What's up with all these crazy HDR images?

[b_reagan]

Hi - I think that this issue is just same-old, same-old. Once you decide the 'enhance' a properly exposed photograph in analog or digital post-processing, you cross the line from photography into imaging. Meaning absolutely no criticism because I thoroughly enjoy the creativity at PN, but once you start screwing around with it what exactly is 'too much' ? Either you like the image or not, but in this context, exactly what is 'more realistic' about this manipulated image as opposed to some other manipulated image, regardless of technique?

 

cheers - bernard

[colinsouthern]

"than it's intended purpose of creating images with higher dynamic range than a digital sensor can capture with one exposure."

 

Who are we to say what it can be used for?

[ilkka_nissila]

Bernard, since the human eye can see detail in a greater range of incoming light intensitites than the camera, HDR can be used to make the image appear closer to as we would see the scene by naked eye. That's what's more realistic about HDR.

[will king]

<i> "Who are we to say what it can be used for?" </i>

<br>

<br>

Hence the acronymn. I never said one should not use it for creating cartoon like images. I was merely making an observation that HDR has shifted from High Dynamic Range to Cartoon Like Images.

[b_reagan]

Ilkka - thank you for clarification.

[charlesheckel]

HDR can be used to make "straight" photographs with extended dynamic range, or images that look more like illustrations--cartoons, if you will. In the first case you're interested in representing the modeling effect of the ambient light on your subject, and in the second you're interested in minimizing it, concentrating on the reflectivity of the subject itself.<p>

Prescriptions for the intended, correct, proper, or sane use of the technique have been effectively met by Colin Southern. The proper object of criticism is the resulting work, not the means whereby. The proper object of derision (if the work merits such) is not the tool, but the tool behind the tool.<p>

If you insist on using HDR with multiple RAW files, you're stuck with subjects that don't move between exposures, and if you use it either on a single RAW or several goosed-up versions of the same RAW, you can use it on moving subjects, but you don't get the dynamic range afforded by the multiple-exposure approach. Compromises occur in the best-regulated techniques.<p>

The HDR file itself is not viewable by the usual 8-bit output devices, and it is usually conditioned back to 8 bits by a procedure called tone mapping, which is the usual cause of the artifacts associated with HDR, such as halos. There are several tone-mapping algorithms, and the one in common use produces local contrast much like that of the sharpening algorithm. The traditional method of enhancing dynamic range by compositing in sections from a different exposure is called digital blending.<p>

As to "What's up," photography has come upon yet another technique for invading the domain of representation in the traditional graphic arts, and we have already seen some powerful images arising from it.

[yinkamd]

Will,does it really matter? I think the only thing that really counts is that the photographer is happy with his image. There are several stylized images that do not necessarily approximate reality. And there are others that do, but are highly stylized. Examples include Jill Greenberg's work, Susi Lawson's work, Dragan's work and Lucis Art. Ultimately, if the photographer is happy, I think we should allow him what pleases him. I remember you going through exactly the same process when you started and you were upset that people criticized your work or gave low ratings just because they did not like Photoshop. I remember just how you felt.

It is a big world out there, and everyone will find what pleases them.

 

Best wishes and Happy New Year

 

Yinka

[charlesheckel]

Yinka, the problem with "Whatever makes you happy" is that there is no longer any basis for criticism whatever--we might as well not have this site. There has to be some sort of convergence in order to have meaningful evaluation, and it's possible when Will says "crazy" he means he doesn't have a way of evaluating some kinds of HDR images.<p>Unfortunately we have no way of separating basis from bias beforehand, and so we need to examine our own efforts for signs of self-indulgence, and evaluate the efforts of others on the properties of the works themselves, and not our preconceptions. There are no recipes for this process, but if it is authentic, it is convergent.

[will king]

Yinka, yes I agree. It is a big world out there and an artist has the freedom to do whatever he/she feels likes, however, critics have the same freedom to express their likes or dislikes. There's no crime in manipulated photos, and yes I have and still do it myself, but let's not fool anyone and try to pass it off as a photograph or realistic. I recently had a debate with a member on this site about what is realistic and what is well....not so believeable. Some will even go as far as stating that such images are considered unmanipulated.

 

Getting back to my main reason for the post is that HDR is no longer for creating dynamic range. It's turned into creating out of this world images. People are using one exposure and processing it through Photomatrix and calling it HDR. That's like nails down a chalkboard for me. Some of these image are interesting but most are just sloppy and repulsive. Just my opinion. Again, I'm not against it, but let's just call it what it really is: digital art.

 

Happy New Year to you and yours,

 

Will

[yinkamd]

Thanks, Will & Charles

 

I think we actually agree.

 

Happy New Year!

 

Yinka

[will king]

Yinka, I'm glad you see it that way. Really, I wasn't trying to scold anyone for trying something new. Again, I just think some people have taken a tool like HDR went buck wild with it, which is okay, but let's not call it HDR. Just my perception, but I think HDR was designed to closer emulate what the human eye is able to see, (approximately 11 stops of light difference) Some of these images are just closer to illustration.

[will king]

Oh and BTW, I love Jill Greenberg's work.

