-
Website
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog -
Original page
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/08/15/why-i-hate-hdr-photo-technology-porn/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
//Minna
HDR isn't a type of photo, it's a method to achieve the look the photographer wants. One does not seek to take a "flash photo" or a "telephoto photo". One seeks to present the subject one has chosen to look how one imagines it.
I have resisted the HDR trend, but there are times when the dynamic range is too wide to capture the image you imagine in one shot. On occasion I have exposure bracked and merged in photoshop using the second alternative you describe above.
Below is one such image:
http://neil.creek.name/blog/2007/08/11/friday-f...
Thank you for this fascinating and honest examination of HDR.
One question I have for you is about using HDR in subtle ways.
I'm doing some interior design shots for my mother's portfolio. I must shoot at her organized times. She won't schedule them at times when the sun is appropriately positioned in the sky. So, I'm shooting each shot twice. Once exposed for the interior and once for the outside light, through the windows.
I plan to "HDR" my shots in post, to find a decent balance through the windows.
Is this a legitimate use of HDR?
http://terrychay.com/blog/article/hdr-photograp...
Will you use an HDR-like method? Or will you "hand combine" in PhotoShop?
I find HDR as just another tool (just like flash, filters, lense, etc.). I have used it for a number of images, especially outdoors where bright sunlight, moving water and dark jungle make it nearly impossible to get a usable image. I am interested in bringing out the detail in the shadows and keeping details in the highlights, HDR is a specialize tool to let me do this in special circumstances. But it can be time consuming and it is easy to create a "over processed look.
I will stay out of the "legitimate/philosophy" aspect. I do what I do, if I like it, or you like it, or it "sells", then great. If not...next image.
Tony Rath
http://belizeimages.blogspot.com
Darwin Wiggett does a great job with the HDR.
I've disliked HDR since I found out about it; partially because it's used a crutch and partially because it universally results in throwaway images.
I compare HDR photography with those guys who do spray-paint art on the streets using stencils and such to make airbrushed temples and whales in space. It looks neat, but there's something aesthetically wrong with it that you can't quite explain. And as soon as you look away, it just slides out of your mind.
The only people I've run into who advocate HDR are people who use it themselves, like Tony Rath above. I do agree with him though, it can be a useful, tasteful tool.
Of course that's still theoretical in my mind; I have yet to see a tasteful HDR photo. And before anyone asks, yes I've seen the work of Flickr user Stuck in Customs. He's good, but HDR seems to be preventing him from becoming better.
I am by no means advocating the use of HDR. I am just saying it is a tool, and when used properly, it can result in imagery I find credible and incredible.
I'll see if I can post a HDR image I've recently done on my blog in the coming days as an example.
Tony Rath
http://belizeimages.blogspot.com
Andrew, Tony and Mark in my mind photography is most certainly about vision, if not artistry, and execution. Whether HDR or any other technique, if the end result meets your vision then you've succeeded. The bulk of the HDR processed images I'm referring to fall in the novelty category. Good HDR processing is quite a challenge and most of the output I've seen has a pre-canned and extreme appearance that I hate.
Jerrett interesting about the Fujji dSLR I'll have to read up on that. This is the first I've heard of it. Thanks
Terry and Lau thanks for the links. I'll be reading them shortly.
It was meant to be aligned to "techno-porn". Porn known for its extreme appearances/actions + technology = extremely out of proportioned use of technology.
Hopefully that makes more sense to those confused by the choice of terminology.
Feel free to check out my HDRs on flickr, and let me know what you think.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgmiami/sets/72157...
