HDR, tone mapping, and unsharp mask -- the new standard?

Hi all,

 

I don't know if this posting belongs in this particular forum, but I think it's

appropriate. If not, I offer my apologies. I also don't want to be

disrespectful of any techniques, so I'll try to pitch my comments and questions

as neutrally as possible, although I do have definite opinions on the subject.

If I offend, I apologize.

 

I am wondering how the photographic community feels about what seems to be our

newest trend amongst digital photographers that falls mostly under the nebulus

of HDR techniques (although I realize HDR means something more specific than

the general trend to which I am referring). I am not pitching this issue as

yet another film vs. digital debate. Indeed, I am both a film and (mostly)

digital photographer. Rather, it is the image style itself about which I

wonder.

 

Most people viewing "HDR" images (and I include "tone-mapped" images in this

category) seem to have an immediate reaction of "WOW." Indeed these images are

very striking. Most of this effect seems to be from the tone mapping,

especially if it is applied strongly. As a sensory physiologist, I well

recognize that tone mapping is simply the digital photography version of

lateral inhibition in the visual system, whereby the response to light in one

spot is inhibited by light in adjacent spots (to simplify greatly). This form

of processing tends to gray out uniform areas and exaggerate contrast at lines

and edges. It's a way to increase the dynamic range of our visual systems.

Applied over smaller areas, it's also a way to sharpen an image.

 

Having said that, when we do this processing on visual stimuli before they ever

reach our retinas, we are generating super-potent stimuli that might be a bit

like "crack" cocain for our own visual processing. Of course the image is

striking, but is "striking" what we always want? Should a "WOW" response, like

Ethyl Mermon (sp?) singing the big finale, be the ultimate objective of our

work?

 

Consider an entire portfolio of strongly HDR-processed images. Is viewing such

a portfolio somewhat like hearing an entire symphony with nothing but the

ending bang and clatter? Is it like dining on a fine meal of Skittles, Star

Bursts, and Jolly Ranchers?

 

Is HDR a tool that is with us to stay, or is it just another fad? Is it merely

the case that we are trying to figure out how (and how much) to use this

technique in its infancy? Perhaps this is more of a style, like the high-key

work that was so popular in the 80's and is still used by some photographers?

 

My biggest concern is that all of this "WOW" photography is going to make other

work seem somewhat drab by comparison. So will people get fried on the "WOW"

stuff and prefer viewing more subtle work with more nuance, or will they simply

get addicted to the "WOW" and want to look at nothing less.

 

What's your opinion? When you look into your crystal ball, where do you see

all this going?

 

Again, I have tried not to lead others by expressing my own opinions on the

matter, but some of what I've written might be a bit transparent. It's

unavoidable. I apologize if I've offended.

 

Peace,

Sarah

I think the only time I see HDR images is when I occasionally stumble across them on some websites. By what standard are you considering them the new standard?

I equate HDR used strongly with the "Dragan effect?" and coloring of black and white prints among many others. They have their phases and appropriate uses. They will be with us forever because they do cause a visual impact.

 

I am usually impressed with images that don't have a noticable digital effect but the general public is easily swayed because of lack of knowledge of what can be done just as I have been impressed by guitar players that can seem to play fantastic but are just using an effect (wah wah board,echos,etc..)

 

The average person looks at an image and mostly think that photographers use "Professional cameras" and just walk up and snap a fantastic scene. They don't understand either the proccess of taking a good image or the Darkroom/computer manipulation done afterward. Abe Lincoln said it all: "You can fool some of the people some of the time......

<i>"Where do you see this all going?"</i><br>

I see this leading hopefully to better, more sensitive camera sensors that can accurately capture a higher dynamic range than the present sensors allow. Thereby removing the need for HDR software and combined bracketed shots.<br>

With these better sensors I see a lot of ugly, weirdly coloured photographs (and some good HDR examples) becoming a cliche of the past. I see armies of photographic hobbyists sneaking into abandoned factories with their new cameras to take pictures of ... abandoned factories with true-to-life colour and dynamic range, and then manipulating those pictures to give them the "late 2000's" look and feel of photomatix HDR.<br>

These is no predicting for taste.

