speedy_2

iTrader: (12)

Don't think I'm being negative. It's just that it all boils down the the fact that most of the pics posted as HDR really aren't HDR Images. Plain and Simple. Even if they say, "I like the surreal look." The pic just isn't HDR. Call it surreal or over saturated, but don't call it HDR.

Malicious

iTrader: (1)

Everyone's got an opinion. I like the pics, it's all what the artist/photographer likes. If someone else doesn't like your work, who cares? I've not tried any HDR, too busy most of the time to do any real shooting. Need to get down to Arches National Park and do some shooting down there sometime. jhelms, you should check out www.photocamel.com and check out some of their tutorials. There's a guy on there that's done some video tutorials for HDR and most of his stuff is nothing short of amazing. Plus as a member there you have free unlimited picture storage. Great site. Keep shooting, nowhere to go but up!

jhelms

iTrader: (2)

I think we differ a little bit on what you see as HDR - to me, even if the histogram is biased dark or light, you may still be viewing a photograph with high dynamic range if it is composed of details in very dark or very light areas that would have otherwise been impossible to get with a single exposure.

One of my instructers just this week said that he defines high dynamic range as a photo that results in showing more details than could have been gathered in a single non-edited exposure; so he includes single jpg shots that have been properly edited in PS to bring up shadow areas and bring down almost blown out spots to recover details.

hitmansws6

Yes I'm aware of that. Thanks for clarifying though. I'm just saying, a single exposure would do just fine in most of the pics posted.