15 Aug
Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn
Posted in Flickr, Landscape, Links & Articles, Photography, Software, Technology by JimOne of the longest standing challenges facing photographers has been working with photographic media that inherently has a lower dynamic range than what we, the photographer, see with our own eyes. This challenge has spurred a lot of innovative solutions enabling photographers to push film and digital media to their limit. These innovations have included various darkroom techniques for film, graduated neutral density filters for in the field use and a variety of digital dark room techniques including High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing.
Of all the approaches to address the limited dynamic range challenge, High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing is one of the few photo techniques that I’ve grown to hate and here is why:
Mathematical vs Aesthetic Solution
One of the two main reasons that I hate this technique is that it is a solution centered more around math than it is around aesthetics. Mathematically the output of an HDR rendered photo tells us that it represents what the human eye would see, but the software creating an the HDR photo lacks the intelligence to display the output as the human brain would process it when naturally viewed.
As I see it two fundamental problems face HDR ouput:
1. Dynamic range is an interpretive process.
The human brain determines dynamic range in a relative fashion by formulating lighting relationships and physical relationships learned from years of experience in our environment.
2. Current display technology lacks the ability to accurately display HDR output. Mathematically an HDR file might equate to what we would see with the naked eye, but current monitors are unable to display the entire tonal range of that file. In fact HDR files are output as tone mapped files that match the dynamic range capabilities of standard monitors or prints. As a result much if not all of the added benefit is unrealized.
Novelty vs. Applied Solution
The next reason why I hate HDR photography is that most people doing it approach its use as a novelty rather than an applied solution. In the process most images are completely butchered. This is most especially true of landscape and nature photographs. Much can be said for artistic style and there are a few photographers out there that have used HDR processed files rather creatively, but by and large most photographers are using HDR as a “gee whiz neat” function that does nothing other than create throw away images worthy neither of repeat viewing or print.
With all new output solutions, whether film or digital software functionality, there is an evolution of use. Photographers first experiment, use to an extreme / over use and then settle on a refined more balanced output. With digital there seems to be more of an extreme swing of experimentation and use to an extreme / over use and this is all to apparent with HDR processing. See this for yourself with HDR landscape photos on Flickr.
I find it quite ironic HDR processing, the functionality to create imagery with a dynamic range equivalent to that the human eye sees naturally, is seldom used for this purpose. In fact the pursuit of non-realistic tonal range is often what people seem to be aiming for. Consistently, as I have investigated current HDR trends, the images that look the most unnatural and unattractive to me are created using Photomatix. Adobe Photoshop CS2 was one of the first widely available applications to provide the functionality to create HDR imagery, but as of late Photomatix seems to be the application of choice for many would be photographers/digital artists. How Photomatix came to be the application of choice I’m not sure, but its output is truly the worst. Examples of Photomatix created imagery can be found in the Photomatix group on Flickr.
So what is it about HDR processed images that I hate?
The vast majority of HDR processed photos do not display the world in a natural fashion.
1. Uneven Shadow Tonality - where there should be shadow detail there is often not and shadow tonality is often inconsistent for areas that should be equivalent.
2. Nearly Reversed Tonality - sky and clouds often are dark while areas you would expect to see natural shadows are bright
3. Unnatural transitions between highlights, midtones and shadows - in combination with the previously mentioned reversed tonality, tonal transitions often look to have an inconsistent if not backward appearance.
4. Extreme Contrast - tonal extremes, in combination with previously mentioned reversed tonality and unnatural transitions, often create results that look cartoon-ish and overly graphical.
5. Reduced Contrast - depending on the scene and application used the net output of an HDR processed image can result in an image with unnaturally reduced contrast. The net result is an image that appears too bright with too much shadow detail.
HDR Alternatives
If you’re looking to create a more natural looking image with a broader dynamic range I would recommend a few other approaches.
1. Graduated Neutral Density (GND) Filters - using these types of filters will assist in balancing your exposure by selectively reducing the intensity of light reaching your film or digital sensor. The net effect is narrowing the dynamic range of the scene so your camera can achieve a proper exposure. The upside to using GND filters is that this reduces the need for some post-processing saving you time. The downsides are that additional equipment is required and GND filters are designed with a linear graduation impacting (albeit minimally) photographed scenes with uneven horizons (think tree lines).