Oh, and by the way, I love that you used "porn" in the title for obvious reasons if you click my name :)
I had a similar take on the whole issue...
http://www.f1point0.com/2007/07/10/hdr-my-take/
Ed I knew someone would appreciate the title :) Great site you have BTW
as always, your points are well thought-out and delicious to read. This time though I cannot agree with the conclusion. That might well be because of my natural reaction, a knee jerk reaction some might say, to any critique to technique just because it is used/abused for purposes not intended originally. I have heard the same kind of "hate" remarks regarding sharpening, contrast, color manipulation and any other technique ever used, both digital and analogical. The history of photography is littered with similar comments about the use of soft filters vs getting the most crisp and pristine image from a lens. Or using colored gels. Or using infrared film. Or heck even using Tri-X!! Many of us cringe when we see oversharpened images, or over saturated. But some people use those techniques in a creative way and sometimes they show us a different way of "seeing". And most of us have learned the aesthetically "proper" use of those techniques for our own purposes by making mistakes and testing the boundaries. God knows I have enough over sharpened images taking up space on my hard drives but it was via experimentation that I found a degree of sharpening that works for me and my images.
Same for over saturation which I'm very fond of. After all, my most used film, back in the day, was Kodachrome 25, and then Velvia 50 when Kodak stopped production.
What I think has changed now is that, while in the past we were only exposed to the works of talented artists via books or museums exhibits, today we do have access, thanks to the internet, to the myriad of images any not-so-talented-dood like me inflicts upon the world. HDR is another technique,
people with talent use it well, other people may abuse it but in many cases I have found that they show me another way of seeing the world I hadn't imagined before.
Maybe someday HDR will be able to create beautiful pictures but for now, I have yet to see that happen. As a result, give the HDR technique a resounding Two Thumbs DOWN.
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/hdr-plea.s...
He shows some great examples of HDR used right.
It's always good to see photos using HDR for more natural reproductions of scenes. Some work better than others.
Initially, a handful of the photos I saw were great. They had me looking at them for quite awhile. I even imagined myself having a large print and posting it up around the house. However, I see them merely as pieces of art that are eye candy. Really good candy.
But I, as a photographer, would not care for these photos except for the simple fact that they look like exotic paintings. These are no longer photographs and for them to receive honors among other great, "real" photographs would be a disgrace to cameras everywhere.
I use exposure stacking and masking sometimes, but try hard to make it look real, like what the scene actually looked like. Most people seem to use HDR to make their images look like paintings or graphic design rather than photographs.
And that's where they lose me.
http://x19.xanga.com/771d8503d5133142370679/w10...
Thanks for sharing !
Troy thanks for adding your comment. I've been an admirer of your work for sometime. I think were of one mind on this one. There are multiple techniques to expand dynamic range and many people employ them, but as you mention extreme use of the technique to cartoon up the image so to speak is where I become less interested in the work.
John W. I'll be curious to hear your take on the technique once you get a chance to read about it and tinker with it.
Antonio thanks for the feedback and link. I'll definitely check it out.
Yami thanks for the input and I hope the article has helped broaden your horizons on the subject.
Sharee thanks for the input. It's looking like quite a few people are of a similar mindset on this one.
Rafa although I agree most techniques are over used this is a different situation in my mind. The off use of the technique has become a style unto its own. I find it rather odd. Perhaps it will become a niche style and perhaps it is a fad that will soon fade. Time will tell, but overall the technique has a very narrow use and most people new style or not are not using it as it was intended.
ONE THING TO NOTE that I had to share. I had an off-line discussion with a friend and he made an exceptional point. People do not understand lighting. As a result employing HDR as a fix to bad lighting equates to GIGO... garbage in, garbage out. Food for thought.
Thanks again to all that have replied.
BUT, I soon realised that for a good HDR result you still need to have a keen eye for suitable subject matter in the first place just as you would for any other image. Trial and error (lots of trial and error!!) has lead me to believe that HDR is a legitimate technique when used carefully, and as stated in some of the posts above, there ARE stunning examples of HDR images out there as you, Jim, have admitted.
So it would seem to me it's not the HDR technique that you hate, it's the poor use of the technique that you abhor. And yes, to quote you Jim, "[HDR images] do not display the world in a natural fashion", but then neither does work by Van Gogh, Piccaso or Turner for example, yet they have produced stunning and compelling works of art.
So to summarise; any technique used badly results in poor images - it's not the technique at fault.
