrong) set from Tring Park stands out in that category. The shot Pete posted on this thread would also fall into this category.
So if I see HDR in a thread title then I will be less inclined to look at it because based on my experience the probability is I will not only dislike but hate the effect. Why would anyone want to take the risk that I (and others) would do that?
Labelling in this way does not give me a choice, it simply allows me to enact a prejudice which effectively limits my choice. Instead of looking at it and making my mind up, I might end up deciding I dislike without even looking, and as a result missing out on something impressive.
If I click on something and hate the shot then I will press the back button and go elsewhere, I do not feel cheated or denied a choice because someone did not add HDR to the title, any more than I feel that way when I see what I feel to be a tedious and pointless use of selective colouring. Nor would I suddenly hate a shot I liked upon discovering it had been given an HDR treatment.
Given that in the majority of instances we are, and should be, looking at compositions not processing techniques I fail to see why anyone would want their prejudice against a particular technique to be fed. Similarly I do not understand why anyone would want to put things in the title that would turn people away without giving their work a fair chance.
It is up to everyone how they post or view, but for me. as someone who usually hates HDR, I would rather images were not labelled as such.
Michael.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.