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

Gandhi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

SW4peter said:
: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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
petemc said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Gandhi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
benneh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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