hlmichel Loc: New Hope, Minnesota

I mentioned in another post that I had entered the Adorama 'Your Best Shot of 2011' photography contest.

When I saw the top 100 I was in awe. Someone complained though--it was the amount of HDR images in the top 100.

It made me think about other contests I have entered recently where the high-ranked images mostly appear to be HDR.

Now this is not sour grapes on my part--well not completely. I simply choose to not do HDR. I will continue to enter contests for the thrill. But it's always there, that nagging feeling that non-HDR is simply not good enough any more.
Or perhaps I am entering the wrong contests.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Let's see your contest entry...

nikron7 Loc: Indianapolis

A man after my own heart. I shot professionally for a long time. Although digital is new to me I prefer to do most of it in the camera. I personally prefer non HDR photos. :-)

Horseart Loc: Alabama

Maybe I am way off base here but I think that's unfair. I believe photography should be judged just as an art show is judged, by catagories.
Paintings are judged in Acrylics, Oils, Pastels, Watercolors, Pen & Ink, Pencil, Charcoal. Photographers should have the opportunity to enter the same way with Straight from the camera, HDR, Color corrected...whatever it fits in. I tink they could have many catagories, not just edited and non-edited. To me, that seems only fair to each contestant. Am I crazy or does anyone else agree???

MtnMan Loc: ID

I believe digital cameras and processing software have caused a huge revolution in the advancement of photography. Some of the most significant reasons are:

1. The ability to get immediate feedback on your picture...right there on your camera. It accelerates learning what works and what doesn't.

2. Free film. Even the most casual photographer with digital probably takes more pictures in a month than professionals used to in a year. This also accelerates learning.

3. The accessible ability to process your own pictures and do all kinds of creative things that weren't accessible to even the most accomplished photographer working with chemicals.

4. Ongoing technology improvements in both the cameras and the processing tools.

It would be interesting to see a comparision of what the entries to contests today are compared to ten, twenty, and thirty years ago.

PhotoDeb Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

I've seen a mix but there's still plenty of room for non-HDR. Do you look at previous year winners and check out what the jurors are producing?

ziggykor Loc: East Texas

Does anyone here actually think that Adams, Weston, Stieglitz and the list goes on didn't manipulate their photographs with every tool available to them? Ansel even said, back in the early 80's, that he felt that electronic imaging would be the next great advance in the craft.

What is the "Zone System" if not a way to pull as much dynamic range as possible from a scene?

We had a saying back in the military, "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Photography is photography and should never be judged or even compared to any other art form. So we can either use the tools available to produce the finest possible image or not, it's up to the user.

photo guy Loc: Chippewa Falls, WI

I prefer non-HDR. I entered into the photo contest at the fair last year and didn't see any HDR since there was no catagory for it in the photography section for the competition so those entries would have had to go into the art catagory. I will always prefer regular photography.

egnblack Loc: San Jose, Ca.

Photography is the art of producing images on a light sensitive medium. It is an art form that should be judged in different categories. You see this categorization in car shows, motorcycle shows, why not photography.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

Fads, techniques, "the thing of the day" come and go.
Straight photography is the backbone, the font from which all techniques flow.

It will always be with us

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

A lot depends on what sort of competition it is; who's judging it; and pure luck.

There are always fashions and trends in anything, including photography. Right now, I find many photos on UHH and elsewhere to be grossly oversaturated, while at the Rencontres Photographiques at Arles (the biggest gathering of fine art photographers in the world) many pictures are grossly overenlarged. Will things always be like this? Almost certainly not. The fashion for pictures with very shallow depth of field, so-called 'bokeh' shots, is already showing welcome signs of waning.

While I have some sympathy with those calling for categories, how are you going to define them? If a technique is used properly, it should just look as though the photography was very clever or very lucky or both. It is only when it is overdone that the technique dominates the picture.

And, having judged photo competitions in the past, I can tell you two simple truths.

The first is that all the judges care about is the pictures. There are normally three rounds or steps in the judging. In the first you throw out the no-hopers. In the second, you narrow it down to a handful. In the third, you argue about which of several very good pictures is the winner. This is a matter of opinion and luck.

The second is that judging is astonishingly time-consuming, and normally unpaid, so even if the judges were interested in who took the picture, or where, what equipment was used, and what specific techniques were used, there's no time to go behind the images and examine the back story -- which takes us back to the first point.

Cheers,

R.

Donwitz Loc: Virginia Beach, VA

An old story about Ansel Adams talks about his experiments with a Polaroid camera. He would darken his prints by putting them in a microwave oven! We need to do everything we can before and after the picture is taken. Adams would research sites for months before shooting, so that he could take advantage of the exact sun position and shadows. There is obviously a place for HDR in photography shows, as well as a thoughtfully composed black and white shot. The "palette" and "canvas" for digital shots keeps expanding. Just find a spot that you can work in, and do it well. The number of choices you can make will most likely keep expanding...

usaellie101 Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

Wait I think Adams did a few minor darkroom changes.
There is nothing wrong with making fine corrections on your art. My father was a sculptor and he alwys went back tto "fix" or change his work as he liked.
What makes us think Art is so abitrary?

I disagree that photography is not an art. If not, then what is it ?

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

I remember the same complaint when we went from B&W to color, and before that when we went from oil to silver nitrate.

shadow1284 Loc: Mid-West Michigan

I,m not going into what art or great photography is, but as for HDR; Our eyes are still the best at seeing the most light there is in an image or scene. The highlights midtone and shadows. A camera, on the other hand, averages out or, by the photographers selection, emphsizes one or the other. By selective use of the HDR photo editing system, a photographer can bring out details in the highlights, midtones and shadows of a scene that would only have been visable to our eyes and processed by our brains.
Now try processing an image in our cerebrial cortex through a printer. I'm still trying to process the ones on my camera sensor.
Ex; See my photo in the Photos Gallery."weather related beauty" HDR better than any one of my single shots.