The ultimate objective of your work should be to convey your message to your audience. If you think you can do that with HDR, use HDR. If you don't, don't.

 

Just because the vast majority of music sold is mindless pop doesn't mean people have stopped playing jazz or classical music.

 

Just remember what H.L.Mencken said - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American Public"

 

There's another applicable quote too. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". (Bernard Baruch). Just because you have HDR doen't mean you have to use it!

It's part and parcel of the general infantilization of our culture. It goes with wearing sweat pants all day and flip-flops to work, video editing catering to attention-deficit sensibilities, the utter lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking in the majority of students, gluttonous restaurant meal portions, more interest in celebrity break-down train wrecks than our own lives, the coddling embrace of political correctness, and so on. Yes, I sound like a cranky old man, but I mean what I'm saying.

<Br><Br>

The point is that life - for most people who do things like look through galleries of photos because they have the luxury of time to do so, and the curse of boredom to inspire the mouse-clicking effort - has become, by the evolutionary standards that shaped our brains, very easy indeed. Because most middle class kids are allowed by the enormous productivity of our economy to <i>remain</i> kids until they're in their 30's, they don't develop the nuanced sensibilities that would more easily push the pendulum back the other direction.

<br><br>

It's not that people don't have the mental equipment for nuanced, and subtle visual stimuli, it's that they've been raised with such distinctions making very little actual difference in their lives. It's arrested development, with many people trapped in a loop of adolescent displays and visual tastes tuned to them. As omnivorous primates, we're equipped with fantastic abilities to appreciate the difference between the colors of a berry that's ripe or over-ripe, or the hoof print of a deer that was sprinting rather than walking, or the early darkening of the sky and need for shelter that it announces... but none of that <i>matters</i> any more, for most young minds that are busy being formed and polished by life. Girls are raised to value flashy pink princess aesthetics, and boys to worship sports heros in bright uniforms, brightly painted cars, and over-the-top video game fantasies. But for many, there's no transition OUT of those modes, because there simply doesn't need to be. People can make a living without nuance, can go a lifetime without risking having picked up a poisonous mushroom, and live in climate controlled comfort, deadening their abilities to sense or care about the small changes that hint at something larger happening.

<br><br>

It should be no surprise at all that a generation raised in hyper-stimulating visual/aural surroundings would respond more poitively to images that are still able to slip over the elevated threshold that's been set in their brains. Leaving the neurology of it aside, perhaps, the immature sense that "if pretty colors are good, then even more, heavily saturated pretty colors must be even better" isn't a surprise. It's natural. What I notice is that the age at which that fades into the background (if it does) has now shifted forward well into the decades during which people are at the peak of their buying power... and it drives all sorts of market-related issues, including what ends up decorating magazine covers and which images get rated how here. I'll apologize now for painting with such a broad brush, but I'm sitting right now in a cafe, watching the world go by... and countles examples of what I'm ranting about are all around me as I type. I'm hoping you might be onto something, Sarah, and that some day all of the rebelious young turks will be embracing subtlety, just to annoy their parents.

Of course You've expressed yourr opinion.

 

You don't like the look.

 

I don't like the look of most crudely processed "HDR" photos either, but that just means I don't like crudely done work -- anything that shouts TECHNIQUE BADLY USED HERE leaves me cold and indifferent to other merits a thing might have.

I think that most HDR shots are grossly overcooked and those turn me off big time. And if they are not, then you don't recognize them as such. The more subtly effects of HDR can, in my opinion, be achieved by using Shadow/Highlight and/or density masks in most cases.

 

And then there is the issue of how much detail you really need or want in many areas of an image. In my opinion, less is more in many cases; leave something to the imagination.