Thanks for the article.
The title "Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn" is a good one. One can't argue that you hate it.
No doublt there are a lot of bad HDR imagines out there, but I find your view a bit extreme. I personally concur with Charles Wood and John K above. Everyone has their opinion and that makes life interesting.
The problem is not in the tools, but in the taste and skill of the users that use the tools to get good, creative or ugly results.
I think that HDR have been created to increase the apparent dynamic range, so it will give good results only if used in that way from a skilled user that knows what is doing. It will give creative results if the user is an artist and will give bad and ugly results if the user has a bad taste. The same for any tool, editor, playing piano, cooking too!
I'm sure there are lots of 'old school' traditionalist photographers that made less than complimentary remarks about the post processing of digital images when they hit the scene...I dare say painters of the same mindset also sniped at photographers when the camera was born.
There are those that will embrace the new and enjoy the experience of using new tools to express ideas and those that will moan and gripe about how it's not 'proper photography'. GET OVER IT. Time will not stand still. Mankind will continue to develop new ideas. I prefer to live in a world where people have a go, get creative and enjoy what they do...maybe some day you will reflect on your views and wonder why you ever talked about a form of art and expression and used the word HATE in the same sentence.
Your article is simply simplistic silly backward thinking. Every innovation that has and will be to come is typically stretched from one end of it's original intent to entirely new and different ways. HDR is no different. To "hate" something so globally is just ignorant on your part. Sorry to be so blunt but your viewpoint borders on photo-nazism.
Your mathematical reasoning for your disdain of HDR is so un-compelling that it is laughable. Can you name any software program that CAN reproduce imagery the way our brain interprets things or for that matter any film/print? It is up to the photographer to recreate the scene with the tools at their disposal for realism or other. Although I find some of the HDR tools can really produce visually more accurate rendered scenes than that of traditional single shot exposures.
You know that our current color technology for our digital camera's/monitors/prints cannot render the full color spectrum...so I guess you probably hate that too and would suggest we not use these mediums any longer due to their inadequacies!
Novelty. So I guess you don't like many things due to their "novelty"...I find your reasonings around this again just utter nonsense. I don't believe you really mean this and have not really thought this through. First of all how do you know that most use it for novelty rather than an applied solution? Just because folks create imagery that is beyond natural doesn't mean they do it for novelty...it could just be a simple matter of a desire to and or unable to render realism. Your over generalizing. Also how have you become the HDR expert on what program outputs the "worst" images? All of them are fully adjustable so as to create the real to surreal. So if you had seen some CS2/3 surreal HDR images I guess it would now be the "worst!" Please.
I am again sorry to be so "blunt" about your viewpoint but it seems so juvenile.
Until our camera's can catch-up to our eyes DR I will continue to use the tools available to me to help render my images more closely to natural true tone. As for those folks who wish to use it for other reasons...more power to you! Don't let limited thinking folks dissuade you from explorations/innovations.
Btw..I don't "hate" you or any of your techniques. :)
Feel free to check out my HDR/Tonemapped images and hate on them or like them as much as you want.
http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/?page_id=436
Just for the record, I'm a huge JMG Galleries fan and I have the blog bookmarked in my RSS reader.
Jeff
Funny thing is that the title of this post and a few points strikes such a nerve with some that they completely lose sight of many of the other points in the post. There is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak when it comes to pursuing an expanded dynamic range. I think I was fairly balanced in sharing a few other techniques for the HDR folk to try.
@Jeff It would be very easy to break into a debate unto itself about realism in photography. There wouldn't be much of a point though... photography is so subjective and every photographer approaches their work with their own taste in mind. Even if I don't like this technique I'm not going to think less of another photographer for liking it. If it works for you more power to you. More times than not I can't help but think that a quality image is completely overshadowed by the HDR style or technique applied... it becomes more about the technique and less about the subject. That is another philisophical facet of this that gets under my skin. As for Tonemapping I would agree... this certainly exaggerates the effects seen in many of the bad HDR images noted. Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I'll definitely check out your photos. Great to see there's a fan of the blog out there :)
First I should say thanks for responding...the anti-HDR camp is a little slow! :)
Just as I found your editorial a little over the top such was my response.