2. Masking and Local Adjustments in Photoshop - one trick of the trade to deal with complex and uneven horizons is to make adjustments via masks in Photoshop. There are a variety of tutorials out there and the technique is quite easy to learn. The upside is you gain a lot of tonal control over your image, but the downside is that you can burn a lot of time while post-processing your image.
3. Double Processing RAW Files - if you’re shooting digitally in RAW format you can process one image twice (potentially more) to achieve an output for each tonal range of interest to you. This in essence is a scaled back version of HDR processing. The upside is you gain a great deal of control over your adjustments, but the downside is that it takes additional time and is a manual process requiring a little more hands on work.
Final Thoughts
Although HDR processed images theoretically can come the closest to matching the dynamic range we see with our eyes, they are never fully realized in output on monitors and print. So given the display and print limitations are you creating a better photo if you can never see the difference? I say, “No”. Dynamic range limitations of film and digital sensors have created opportunities to create less clinical reproductions of reality enabling the introduction of mildly artistic elements such as contrast, vignetting and so on.
Since dynamic range gains from HDR processed images are not seen with current display technology many have taken to exaggerating settings to produce wildly out of whack images that are now becoming the associated image type with HDR. This is regrettable two fold as HDR has become the latest photo adjustment fad and strangely when an image is properly exposed and processed viewers are now more apt to ask if the photo is an HDR processed image. Sadly HDR has long crossed over into the category of photo technology porn. The availability of the technology has resulted in its over use and abuse resulting in a flood of sub-par images. Amidst the flood of these sub-par images there are some photographers producing very naturally looking HDR images, but regrettably they are the exception.
Links:
High Dynamic Range Photography Taken with GND Filters Natural looking HDR photography by Sean McHugh
Using the High Dynamic Range (HDR) Feature in Photoshop CS2 by Sean McHugh
Adjustment Layers Are Your Friend by Russell Abraham
Double-Process RAW For Better Tonality - PCPhoto
Technorati Tags: HDR, High Dynamic Range, Photoshop, Photomatix, graduated neutral density, filters, adjustment layer, RAW, double-process, tonality, dynamic range,
Minna
on August 15 2007
Hi Jim, thanks for an excellent article, you nailed it!
//Minna
Neil Creek
on August 15 2007
I couldn’t agree more. I think you got it exactly right when you said: “most people doing it approach its use as a novelty rather than an applied solution.”
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-feature-sunset-on-lakes-entrance/
Thank you for this fascinating and honest examination of HDR.
Trevor Carpenter
on August 15 2007
Interesting insight. Thanks Jim.
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?
jim
on August 15 2007
Trevor I recently photographed some interior design work as a favor to a friend and I took two exposures in some instances. I’ll be processing them later this week. I’m not sure if I’ll use the extra exposures but its good to have them just in case. There’s nothing wrong with employing HDR well or for the correct reason. In fact the question of whether a technique is “legitimate” or not can only truly be answered by the photographer. If the outcome of a particular technique meets your needs, then its a legitimate use. I hope that helps.
terry chay
on August 15 2007
I agree also. People confuse reality with interpretation. Photography falls in the latter category, not the former.
http://terrychay.com/blog/article/hdr-photography-hits-mainstream.shtml
Trevor Carpenter
on August 15 2007
Thanks, Jim. Now I won’t feel like a first year photo student.
Will you use an HDR-like method? Or will you “hand combine” in PhotoShop?
Tony Rath
on August 15 2007
Interesting insight Jim.
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
Richard
on August 15 2007
The concept of HDR sounded awesome when it was developed. Until people on Flickr started doing vomit hack jobs on the dynamic range and color. In order to look natural there has to be some highlight and shadow. I might consider trying HDR if I needed to do interiors but for outdoor stuff I prefer to shoot it once straight out of the camera.
Darwin Wiggett does a great job with the HDR.
Andrew Ferguson
on August 15 2007
Wow, that’s a lot more eloquently put than my stance of “I hate HDR because it looks like tacky crap.”
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.
Tony Rath
on August 15 2007
Andrew,
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
Hating On HDR : Cornell Finch
on August 15 2007
[...] Which is exactly what Jim over at JMG Galleries thinks. The next reason why I hate HDR photography is that most people doing it approach its use as a novelty rather than an applied solution. In the process most images are completely butchered. This is most especially true of landscape and nature photographs. Much can be said for artistic style and there are a few photographers out there that have used HDR processed files rather creatively, but by and large most photographers are using HDR as a “gee whiz neat” function that does nothing other than create throw away images worthy neither of repeat viewing or print. [...]
