[StephenHampshire]

As photography is such a broad discipline which stretches into the realms of graphic art at times, the use of HDR and pseudo HDR (single image HDR) to produce arresting if surreal images) seems perfectly legitimate. Multi shot HDR to help manage the dynamic range of real world scenes is also a useful tool, but the images produced at these two extremes are like chalk and cheese. As someone else pointed out, images produced at either end of the spectrum of HDR can be "good" or "bad" - subjective judgements which therefore vary with the observer!

My personal taste is for the low key end of the HDR spectrum, the natural look I suppose, but surrealism can be attractive too, so I have to go with option three and embrace the many forms of HDR images out there!

[FrancisK7]

Low key HDR can work well. I used it during my trip to Chichen Itza and liked the results, but it's hit or miss sometimes.

Here's one I thought worked well:

[stanic]

I like HDR photos - i. e. high DYNAMIC range photos, I don`t like oversaturated, overcontrasted and overprocessed pics

[baro-nite]

It is sad to see all the viewers of a poll that don't bother to stand up and be counted.

You didn't include a "none of the above" or "other" choice, so those of us whose views don't slot in with your three choices are disenfranchised.

[magkelly]

It has it's uses but I don't like to see it overdone. But it's like anything else. In moderation it's not necessarily a bad thing. Too much of it makes my eyeballs ache though...

[loco]

I just started experimenting with it. I try to keep it low key as I really don't like the "overdone" HDR images. It's personal taste, though. There are obviously lots of people who love it and lots who don't. There are lots of people who love rock and roll and lots who don't. I don't pretend the HDR images I think are overdone have no place. I simply don't enjoy them.

[GibbyTheMole]

My answer is... it depends on the individual photo. I like photos of all types, from low-key moody monochrome to jump off the photo and punch you in the face color. I can certainly see an application for HDR in a variety of situations & I'm not averse to using it.

That said, in all of the cases I've tried shooting the same scene both non-HDR & HDR, I've always preferred the regular non-HDR version... so far, anyway.

I know a couple of people who are really hung up on it & use it for everything. And that ain't so great.

[daacon]

Low key HDR can work well. I used it during my trip to Chichen Itza and liked the results, but it's hit or miss sometimes.

Here's one I thought worked well:

I have this almost identical shot so I know where you were in the hall of a 1000 columns I might go back to my shot and give this a HDR try thanks ! I like HDR and voted so. I agree that saying you like good HDR and not BAD HDR to me just means means you like HDR for the reasons slackercruster already gave or to put it another way :

I don't like a good kick in the ass so for me you can put down not liking being kicked in the ass regardless of how good (or deserved haha) it was.

[FrancisK7]

I have this almost identical shot so I know where you were in the hall of a 1000 columns I might go back to my shot and give this a HDR try thanks !

Haha, it's a pretty awesome place! I loved every minute there!

[demp10]

If you can tell that HDR was used for a picture, for me it is rather a poor picture. Like everything else in life, moderation is the key.

[slackercruster]

If you can tell that HDR was used for a picture, for me it is rather a poor picture. Like everything else in life, moderation is the key.

Well, it sounds like that train of thought discounts 'any' special effects with photography. Is that right?

[eddie1960]

I like it when used as it was originally intended to draw out the DR and detail in a scene that Digital couldn't capture (that is changing with the K5 and others)
Not overly tone mapped and looking like what you saw or felt you saw. used this way it's not different than manipulation in the darkroom dodging and burning etc.

the cartoonish ones mostly look garish to me (funnily enough though from talking to guys at outdoor art shows they are usually their best sellers which is why they do them anyway )

[Alliecat]

Like any art appreciation (or lack thereof) there will be a great variety of personal taste. I agree with the moderation, can't-tell-it-was-HDR gang. If it will "fix" a photo with extreme differences in lighting, ok. But a lot of the HDR-wannabe pix I've seen are kind of garish & overdone, usually with ridiculous skies that look about to fall down. Which was why I posted this in a fit of pique late one night.
Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
My 2 cents.

[demp10]

Well, it sounds like that train of thought discounts 'any' special effects with photography. Is that right?

If the special effect screams "special effect" then yes.

For me photography is a form of art and everything we use (camera, lenses, filters, software, techniques, etc.) to make the image, are just tools to help capture and convey the concept, whatever it is.

If the tool marks are visible and prominent then they take something out of the image by attracting attention to themselves. As a simple example, when a photographer chooses to use a flash, it should not be to show off the flash capabilities/effects, but rather to illuminate the scene (or parts of it) that needs illumination to convey the photographers vision.

[todd]

As with any tool, I like it when it's employed well. HDR definitely can be overused and easily misused as I have done plenty of while trying to get better at it. The bottom line is that I either like a picture or I don't.. I don't care what tools someone uses to produce it. To me it's like any type of photography, when I view HDR work, I turn my HDR goggles on and I enjoy it for what it is. But it still has to be executed well, like any type of photography.