Sure there are always different methods for achieving a result for high contrast scenes but as an example a GND filter does not to me work well for complex or uneven horizons. Where multiple image blending using any number of programs will. I think the real problem boils down to the viewer such as yourself with your low dynamic range eyeglasses...we are so used to/bias/in a rut with regards to what photos should look like versus a more true toned or natural image can now look like. I am sure this same hatred existed for color film when it first came on the scene but once we the viewers understood the benefits and the highest realism currently available the hatred will dissolve.
The fact that HDR/TM images look different is because of their very nature, otherwise what is the point? ...and by different I am suggesting they can be more true toned/natural/realistic. I think we both can spot an image that has had a GND filter used...does this make it false or unreal? Possibly, or it could mimic the actual scene more exacting than without the filter. Same with HDR/TM efforts.
What will you do when cameras/monitors catch up to the DR of the human visual capability? I suspect you will find a program to lower the DR of all your images! :)
It's like having the best equipament, read the best books teaching photography and think this is enough to get a good shot. It's not, definetly!
I think, after a few years, when people get bored of all these bizarre experiments with HDR, we'll have some very good examples, and maybe we'll won't even know they're HDR pictures.
This does not mean that HDR is bad, but the application of it is abused. HDR can be a great tool if you used properly. All the negatives you state (Uneven Shadow Tonality, Nearly Reversed Tonality, Unnatural transitions, Reduced Contrast) are easily avoided or corrected
The point about HDR being a mathematical verses aesthetic solution is just absurd. You may as well rip out your CCD or CMOS sensor, and smash all your lenses because guess what? Your camera was designed by electrical engineers with a sound mathematical background, your lenses also designed by engineers using math to develop the right focal length and minimize diffraction, vignetting, and so on. In addition any post processing also uses mathematical algorithms to manipulate digital image formats. I really do not get your point here. Just like any thing else in post processing, tone mapping allows for the user to manipulate the image to his interpretation.
In short, while it is certainly abused (a lot), HDR is a tool that can certainly yield amazing and realistic looking results. Here are some examples of photographers on flickr that I think do a fantastic job:
http://flickr.com/photos/jpn/
http://flickr.com/photos/rags1969/
http://flickr.com/photos/arno-4m/
http://flickr.com/photos/smgallery/
http://flickr.com/photos/valpopando/
http://flickr.com/photos/chanc/
http://flickr.com/photos/wickdgin/(myself)
Overall, I actually didn't disagree too much with the article, but rather that it generalizes too much... HDR is often abused, but I think its unfortunate because it adds a stigma to what can really be a good tool.
One thing I should have mentioned is that Jim does offer some good alternatives for increasing dynamic range listed. I thought I'd post some comparison images using the suggested techniques using a common image. I used three bracketed RAW images spaced at +/- 2 ev of the Brooklyn Bridge for the following.
Tonemapped HDR
Simulated 2 stop GND using Layer Blending
Simulated 4 stop GND using Layer Blending
Dynamic Range Increase - Blended using layer masks
Double Processed from Single Raw
Aside from the Double Processed Raw image, I believe the other methods all yielded good results. I personally prefer the Tonemapped HDR, however it really does not deviate too far from the other methods.
It's fastfood for photography. It's advertisement, promoting shock over substance. Now let's face it: some people may life it, just like some people like fast food. And it's fine. I just hope there'll be enough people like me to avoid its generalization in mainstream photography :)
-
It should also be noted that not many people were pursuing or applying these art techniques where as today anyone can get HDR software and create HDR images. What I was observing when I wrote this article is indeed this aspect of the application of HDR. Many people are experimenting and using HDR, but doing so in a general fashion creating the same over-processed look and thinking it is something noteworthy.
