Why is this site so obsessed with the production of 100% realistic pictures. Surely if you want realism you buy a full frame Nikon and a big bag of lenses and only shoot in raw. HDR can happily be produced by a decent point and shoot from jpegs. Photomatix turns a photo into a picture which is generally put through a few plug ins to enhance certain details. So what rules do we use to judge things like oversaturation? That's a choice by the artist surely. And who is to say that the artist's interpretation of what they saw is incorrect. Van Gogh's sunflowers is hardly a photographic type reproduction of the subject but possibly one of the best paintings ever done. Stand close to the canvas you also see brush strokes stand back and you see the work of a genius.
As the voting system is at present its not easy but I do feel at times before commenting people should step back and look at the overall image. So if you want realism save up for that Nikon remembering to justify the cost your really should be a top notch photographer. Most of us on here are far from that but constantly striving to improve I hope.
The other more relevant sites on the net seem to attract more experimental and interpretive work than here. An artist is likely to be put off by the votes cast and the very often uninformed comments made and the Crème then misses out on being a platform to view such work.
I agree with Billyspad. Too many pictures published here as "HDR" are, in fact, single exposures processed through Topaz Adjust or some other plug-in. They are nOT HDR pictures. Single shots of subjects with limited dynamic range are also passed off as HDR pictures, but they achieve none of the advantages of HDR. This site seems stagnant, bogged down by a number of ole friends who impose their view of what an HDR picture should be. The POTD is a joke: most images are actually single shot images. I will accept Single RAW images split into three or more frames at different EVs, in order to capture the dynamic range of RAW, but most of the single shot "HDR"s shown here are simply Topaz´d JPGs!
An over saturated photo is often the result of a beginner. Often, not all the time. When i started HDR i was making over saturated photos, thinking it was the purpose of HDR. If you wanna make an over saturated photo, it's your job and you do what you like.
HDR is for black zones and burnt zone. That's the purpose. Every subject can be a good HDR one, but you'll lose quality if it's over saturated. Why? Because we see tons and tons of these pictures. And it's not a matter of taste, it's one of the most common mistakes for an HDR beginner.
I will agree that Multiple Exposures make for Better HDR images. Creating more Light, Shadows and boosting colors. However a Good Single Image HDR is Harder to produce than 3,5,7, or 9 exposure images. Movement within images or not being able to shoot with a Tripod does not always allow for multiple exposures. There are many Single image post on this site that if not stated by the poster the viewer would never know if they were actually produced from a Single or made up of 3,5,7, or 9 Exposures. Those who criticize Single image HDR's are those who can not actually produce a Good Single Image HDR from only one Exposure. See HDR Spotting and how many single Image HDR Post are deemed "Editors Picks".
I cant really agree that for the purposes of this site that one shot images should be considered the same as a bracketed shots. A comparison with hdrspotting is not totally relevant. Spotting's best work is chosen by an expert with knowledge of all types of photography. Winners here generally depends on how many friends you have and who likes you. Some of the "informed" comments are laughable with one uniformed member following on from the next when they vote and echoing a possible fault in the work of which they have zero knowledge. Posting pictures showing expensive cameras and lenses hung around the neck or similar fails to convince this member of another members knowledge of the subject. That is shown by informed or very often uniformed comment. I think the argument about bracketed verses one shot HDR will rage forever. Speaking for myself only I think one shot HDR is pseudo HDR and should be judged in a different category to bracketed work. I disagree that one shot work is harder to process. Again speaking personally I find it a lot easier. Get a good to reasonable raw file show it Photomatix and apply Topaz and bingo you have your entry for the day!! With a decent shot to start with its 10 minutes work. And if you have enough pals here it will win you POTD lol. But its not true HDR.
I think if you read previous posts on the forum Ed I have always queried whether single shot can be considered true HDR and always expressed the opinion that its not. I have always I believe been perfectly open about the fact that any portraits are from a single raw file, should anyone have been misled accept my apologises. If there was a separate category for single shot work that is where I would have entered them. Some subjects such as street photography and wildlife shots in many cases prove impossible to get bracketed shots because our subject matter will not keep still. So pseudo HDR or HDR effect is the best one can do. Until there is a separate category you and I will continue I should think to post single image work. We may look upon it differently as in you believe its true HDR and I do not but at the moment the voter will decide if they like what they see.
It appears the site administration at this moment in time allows single image work to be posted and any decision about future categories lies with him and not us.
I sincerely hope that clears up any confusion you may have had. Oh and yep I have a few friends here simply cos im an A1 type of guy huh.
I am with Steve on this. True HDR should render a dynamic range that exceeds that of a .jpg image. By this definition, one-shot HDR from a RAW image is still a true HDR (by a couple of EVs...) but single-shot .jpgs processed with Topaz Adjust only qualify as pseudo-HDR. They can be interesting, provocative, artistic, etc..., but they cannot be HDR!!! As for the voting, recent events have shown that there are mafias in place who will only support those who do not offer criticism of their images. And yet, constructive criticism should be welcome, as it is the most effective way to exit a rut or to move forward in the learning path of all photographers.