Reasons why you probably shouldn't put HDR, B&W, LDR, etc in your thread title

petemc said:
hdr-20070810-114228.jpg
Click to expand...

OK, you've made your point. Still don't see why it matters :shrug:
 
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).
 
natjag said:
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).
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
DarknFuzzy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ratty said:
I'm not sure I've seen him say that it should be law, just a suggestion that it may have adverse/beneficial effects.
Click to expand...

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.
 
petemc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DarknFuzzy said:
let people do what they do
Click to expand...

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.
 
DarknFuzzy said:
For example, a thread called "Fantastic Shot! (HDR) would win my click over another thread called "Marcels Garden Gate. (HDR)" .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)".
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
Ratty said:
"Great shot" shows the poster thinks it's great ... I might not.

"Garden Gate" would get my curiosity !
Click to expand...

*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.
 
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.
 
petemc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
rwotton said:
and if you don't agree he will still air his view anyway!
Click to expand...

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?

evilowl said:
Why not just create an entire forum HDR section and then everyone will be happy
Click to expand...

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.
 
petemc said:
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.
Click to expand...

My comment was firmly tongue in cheek btw :thumbs:
 
Ah, well just to be safe in case someone thought that was a good idea ;)
 
rwotton said:
Whats wrong with that idea, then people can choose to view what they want,
Click to expand...

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. :D
 
rwotton said:
Whats wrong with that idea, then people can choose to view what they want,
Click to expand...

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:
 
divine_madness said:
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:
Click to expand...


I think that is a very good idea..:thumbs:
 
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?
 
evilowl said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top