-
Regarding artistic impact it has to be noted that scarcity is a huge factor in the appeal of a particular technique and how well/creatively it is applied. With all things Photoshop it is about the creative application and layering of techniques to create something new. In general HDR as most of us recognize it unlikely to be considered on the same level of Monet, Picasso, ManRay, Dali, Warhol, etc. That being said I'm sure there is the a good chance someone applying HDR to good photography in conjunction with other techniques will likely produce gallery worthy imagery. HDR isn't completely bad, it is just a technique that can shine or sink based on the creative mind employing it.
My hope is that there are enough people of differing tastes to keep the variety up and pushing new techniques and means to bring fresh imagery to us all.
@Jim, finally something I can agree with you on..."a technique that can shine or sink based on the creative mind employing it". Correct, no different with any part of photography, it is up to the photographer for the end results of any image.
Here are some of my 3 exposure images that I consider natural/true toned as opposed to the surreal...what say you?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/270935704...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/206149504...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/272111838...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/751640311...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/128151118...
Some "purist" painters say you should never use the color black in a piece, that you should achieve black by combining other colors. I say, if your vision is best achieved by usiing black paint....then use black paint! People internalize these "expert" opinions and never consider that artistic leeway exist and it is okay to stray from these opinions. Group-think can take over. Suddenly HDR is a bad word because elite photographers are threatened by the ease in which less experienced people can achieve a dramatic image. It becomes "tacky" or "pedestrian". HDR is just a tool that can of course be overused but it shouldn't be taken out of the photographers satchel.
Art is about intent, not just the tools used to achieve it. If someone uses HDR as part of their photographic process, so what, as long as they achieve the final image they are striving for.
Great post! I think you captured a big part of the threatened mindset of the self-made "experts". HDR/TM has become a challenge to the purist and infringes on their so-called territory. The only option they feel they have is to belittle this technique as if this will somehow diminish HDR/TM's results. I wish them the best of luck on that losing gameplan...the proliferation of HDR tools and images alone testifies to it's mainstream acceptance already.
You mention that it can be "overused", how and when do we know when it is overused? I am not sure we can really make these sort of global verdicts since who really is the final authority or judge?
Just as Jim makes statements that some techniques can be used "badly"...says who? Jim?? Jim may find an image is not to his tastes, but that does not make it "bad". We (and Jim) are not the ultimate photographic image gods, but just lowly mortal beings with personal tastes...nothing more. In other words I refuse to let Jim and or so-called experts tell me what is "good" or "bad", I rather make my own choices to what appeals to me. I think you hit on it with the "group think" mentality.
That is like saying there is a correct way to paint... were the Impressionists just guys who needed glasses? So what if there are people posting images not considered "natural." We should celebrate these new directions.
Photography should be a fun exploratory process... not some "this is how it should be done" thing.
It annoys me when the argument of it’s a based on maths, so it’s not natural and thus bad is used. What do you think works your camera?
I agree many of the HDR images look a bit too garish on flickr; so people like to experiment and upload there working for all to see, that’s the point isn’t it? Youtube is full of low quality camera phone videos and Facebook is full of rubbish holiday snaps, doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy looking at them.
http://flickr.com/photos/jpn/
http://flickr.com/photos/rags1969/
http://flickr.com/photos/arno-4m/
http://flickr.com/photos/smgallery/
http://flickr.com/photos/valpopando/
http://flickr.com/photos/chanc/
http://flickr.com/photos/wickdgin/(myself)
All those above are good photography as well as good HDR's. Those who say otherwise probably couldn't shoot a good photograph to save a life. HDR, Infrared, Digital Blending are all tools. Its art and for you to save what a tool should be used for is ridiculous. You going to tell me what I am supposed to do with a pen or paintbrush next? Nope. Keep on hating HDR, your view was written well and I respect it but I highly disagree that the links above are bad or sub par. Best wishes.
I appreciate your view but I also think there is another window for extreme HDR If done properly as there are some works out there that I also hate. Please view my work here - http://imagepro.photography.com/JonAllen/galler... I will be Interested In your thoughts.