Lau
on August 15 2007
This is exactly my opinion also ( as pointed before in http://www.photoaxe.com/arguments-against-photomatrix-hdr/ ).
Mark
on August 15 2007
I can fully relate to your post here Jim. I never felt the urge to jump on the HDR bandwagon. I would say I see about one in 10 HDR images I actually like, but like you said, it seems to be used more as a novelty (and to sell software) more than furthering the artistry in photography.
Jerrett
on August 15 2007
Another alternative is getting a Fuji DSRL - It allows for +2 stops of DR in the sensor. Nothing crazy like HDR processing, but then again you don’t really want anything crazy like that
jim
on August 15 2007
Richard I would agree that Darwin produces some great HDR work. Then again he does great work all around.
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.
jim
on August 15 2007
I’ve seen a few comments else where regarding my choice of “porn” in the title. A brief explanation…
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.
Le blog de Xavier » Blog Archive » Jim M. Goldstein
on August 16 2007
[...] Jim M. Goldstein est un photographe de paysage et de nature. Sur son site, vous pourrez voir certaines de ses magnifiques photos mais aussi consulter des articles qu’il a écrit. De plus, vous aurez accès à son blog qui contient beaucoup d’informations intéressantes. Le site est en anglais. J’aime beaucoup le post qu’il a écrit sur la technique du HDR :Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn [...]
Rygood
on August 16 2007
Great article jim. though I have and do use photomatix as well as photoshop, my goal in making an HDR image is to retain a realistic look. Though the shots you see around flickr do have a certain “wow factor” after you’ve seen a few, you’ve seen them all if you know what I mean.
Feel free to check out my HDRs on flickr, and let me know what you think.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgmiami/sets/72157601480493128/detail/
Oh, and by the way, I love that you used “porn” in the title for obvious reasons if you click my name
Ed Z
on August 16 2007
Very good analysis, logical and well thought out. Much better than the “HDR SUXXORS, IT IS JUST SOOO TRENDY” takes I often see. I think the “techno-porn” moniker is apt as well.
I had a similar take on the whole issue…
http://www.f1point0.com/2007/07/10/hdr-my-take/
jim
on August 16 2007
Rygood I’ll be sure to check out some of your work soon. Thanks for commenting.
Ed I knew someone would appreciate the title
Great site you have BTW
Rafa
on August 17 2007
Jim,
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.
Sharee
on August 18 2007
IMHO, HDR photos that look like the creator has no idea how to properly balance lighting in a picture should not be touted as anything other than sub-standard. Yet, I’ve seen too many of these poorly-created, visually-distorted photos touted as New And Improved, worthy of honors and awards, when they are anything BUT.
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.
Yami
on August 23 2007
I have never heard of HDR until an hour ago that this blog was listed in a photo forum that I visit. In the last 30 minutes I have read and seen enough of HDR.
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.
Joe Reifer - Words » Blog Archive » Night photography, HDR, punctum
on August 29 2007
[...] Jim Goldstein eloquently lays down the law on what’s wrong with HDR (via The Nocturnes) [...]
Lost America
on August 31 2007
HDR is a trend, but pulling out more dynamic range out of your image is as old as photography.
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.
Antonio Hui
on September 1 2007
Hi Jim, I totally agreed with your point of view. In fact, sometime the HDR process is necessary that depended on the subject. I’m a photographer of panoramic. The sun is almost appeared on all my pictures. Yes, seem to no good HDR solution in the market. The result I made my own method to due with it. Although, it is not the best, at least its look naturally.
http://x19.xanga.com/771d8503d5133142370679/w105120973.jpg
Thanks for sharing !
Landscape Photography and Nature Photography by Jim M. Goldstein - JMG-Galleries - Top 10 Most Annoying Photo Critique Comments
on September 2 2007
[...] 1. “Nice HDR” / “Is this HDR?” I realize this is a neat area to explore as of late, but for some reason there is nothing I dislike more than HDR images (See Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn. For those that don’t know HDR stands for High Dynamic Range and is a software approach to blending multiple exposures of a scene into one, providing a broader dynamic range to an image than would normally be seen with a single exposure. There are only a few people I’ve seen pull of HDR well and the rest look far from decent. I’m a bit of a photography purist in that I strive to nail my exposure. Sure I’ll use PS masks at times to balance an exposure, but no more than to recreate the effect of a graduated neutral density filter. HDR just looks artificial and thats the exact opposite of how I strive to display my images. [...]
