Hello everyone, Amanda here again! So, Gabe has been talking lately about how it irritates him when people claim to hate HDR because it isn’t ‘pure’ photography or some nonsense. I’ve been thinking about it more and more as he brings it up, and I still can’t understand their viewpoint. These photography ‘purists’ as they are called have quite a negative view towards the post-processing of photographs. There seems to be some sense that a truly great photographer should be able to take pictures that are absolutely amazing straight out of the camera, with no need for post-processing. This is the purist’s opinion. But the problem with having an opinion about an art form (which photography most certainly is), is that no two people will be the same artist or share the same vision of ‘art’. No two photographers will take the same picture, even if it is of the same subject. Because photography is an art form, the question is not how immaculate of a photo you can create with a single click, but rather, what kind of amazing final image can you present to the viewer after extra work in the dark room (or nowadays, the computer)? Without post-processing, HDR images would not even be possible, as they require a program to stitch together multiple different exposures. The sorts of things that an HDR image can capture, that a normal lighting photograph can not, make a huge difference in the overall light quality of the photograph. HDR lighting is more ethereal and glowing. It provides a more magical feeling, giving reality a surreal edge. As a photographer, having this kind of power over light in a given photograph is exhilarating, and really enables the artist to create his own, personal and unique art. Below is the unedited (no post-processing) version of the above photograph. Which one do you like better?