ATB
jon
People must experiment to move forward so art/photography can progress. Some pro photographers, in my experience are getting on there high horse as amateurs are getting better and are willing to go out of the box to better there selves and get there own styles, wright or wrong its the only way to be, Its all down to personal taste not the PHOTOGRAPHY CIRCLE.
ATB
jon
Reading your post (rather late, obviously) I can't help feeling that your arguments are not against HDR but against bad tone mapping. When people think of HDR, they are typically seeing the output of the tone mapping step which takes the (completely undisplayable) 32 bit per component HDR image and maps its values back into our normal 8 bit component colour spaces to make it viewable. HDR itself is merely a method of saving an image file with 18+ stops of dynamic range by storing each pixel as 3, 32 bit floating point numbers, one for each colour component rather than 3 8 bit numbers as handled by todays monitors and encoded into JPEG files.
From my experience, it's really easy to generate a terrible looking image in the tone mapping step and I would agree that about 95% of what people post as "HDR" has been mashed to death by terrible tone mapping.
It also seems that you are against the technique due to the fact that it results in unnatural looking images. I can't disagree with the fact that even well-done tone mapped HDRs can look unnatural but, frankly, that's why I use these techniques. I really enjoy the fact that I can add something different to an image and get people talking by using some of these techniques. That said, if you start with a bad photo, you just end up with a weird looking bad photo.
At the end of the day, though, this all boils down to the fact that taste in photographic art is hugely personal and one person's perfect photo can be another person's waste of hard-disk space.
I myself am enjoying using the tone mapping to the extreme its just a small part of photography,and even though I like studio work and digital manipulation I don't see the problem In experimenting and having fun with it at the same time. Maybe you should try it and move with the times or are you one of the pro photographers who do not like change?
For that matter, no photograph can be a true representation of the real world. A photograph is a static recording of a dynamic situation, capturing only a moment in time; a two dimensional capture at that.
We do not view photographs in the same manner as we perceive the world around us. We can look at a photograph in it's entirety and judge the contrast range of the whole image. When we view the real world our eyes dart from element to element, making localized contrast adjustments for each element. Except under very controlled conditions or low contrast lighting our eyes are unable to perceive the entire contrast range of the real world in one view. When we adjust an image in Photoshop, Photomatix, or the darkroom we are attempting to create an image as we remembered it or maybe even more importantly, how we want the viewer to experience it.
I can understand that you don't like a particular manner of an artist's vision. I don't like Thomas Kinkade's work either, but that doesn't mean that his work has no merit. There should be no room in photography (as in life) for intolerance. After all, it was not too long ago that Kodachrome, Velvia or digital photography were considered abominations.
By conception, digital photography and its accompanying software is mathematically based. It's all based on ones and zeros being manipulated either through a digital camera's algorithms or the algorithms of Adobe Photoshop or other similar sofware programs.
By conception, all digital photography and its accompanying software is mathematically based. It's based on ones and zeros being manipulated either through a digital camera's algorithms or the algorithms of Adobe Photoshop or other similar software programs.
If you enjoy the work that you have done the hell with what anyone else thinks.
I don't think that any greatly respected artist ever created any work of art based on how they thought someone else would interpret
their work.
White zinfandel vs pinot noir, pop vs jazz, Jim Goldstein vs Ansel.
Is pinot noir better than white zinfandel? I guess "better" is a very relative term.
I predict that in the not too distant future there will be cameras that have built in HDR capability - maybe by using a new type of "HDR" sensor.
Good thoughts here.
HDR has a mission in communication - the same way as other photo techniques has it. If yu don't like it does'nt mean you're the right one to comment on it.
Jim, I really "hate" professionals that is not able to express more nueances and interesting view about a subject matter than you're performing
Fundamentally Jim, I have a feeling we don't really disagree.
Having said that, I apologize for what may on the surface appear as a rude critique of your essay, I assure you it is not meant to be rude.
Who decides what's real?
Are we now going to establish a series of unconscious social agreements about
what we have decided is "good and proper".
