There is a proliferation of HDR photography / "art" any which way you look on the web. It's unfortunate I think that a B&W magazine should be seeking entries where artifice takes precedence of a solid grasp of foundation skills in photography as they apply to B&W, or all photography for that matter. I agree with The Flying Camera there is a body of stirling work there which does credit to photographers who know what they are doing; in balance, that might be the contest's saving grace. Foundation skills in photography are being eroded by the push to get more and more done by computer, instead of organising and visualising the scene with the camera. Personally I skip over obvious HDR work, including layering, composites, obvious artificial effect and the like. I enjoy looking at what people achieve in the darkroom and rarely, if at all, pay lip-service to what happens with digital images. By admission, I do not tweak any of my digital images. The lab involved in hybridized printing also does not make any changes. I don't think a multi-exposure in-camera, on film, is considered "HDR", but Matt King is correct in that printing two negatives sequentially equates to HDR
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 08-20-2013 at 05:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.