Landscape Photography and Nature Photography by Jim M. Goldstein - JMG-Galleries - Today Marks the 1 Year Anniversary of the JMG-Galleries Blog
on September 10 2007
[...] Articles (in no particular order): 1. Copyrights: Protecting My Photography 2. Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn 3. Top 10 Most Annoying Photo Critique Comments 4. 5 Most Common Digital Photography Mistakes 5. The 5 Biggest Pitfalls of Digital Photography Photos (in no particular order): 1. Yosemite Sunset Breaking Light 2. New York Photos of Rockefeller Center and the Guggenheim museum 3. Coyote Encounter 4. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Landscape Panoramic Photos 5. BYOBW (Bring Your Own Big Wheel) 2007 [...]
John W.
on September 15 2007
Hi Jim. I’ve just been checking out panorama software and note that at least two, AutoPano Pro and PT Gui Pro, not only stitch panos but stitch for HDR. I believe they even go back to LDR for your web and print outputs. Seems like a potentially valuable tool, although I haven’t tried any of this and really only started reading about it today….
jim
on September 20 2007
Checking back in it looks like quite a few new comments were added under my radar. Thanks to everyone for the great input.
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.
John K.
on October 19 2007
I don’t want get people’s backs up as I broadly agree with what has been said here - there are a hell of a lot of VERY poor examples of HDR images dotted around flickr etc which give the HDR technique a poor name. Many people seem to find an image that is less than they had originally hoped for, “run it through Photomatix with everything on 100%”, get the instant eye-candy high and then throw every image they have at it with the inevitable bad results. I am man enough to admit that I fell into that trap for a short while too.
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.
Charles Wood
on January 3 2008
Your comments about HDR sound very elitest..much like the early comments about digital made by dyed in the wool film photographers. HDR, like any photographic technology can be used to extreme. I find it no more contrived than a red filter used to turn the sky black on a black and white print or movement used on a view camera to exaggerate an ugly foreground, or for that matter, the use of Velvia as a landscape film. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Eugene
on January 21 2008
Hi Jim,
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.
Carlo
on January 28 2008
Hi, i am quite new to this subject of HDR, so i had a look to these photos, tutorials etc…Some are nice,some are very ugly! But nothing to hate…
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!
Karl
on February 19 2008
Calling all Photo Snobs. Yes Jim - that’s you.
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.
Serrator
on February 23 2008
Jim,
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.
Jeff
on March 15 2008
I sort of have to agree with Serrator but only slightly. While I wouldn’t have used the word photo-nazism, I would agree that any “look” or “effect” that is pleasing to someone is not wrong. Reaching back to the early days of photography you had experimentation with effects that were no where near realistic in their output, take ManRay for instance. I haven’t seen to many solarized people walking the Earth but it worked for him and a lot of people enjoyed the look of his images. Even today you have photographers like Dave Hill and Jill Greenberg who are all the rage but their subjects certainly have a less than realistic, almost plastic look to them. Still, it would be hard to deny their popularity. Also, I think most folks don’t really have a problem with HDR as much as they do with Tonemapping. This is what most people use Photomatix for and it’s where most people “abuse” their HDR images. I say abuse because that seems to be what the tone of the post relays. I have to say that I use HDR imaging at times in my photography, mostly as a subtle effect, but at times I like to crank it up just to achieve a certain effect. It’s a totally personal choice, but one that I don’t think you can call right or wrong. Whether you like it or not, well that’s a completely different story all together.
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
Jim
on March 23 2008
@Jeff and @Serrator It is an editorial piece and frankly I don’t love every photo technique. That is personal taste not photo nazism nor juvenile:) I should say first thanks to you for replying. The pro-HDR camp has been slow to find this post… relatively speaking.
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
HDR is great for a geewiz factor but I’ve yet to see anything tha…
on March 28 2008
[...] HDR is great for a geewiz factor but I’ve yet to see anything that has been meaningfully produced with it in this fashion. The cartoonish nature of the image is neat for all of a second. If photographers focused on capturing a meaningful subject in a way that was technically impressive then perhaps they’d have something worthy of showing off. Taking an average photo and putting it through Photomatix doesn’t make it great nor unique. “Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn” - http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/08/15/why-i … [...]
Serrator
on April 24 2008
Jim,
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!