I know, I know, we already have done that over the last 100 years of photography.
But the times, they are a changin' and I know what to do when change comes knocking on my door.
I belive what the latest physics says about matter being mostly empty, I believe it because science tends to uncover finer and finer detail as what we call "time" goes on.
Is that improper? I happen to believe that time is a construct, just like space.
If fundamental things like atoms have turned out to be mostly empty, our ideas about "reality" have some growing up to do. Maybe we're too used to seeing reality in only one way.
It's ok to use HDR for a "correct" reason...???
The corollary of course must be that it's not ok to use HDR for an incorrect reason.
But if the reason is incorrect, if the "why" is incorrect or out of balance with the notion of
subtlety and hidden beauty, it is only logical that the resultant image processed with HDR or a darkroom or what have you, could only turn out to be unbalanced as well.
This sounds like prosecution of technology
for the satiation of a philosophical belief system regarding,
"good and proper" photography.
If people want to make unbalanced un-nuanced images, let them.
Eventually anything that can happen, will happen, and there isn't a thing we can do to stop it.
Conversely if an artist can capture a moment so deeply that it powerfully resonates
to any passerby, let him/her/it as well.
Story software such as Dramatica and others automate the writing of screenplays
yet without the attention of a live being behind the controls, carefully adjusting the
plot to reveal subtle meaning, we get formulaic hollywood.
I think the true crux of your argument is not "I hate HDR because of XYZ"
Though you may dislike what could be termed the "Bastardization of a promising technology".
Furthermore, I do belive that the real source of unease is the 700 pound elephant in the room called free will.
"Why don't people PAY ATTENTION to what they are shooting?"
"Why don't they respect the wonder sitting just beyond their lens, before shooting through it."
Well Jim, some people care and other people are just too blind to see.
Maybe they are supposed to be bastardizing HDR for the time being.
Maybe it's not our place to judge.
Things always have a way of balancing themselves out.
This is why I love HDR:
I show up to a scene, decide to take 9 exposures bracketed 2 stops apart on motor drive at my chosen aperture. (ok, ok I embellish, I'v found that after 5 exposures there is a point of diminishing returns.) I pay attention so as not to introduce temporal artifacts into the composite. Instead of worrying about settings I'm focused on being there in that moment and understanding the point of view I see, because if you can't understand what your imagination is telling you, then how on earth are you supposed to re-create it hours later?
The Nikon I use is almost always mounted on a tripod, cable release in hand I fire off the series of shots and then check them for alignment. I feel confident that I'v captured an enormous amount of visible light detail. I'm now free to muse about my imagined reality and realize it later on in the lab.
I process my images into a RAW HDR and save as an open EXR file with 32bits per channel of dynamic range information. Provided my image is sharp, and well composited, I can now return to this superposition of information and reinterpret the same scene multiple times, over and over and over.
This is what we do with our emotions everyday even when we look at static prints.
I love HDR and will use it to create "unreal" images every chance I get.
Unreal images don't have to mean unbalanced images that cause discomfort, though I do
enjoy making my viewers a "little seasick" because of something they can't quite pin down.
Isn't that part of the beauty of art? Confronting the viewer with what they secretly know but have chosen to forget or repress. If that weren't a part of art, I'd put down my camera and go looking for it elsewhere.
Have fun in the world of the "real".
HDR is a tool like any other, and therefore can be misused like any other.
Respectfully,
Joe
P.S. I shoot with a Nikon D700 and this is one hell of a sensitive camera, you can do a LOT
with just the RAWs it produces. HDR is more for when I want all the light for later reinterpretation. I really like that idea, I'd like it even more if I could grab a simultaneous set of all apertures and selectively go through the images to find the best possible "version" of that moment. after all what are these photographic settings but ways to access different dimensions of observation.
I wrote an article on this subject:
http://www.matsmithphotography.com/photolife-bl...
PS: I do LOVE all of the people who do these blogs.It is very interesting to read what you all have to say. Computers are wonderful!
I don't like HDR at all...Looks like plastic.