 

I hope you are wrong about HDR being the new standard. I for one can do very well without it and to be brutally honest, most HDR images turn my stomach. But then again so do lensbabies, draganized images and those sooty, dark and murky, doom and gloom images I see way too many of these days.

Who <i>is</i> this Matt guy, and what's his problem?

<br><Br>

I just re-read what I wrote, and need to qualify it a bit. Of course this is not new. It's not like Maxfield Parrish's work just came out last week. I err gravely, myself, towards over-contrasty images. Mostly, that's because my documentary urges seem to drive manipulation of some of what I shoot towards a more illustrator-ish purpose... where making sure that something important in the image is prominent because of how I know it will be seen (usually in small format, on the web... and that DEFINITELY brings some other considerations into play, here). So, lest I sound completely hypocritical, I 'fess up to having one foot in the water I'm complaining out. That's probably why I'm so testy about it... because I'm admonishing myself to knock it off when it's not constructively helping the image or my communication with my tiny little audience. As you explore this, Sarah, it might be interesting to take into account the venue in which the images are seen. This conversation is a bit different when it comes to people who experience most images on a screen in front of them, rather than in a coffee-table book or walk-in gallery.

"What's your opinion? When you look into your crystal ball, where do you see all this going?"

 

I don't have any concerns about the direction or the future of photography. Most photographs will be not unlike what has been shot since a photographer first slung a rollfilm camera on his shoulder. Otherwise I expect commercial and art photographers to work any new invention or technique as much as they need. The successful ones will be imitated and new genres born.

Good technique doesn't make a good photo but a good photo needs good technique

 

A good photo, whatever technique is used, will always stand out.

 

Just remember, quality always will flow to the surface

Well, I've just re-read Matts post twice and agree at some level. I have a background in art, but my preferred medium is photography. I like HDR and the "Dragan Effects" I think that work requires much thought during the shooting (assuming your shooting with the intent for HDR) and much thought in the post stages to create an image that visually appealing. I use the process my-self (a lot) too much maybe as I'm attracted to the WOW factor. I for sure believe it can be over done!(am guilty) I don't think it will ever be a standard just another "style" and like any style will be liked by some and not by others.

 

"boys to worship sports heros in bright uniforms, brightly painted cars, and over-the-top video game fantasies"

 

A side from the sports heros (I'm not enamored at any level with over paid sports figures and their problems) However am still attracted to brightly painted cars and over-the-top video game fantasies! "Go Rock Band!"

 

That's my 2 pennies

ha... I liked Matt's response. But I disagree completely with Mike's response at the top.

 

I DON'T want high dynamic range sensors. If anything, I wish cameras were harder to use. If there's one thing that's killing professional photographers, it's the ability to spend $500 on a camera from amazon, and without any further training, proceed to start selling photographic services for 1/4 the price (or less) that real professionals do.

 

Maybe i'm just jaded because I'm the type of person to spend years practicing, reading, reading more, taking courses, and learning the equipment inside and out before even considering myself advanced at anything, much less a professional.... but it seems this type of thinking does nothing but put you years behind everyone else because of the inredible acceleration of technology.

 

I feel somewhat the same way about HDR. I see a thousand horribly composed images shot on flickr that have been tone mapped to the hilt. At first, I thought... Wow thats cool! Just like the other 50 people who commented. But after about 5 seconds of looking, you see horrible halo effects around everything, ugly colors, bad composition, and all-around over-done post-processing.

 

Crystal Ball? Pop music hasn't gone away, it's just gotten worse and more commercialized. Jazz musicians will probably never be superstars again like they were in the past.

 

Likewise, photography isn't what is was 10-20 years ago when all you needed was an F50, a couple lenses and a will. I've more or less missed that boat I think. All the same, it's not about 'jumping on the bandwagon' of every new dragan effect and HDR technique that pops up every other week. I believe there is still room to create a niche for yourself that involves more than just the newest fad that seems to hit flickr every other week.

