In my opinion...

I have opinions about a lot of things, ask my wife. Some of them are well thought through and informed and others, OK most, are intuitive reactions to whatever circumstances brought them about. But if there is one subject about which I feel like I have an authoritative position based in experience, it's photography. Of course being art it's all objective but there are so many photographic images out in the world today that I feel like some lines need to be drawn between what is art, the result of a creative process, and what is not art but just a series of filters in Photoshop or a setting on the digital camera used to make a really poor image look otherworldly and therefore "artistic".
The source of my discontent: HDR! HDR stands for High Dynamic Range photography. Basically it's just a new toy for digitographers. (Digitographers, by the way, are camera-users who have more money than talent. Basically, the gear heads of the camera world. Digitographers do not have to be using a digital camera and there are plenty of folks that do use digital cameras that are not digitographers.) OK, now that that's clear let me get back to HDR. The argument is that HDR allows the camera to "see" a wider gamut of tonality and contrast therefore lending a more realistic view to the final image. It's true that film does not perfectly represent what the human eye captures but that is largely due to the fact that the eye is constantly readjusting to various lighting situations. But take a look and decide for yourself. Here are two images, both shot at the same time, on the right showing the raw capture of the camera, the left side the HDR version. You tell me which is more realistic? It's not to say that the picture on the right is a perfect representation of what the human eye perceives but if your world looks like the one on the left you might want to have your rods andcones checked.
And like I mentioned before, the bigger issue is not that the image has been altered, but that the image is relying on the alteration to make it seem like something more than it is! Lord knows there are plenty of photographers in the world who alter images in a creative way to enhance an image. From Ansel Adams to Jerry Uelsman photographers have used their tools to make an image more interesting. The difference is that these photographers started with a well designed, nicely crafted photograph that would have stood on it's own and used these tools to make it something more. The digitographer just presses a button.
And it gets worse! Here are just a couple I found looking online that are really bad!
Ewww! Super-wide distorted angles and HDR! A horrible combination!










Then there's this one! Look at the area around the windmill, you can see what looks like dodging marks! There's no reason for that, it's just obnoxious! It looks more like a cartoon than a photograph.












I think that just like any other tool there is a learning curve with HDR, and I suspect that right now there are a few photographers out there using it in a restrained manor that are making beautiful images with it. But until the novelty wears off and the price tag goes down these types of images will dominate. My goal is not to call anyone out, it's just to advise. Beware, be aware that these images are out there. Don't be lured into mistaking quality image making for a cheap trick. Be advised, there is now a distinction between a photographer and a digitographer!