Is HDR and abomination as it exists today?

RichA writes:
Honestly, I think it is. Most of it we see is GARBAGE. Pretty, hyper-
colourful pictures that one person pointed out are probably done
mostly by people who live under cloudy skies and yearn for vibrancy.
A handful of pictures might look ok, otherwise, it looks 99% of the
time like crap. Garish, is the right word. Until software comes
around that can render a natural-looking HDR'd image with minimal
fuss, HDR will look like a clown show.

Huh? "HDR" is not an abomination, it's a technical tool, which allows
the photographer to record more information so that he has more
flexibility in post-processing. There certainly exists software which
is perfectly capable of doing nice-looking natural tonemapping
(and you don't need to use _any_ clever algorithms, you can tonemap
using global brightness/contrast adjustments and hard clipping if you
want -- just like your camera would have done without HDR...).

The real problem is a social one: People somehow have decided that they
like these freakish renderings, and intentionally seek them out. It's a fad.
It'll die out, just give it time.

But HDR the tool is here to stay.

-Miles

--
Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement)

John Navas writes:
But HDR the tool is here to stay.

Not necessarily -- HDR is a tool to overcome range limitations of
current sensors, and because less useful as sensors improve.

I don't mean "HDR" as in "take N pics and combine them", I mean "HDR" as
in "high-dynamic range", in the original sense (remember, HDR as a
concept predates its use in photography). As sensors become better, HDR
results will be done with a single snap, instead of the current clumsy
multi-snap methods commonly used today.

Of course, as HDR formats become the norm, the term "HDR" will probably
fall by the wayside -- no need to have a special term to refer to the
normal state -- but the formats will continue.

-Miles

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without
individual responsibility.

John Navas wrote:

Not necessarily -- HDR is a tool to overcome range limitations of
current sensors, and because less useful as sensors improve.

Not really. Most HDR software is used to re-map tone. So areas in
shadow aren't lightened, they're "re-lit" in the image bringing out
images that ring false - but may be pleasing to some, me too if not
overdone.

Put another way, no matter how much sensors improve, they will never
change lighting value at different parts in the scene as many HDR
efforts are shown to do.