Real Photography vs. HDR photography

I am the author. This is a photo of a Nikon D1.Image via WikipediaI said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore, but my guts tell me to do it again. When I see great photographers with wonderful pictures venturing themselves into HDR photography I cannot remain silent, so I won't.
Last month I said on one of my posts on G+ that I viewed HDR as a form of painting and that it was not photography.
The reactions were totally against my affirmation and some of the greates HDR photographers like Trey Ratcliff labelled me as a "moron".

I respect the work of others and Art is not a subject that can be discussed or critizized objectively. Art is Art period. If I concieve art  as trowhing my colors on the wall and then more it is fine. Who is going to tell me that it is not?
Art is a movement of one's soul and if we were to label it as "not being Art " because it doesn't encounter our taste, we will be making a serious mistake. Of course there are a lot of good and bad artists, but that is subjecive to one's taste.

When it comes to photography I feel different about it. Maybe because I dedicated my whole life to it, or perhaps because when I was a war photographer I risked my life more than once, trying to establish myself as a photographer choosing a "niche" where there wasn't much competition at all being that we were only a few(the photographers crazy enough and with some "cohones" to defy mines and bullets to bring back a REAL photo).
So Trey Ratcliff, I respect your work even if I do not like it. The photo you take are not pictures after they go trough the heavy post-processing of HDR. If they were "paintings" I would love to see them on my wall. But If you label them as photo, I am sorry and I am glad to consider myself a MORON  who likes reality over fictionized pictures.

Having said this I hope I can rest my case about this. I would like to talk about this on a Hangout on Google plus if there is enough interest to do so...

Enhanced by Zemanta