What new standard?

 

When you look and study say landscape photography long enough you will work out that no one comes even remotely close to Marc Adamus using HDR.

 

And that's because he doesn't need to do it. It took me a while but I've finally worked it out. It's about hard work, more hard work and the light!

 

If you like the look of HDR, of course that's a personal choice.

What you are referring to is a style/movement, not HDR/Tone mapping. HDR and tone mapping are very cappable of looking more natural than the images you speak of.

 

Basically though, you are having issues with the way some of us choose to bring 32bit images into a 16bit world. Not sure how much you have worked with tone mapping, but when converting from 16bit to 32 bit you can make it look as "natural" as you want, or as much like you ate a big bag of really bad shrooms. Its up to you. The movements will change, and how we decide to proces these images will change with the movements.

 

So sit back, and enjoy the ride. And just wait till we have 32bit displays.

Being somewhat addicted to the techno revolution I totally agree with Mike's response!

 

I don't agree with David...

 

"I feel somewhat the same way about HDR. I see a thousand horribly composed images shot on flickr that have been tone mapped to the hilt."

 

This statement however true doesn't really mean you should just disregard the technique. Those images your talking about probably were not thought out just done with some basic steps in PS or some plug-in or something and those folks probably will not do what you do..

 

"because I'm the type of person to spend years practicing, reading, reading more, taking courses, and learning the equipment inside and out"

 

You should take sometime to look at some really good HDR. On this site alone there is plenty.

<p>Matt, I have two things to say to you:</p><ol><li>a-MEN, brother! PREACH it!</li><li>May I quote you?</li></ol><p>:-)</p>

Ellis, you're right. As I said before, it's hard not to be a bit transparent when posing these questions. I indeed don't like most of what I see from HDR enthusiasts. I even liken some of it to black velvet paintings. In a word, I find much of it vulgar.

 

Having said that, I do like some applications of HDR, when done with a bit of subtlety. I also see enormous potential for HDR techniques for expanding dynamic range, especially in landscape photography, provided the artist doesn't get overzealous with the tone mapping and instead carries out other manipulations such as subtle layering. To me, when the intensity of the effect starts generating halos, that's a deal-stopper.

 

I think there are definitely legitimate applications for HDR, for instance in an image in which all details are important but would otherwise be obscured by an enormous range of luminance throughout the frame. However, HDR generally has such a "loud" impact on the viewer that the message of a photo (if there is one) can be completely lost. It seems difficult in many/most cases to have a specific focal point in an HDR image, and that difficulty seems proportional to the magnitude of the tone mapping effect applied. I think most of the images I've created would be utterly destroyed with HDR. On the other hand, I have a photo of a burnt out car in the Nevada desert that could benefit from the "grit" of HDR to further the life and death struggle metaphor I'd like to create.

 

My biggest concern, though, is that this HDR thing could get away from us -- like the hammer used on everything (good analogy!). I should be encouraged that it has been probably a couple of decades since I've seen a velvet painting of a bashful puppy with enormous, droopy, wattery eyes. I'm hoping everyone will consume the HDR Skittles until they are sick -- and then develop more of an appreciation for subtlety. Meanwhile, serious photographers might have to be a bit like serious musicians who all have at least one hand-clapping, foot-stomping crowd pleaser in their repertoir to grab the hearts of any audience. I admit to doing this with sunsets. (The two sunsets in my portfolio are actually incidental to subjects in the foreground. My biggest crowd pleaser is a quail silhouetted against a sunset sky.)

 

Anyway, I appreciate your perspectives and look forward to reading more of them.

 

Peace,

Sarah

Loudness is an apt analogy, Sarah. It's how ads on TV get our attention, especially hucksters like Billy Mays (OxiClean, etc.) who seems to suffer from an inability to modulate his voice.

