Top line…all of photography is subjective and we all have preferences. So, for someone to bash others efforts is ultimately empty. My personal likes and dislikes do nothing to enhance or diminish any image presented, it is what it is!

Now to dissect Jim’s statements from my humble viewpoint:

1. Jim says: “It’s perfectly fine to have dark shadows or blown highlights in a photo. ”

Conversely it should be true to not have dark shadows or blown highlights as well. I would ask, do all photos that have blocked shadows and blown highlights have a “true purpose” as Jim suggests that all HDR images must??

2. Jim says: “I’m a firm believer of the principle of GIGO.”

GIGO is purely subjective and has nothing to do with HDR. The end result is what matters and whether the photographer or client finds the results pleasing. Jim, you are mixing your personal views with regard to a technique\tool. It is no different than when you put on a ND filter or polarizing filter, do tools diminish the results? Possibly, but it is up to each person/client to determine, not some photographer to dictate what is acceptable for everyone else.

3. Jim says: “HDR is a great photographic development, but its one all to easily accomplished with most photographers latching on to the whiz bang nature of it.”

How is this any different from the transition of film to digital…the easy nature of digital format has opened up photography to many many more folks?? Does this mean we must “hate” digital photography now??

To me Jim’s argument is not so much about “hating” HDR since I do not see any valid points that suggest we should not use it, but rather a personal rant about a particular technique because there seems to be so many using it. So from this am I to conclude that if a technique is used by many it is bad? Or do I continue to like images that I like based on my personal tastes?

I think I will continue to like images based on my ‘biases’ and not be persuaded by others just because they say so!

I also see HDR as anything but a simple program that does the work for you. Yes you’re capturing an entire dynamic range, but the artistic expression comes in upon development. You could have 10 people process the same images and end up with 10 different final results.

I think anyone that loves HDR, also looks towards balance in their photography as well. I know that I love shooing for HDR, but I love experimenting and challenging myself with prime lens’ or no editing beyond the simple adjustments.

I don’t see HDR as the be all, end all of photography and I totally appreciate both sides of the of the debate. I just hope that people that hate HDR give constructive criticism vs bashing – this would allow for conversation and things to try differently.

Cool post!

and @Jim – I heard that podcast when you posted it and loved it. Thanks for that talk!

I read RC’s post last week which immediately spurred me to do a post on “the image you want.” Yes, there’s a lot of debate over HDR, and there will continue to be. Personally, years ago I was against any type of photo edit whatsoever. A photographer friend who has made a career over 31 years had a talk with me about edits, photoshop, retouching, etc. After that talk I got over my anti-photoshop feelings. Heck, gone so far as to find HDR an extremely useful tool for landscapes of Arizona.

In the end, it’s up to you what you want to present. People can critique and rail against it all day long if they like. In my case, if my customers like it I can continue making a living. I try to create unique images, and when one hits home with customer after customer I feel like I’ve done a good job no matter the technique used.

I try to use the tool like John.