[charlesheckel]

Will,<p>What the human eye sees is a low-contrast, blurry, astigmatic mess of low dynamic range. What the human mind perceives is a rich image created from multiple eye fixations, helped along by complex processing in the visual cortex with multiple composites introduced from a vast store of visual memories and algorithms describing the way our world is constructed.<p>Your idea of a photographic image is a record of photophysical reactions occuring in an emulsion or a sensor. The illustration produced by a human illustrator is a record of what his human eye sees and his visual cortex is able to perceive. If you really want to take what the eye is able to see as an ideal model, the illustration is closer to that model than the photograph in a number of important respects. You've commented that many people seem to be fascinated with the illustrative type of HDR. It could be that they recognize that's how their eyes see.<p>Your first concern is that people are going buck wild with HDR, as they have been doing with new techniques since the dawn of human history. Short of massive doses of tranquilizing drugs, I don't see what we can do about it. You think it might help to label certain pictures taken with HDR techniques as HDR and others as non-HDR. I find this confusing, and I'm not sure what good it will do. Humans are ornery creatures and not about to be reeducated out of their buck-wildness. Your second concern is that people are not using HDR the way it's supposed to be used. Taking old ideas and using them in novel ways is experimentation, which we should probably tolerate because in rare cases it leads to progress.<p>This thread has been a bit vague because we don't have specific examples of HDRs you like and HDRs that set your teeth on edge. If we did, we might be able to articulate more clearly the nature of HDR-craziness.

[charlesheckel]

Oh, and BTW, I am very skeptical of Jill Greenburg because she makes little children cry.

[will king]

Charles, I agree with what you're saying. I'm all for progress and new techniques, but let's call a dog a dog and a cat a cat. This is <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/HDR-16-thumb.jpg" >HDR</a> . This, in my opinion is. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6741045" >NOT</a>

[Spearhead]

Why do people care so much about what other people do? There's only a couple reasons that come to mind. I could care less about foisting my opinions on other people. If people are doing what they like and getting images they like, more power to them. It's only the people who want to tell people what they should and shouldn't do that are problems. I say, what's up with all these people who feel it's their major task in life to comment on what other people like to do?

[b_reagan]

Will - thank you for the exposition. If that's (the IS) a sunrise you've witnessed, congratulations and I am envious. Clearly the 'NOT' is other-worldly, but is it represented as such by the imager (again, we've passed from photography into imagery) as reality? I would hope not. Does that make it 'bad'?

 

My point is this, and it is more philosophical than photographical, Since is it impossible to get outside our own experience (what's green to you maybe lime-green to me), by what arbiter of truth is HDR more 'real'? It is an imgery technique used to express a point of view, and by definition SUBJECTIVE. How can than this be 'good' or 'bad'?

 

But returning to my earlier comment about the 'IS' image, how do I know if what I see is what the photographer saw? Sharpness, DOF, framing - these are OBJECTIVE measurements we can all agree on. 'Real-ness' - I don't think so. - bernard

[charlesheckel]

Will,<p>Excellent examples. You might present them to naive viewers and ask, "Which of these was taken using a special technique and which is just a normal photograph?" I think you'd find that your labels are a little counter-intuitive. You might go on to ask those naive viewers, "Which picture would you rather have on your wall, and why?"

[ronald_capasso]

Gentlemen,

Photography is in an evolutionary state, as are most art forms. I suppose natural selection

will decide what gets bought and hung on a wall or what is ridiculed as garrish and

dismissed as a cheap trick. My goal as a photographer is have someone view my work and

like it enough to own it. I might as well say it ... what sells matters. It matters alot. If

something looks like a cartoon, but pays the rent, hooray for me. Look at photos before

grad nd filters, and how much ps processing is going on now. The most unreal photos get

the highest rating on this site, and the ones that look like what our eyes see... well they

get passed over as boring.

What looks like Velvia for that matter. One other point, I don't think

Moonrise Over Hernandez looked quite like the finished print when Adams came upon the

scene. Adams himself said to pre visualize what the final print will look like and

manipulate it to make it happen. Nothing is as it appears.

[yinkamd]

Will,

 

I just looked at you examples and must humbly disagree. If you look at the second image, the one you say is NOT HDR, without HDR it is likely that the sky and the wall would have been blown out. You can see detail in everything. I honestly believe that the dynamic range is greater than could have been captured in a single photograph. Is it a GOOD photograph? Is the lighting good or harsh? We may debate that. While it may not be esthetically pleasing to you, is it NOT HDR?

Yinka

[timzeipekis]

Change scares people, nuff said.

[will king]

Yinka, I don't think it's HDR in the true sense of the spirit in which HDR it was created. The artist who created that image went way beyond high dynamic range and into illustration. I agree that digital sensors cannot capture the range that the human eye can in one exposure, and I'm all for innovation to achieve dynamic range. Having said that, the image in question goes so far beyond HDR, it's more like a cartoon. This is just my opinion of course, but I think HDR was intended to create more realism. I cannot say that image looks believable. Not to say that it's not a good attempt at creating some form of art, but calling it HDR is like calling Wild Irish Rose a fine wine.

 

Oh, and Tim, change does scare me buddy.

[yinkamd]

LOL...I don't know Wild Irish Rose!

I agree with you. However, the eye is not used to seeing photos with HDR. We are used to seeing blown out highlights and dark shadows. Painters tend not to paint that way, and thus HDRs often remind us of paintings.

 

It's good to see you back in the TRPs.

 

Best wishes

 

Yinka