 

When done deftly, as with some radio programming by clever engineers, it helps us to enjoy listening despite the unavoidable racket of automobile commuting or other ambient noise. We don't even notice they're using compression and other tricks to increase the loudness.

 

When done deftly on photo.net, it helps get our attention when glossing over pages of thumbnails, all begging "Looky me!"

 

Many of the HDR photos I'm seeing are the equivalent of a Billy Mays advertisement. Loud, lacking subtlety and when it's over you wonder why you didn't just change the channel.

HDR, for me is simply adding latitude by eliminating burned out highlights or adding shadow details where it is relevant to do so. I have experimented with it. For most of my photography it simply does not work because the ocean, moon, clouds and people move. I think it useful for adding a couple of zones in a landscape. It is just another tool in the bag. There are any number of ways to do effects that you see on PN every day. I do prefer to get as much done as possible with the camera rather tnan PS as I don't like to do a lot of fooling with an image although I sometimes have to but I'm lazy.

Great analogy, Lex. Billy Mays is a blight on society, and you can't wash him out with Oxi-Clean, or resture his luster with Orange Glow. He's a buffoon. Of course, it obviously works, at least well enough for them to keep paying him for more if it.

 

Sarah: I rather like that quail image. It's not heavy handed, just nicely dramatic. It works. That particular composition and subject matter are well suited to what you've done to it, and it doesn't really scream out "look at me for something you'd never see with your own eyes" ... and that's the difference. The stuff that people know they haven't seen (or know they never will) with their own eyes hits a pretty strong chord, pychologically. Whether it's an exotic subject or setting, or an exotic presentation of something a little more mundane (the HDR sunset with rusty car sort of thing) it's still a bit of an adventure, a fling, a romance, a guilty pleasure, a poem, an escape. When it's too ham-fisted, it just feels like garish junk. I may not know how to define where that line is, but I sure know it when I see it's been crossed. Your quail - crowd pleaser or no - is on the plausible side of that line, and so it's more satisfying to those of us who don't like to squander our willing suspension of disbelief on secenic bird shots. I save my WSOD for when I look at my OWN stuff, where it's mandatory.

HDR, tone mapping and unsharp mask are just tools and not new at that. Though the process was more laborious, film based photographers have used those techniques for a long time through masking. I feel the same about it now as I always have; if the technique is what the image is about you can have it. If it enhances the image then why wouldn't you use it?

I generally don't like the HDR's I've seen, especially the ones that get the most wow's from viewers, ie the most extreme ones. I liken the pseudo-HDR (ie. someone creating HDR from a single exposure) to things like facebook or myspace. They're neat at first but eventually people get tired of them and the thrill wears off. If you're taking a picture of a specific bird species and suddenly it has glowing eyes and neon feathers, sorry, but it's gone towards abstract art at that point.

<br><br>

That said, I've taken some shots using HDR where it definitely allowed me more tones. Using 3 exposures of a canvas painting, I was able to finally get an image that shows what the painting _really_ looks like. Using multiple exposures for a sunset, I was able to include details in both the sky, and the darker areas, which I couldn't otherwise.

<br><br>

Some things evolve and prove their utility, other things fade away. I'll bet HDR will continue to thrive until sensors can take over, and I also bet people will continue to overprocess photos using whatever techniques are available. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I'd rather get a nice shot of what was there, than make up a fantasy interpretation of what it was.

Matthew. An artist just sent me some slides to digitize. One had blown out highlights and I have had a difficult time making it acceptable for a magazine submission for her. If I were not 2500 miles from the original I would photograph it using HDR and we could solve the problem.

HDR is just a technique, and it is necessary for a reasonable rendition of sky and the ground in a single image in many lighting conditions. Your eyes and brain may have been adopted to graduated neutral density filters, but those are more fake than properly done HDR.

 

No reason to blame a method - it is the user which decides what the image will look like. I think we will see ever more HDR images as photographers learn how to use it properly - and the results will be better than landscape photography ever could be without it.