Valdore-
I am going to differ from what other people are saying about your HDR with people.
First of all, I think it is the photographer to decide what he prefers and the way he portrays a certain image. I mean, I am sure a lot of people thought Monet was crazy when he did these impressionistic paintings. Who would have thought attaching a bicycle wheel to a stool would be worth millions of dollars one day (Dada)?
My personal opinion is that it adds a lot of interest in the image. Most photojournalism bores me just because most people focus on the message rather than an interesting image. You end up with a firefighter putting out a fire or a policeman handcuffing a drunk. While these images can have excellent technique and be intriguing, they often are not. Valdore's original image has the meaning, and in interesting one at that, but otherwise it is not an image I would look at for more than 10 seconds. Once he perfected the image in post processing with HDR, the image all of a sudden becomes much more interesting. You can see the emotion on their faces, and though they are not as attractive (if they ever were attractive), you can feel the pain and agony these people go through to get their point across. For me, it adds much more depth to the image.
Just my two cents. I have not seen so many interesting pictures by one poster over the six months that I have been eyeing this thread, and considering the skill of the photographers here, that surely says a lot.
I'm glad you prefer whatever you prefer - it's definitely why art in all it's various forms can find fans and consumers. Certainly I am not going to discredit Valdore's work, or style, as he is very good at what he does. However, any artist should be comfortable with feedback, including negative. Sure, art is primarily the vision of the artist, but in the end in order to be recognized as "good" or "bad" it requires opinions of the public. Some artists make money, some don't. It isn't really a matter of "quality" because art is a subjective concept. It would take a lot of space to even start on the subject of what art is. A monkey scribbling doodles, then it becomes somehow collectible. Art collectors compete to own pieces, thus legitimizing the "art." But, is it really the art itself, or the cultural interest in the art expressed by a celebrity-obsessed culture. Are a famous person's photographs better than a non-famous person's? Which would be more collectible? Why? Are photos of famous people more interesting than ordinary people? Are they more marketable, more valuable? Is documentary/photojournalism ever considered art? Of course it is, if it can be seen as having a certain merit socially and historically and stylistically. But there are inherent limitations in the "creative license" of anything considered journalism - to not deceive, to not manipulate the truth, however boring you might consider that. There are reasons why photojournalists who couldn't help themselves by spicing up their images ended up fired - even something like posing the subjects for an "improved" version of a photo they already had captured "live." It's all about integrity in photojournalism - the truth. Cameras can always lie by omission, life can be modified by use of composition techniques and wide-angle/telephoto views, but at least the notion that the images reflect what it was like. Post processing is certainly allowed, but if every picture in a newspaper suddenly began having dramatic skies and obvious "style sheets" imposed on the look of the pictures, people would become suspicious that underneath all of this beauty on the page perhaps something was added, or removed. It's a slippery slope, but primarily applies to photojournalism - not art or commercial photography.
If
photojournalism bores you, you haven't really looked at much of it. National Geographic certainly comes to mind. Good, strong photojournalism can be among the most compelling and touching images out there. The problem is that it is becoming a dying "art." Basic shots on deadline, run as small and b/w, grip 'n grins for local public relations in small communities, high school activities (ordinary life...) often only interesting to those in the pictures. Local city council meetings. High school sports in dark gyms, rodeo queen inaugurations in small towns. Yes, most of this can be very boring to the non-participants or non-locals. Yet, in the hands of a good photojournalist who is given the space and time to compose a multi-photo feature, you can also find magic. It's not easy, but I contend that if done the right way, photojournalism is far from boring. It's about using those tools of curiosity, attention to detail, superb composition given the circumstances, "being there" so you can be there, knowing enough about the subject to make pictures that make sense, not just look pretty. I was in a landscape gallery in Sedona Arizona a few years ago, and the photos were absolutely gorgeous. The large prints cost several thousand dollars, and were stunning in their light and detail. But, after spending a half-hour in the gallery, suddenly, and without warning... I became bored. Too much candy. Too much of the same thing. I needed the pictures to be about something unique, but they were all about the same subject - landscape and light. Extremely well done, of course. But my taste buds were de-sensitized.
However, exhibits on photojournalism I've seen, from the University of Arizona to the University of Texas to the Portland Art Museum to exhibits from the National Press Photographers Association have left me captivated. I suggest visiting the
NPPA website, and check out the still photography award winners and tons of other information on a "boring" subject.
