Is HDR ruining photography?

[david.seaton]

Very interesting thread on prehaps one of the most intriguing new aspect of digital photography.

 

I think Edward nailed it on the head when he said:

 

"You only notice HDR when it's done wrong." and "For others, HDR is a tool you use on location so you don't have to lug lights around, but the ultimate goal is to get normal looking images."

 

There will always be people taking pictures of their old junker in the front yard, over HDRing them, and throwing them on flickr/myspace/deviantart and call it edgy art. A few years ago it was oddly composed, oddly focused images converted to high contrast black and white and thrown on F/MyS/DA and called edgy art.

[phule]

[[i'm not going to click the link, but I'm guessing computer-generated. Either that or it's one of Thomas Demands

paper constructions.]]

 

It's always good to see people choosing a finger-in-the-ears approach to discussions.

[phule]

For the record, each one of those images I linked to is a 5-image HDR.

[obakesan]

wow

 

now, all I can hope is that this thread is properly archived ... best discussion I've seen on photo.net since I've been on it

[ned1]

Steve,

 

Exactly. Analog video technology uses three sensors per pixel. Foveon does that in digital, but they were never able to pack enough of them into a sensor to get high resolution, and the small receceptor size meant lots of noise. Nonetheless the Foveon chips do have an impressive color gamut.

 

But yes, someday digital sensors WILL catch up with 1954 analog video and film technology.

 

Alas, it is not there yet.

[obakesan]

Edward

 

perhaps a direct copy of video technology is not required? Image processing technology has moved along since then. Have you seen (for example) stuff from the Fuji cameras? I was doing some testing of the images from it and found even on saturated reds in autumn leaves that the channels were not clipping.

 

very promising

 

:-)

[jan ayalin]

It's great to see this discussion, and what people has to say with regards to HDR photography. It's quite good to see

some example above as well with what's being discussed.

There are some examples here on how HDR can help good photographs become better. But i have seen examples here

as well that solely relies on HDR to actually produce stunning images, which are actually stunning due to the surreal

colors, but aside from HDR they are actually pretty plain, some of them. Come on they're stark, for some of them, that's

all they are, but what's the soul and the story? It's easy to get caught with the bandwagon.

I guess in response to what Dave Hickey has posted, is that it is only him as a photographer who can tell for himself if

he is happy with his art. If he's already been using HDR and yet not happy about it then there's something wrong. I mean

to say, a good photographer knows how to distinguish a good photograph, HDR or not.

[dkm]

"Is HDR ruining photography?"

 

No, but bad practitioners are ruining photographs.

[ned1]

Chris,

 

My wedding camera is a Fuji S5. I love it. That extra stop of latitude makes a big difference. The SuperCCD is a true step forward.

 

Alas, no one is buying them. Apparently there will never be an S6.

 

That's the heart of the problem. Everyone is talking megapixels and is convinced that digital has wide latitude. Fuji comes forward with a sensor that actually does have a wide (well, wider) latitude, but at the expense of megapixels. "What, just 6 megapixels? I don't want it!" is all I've ever heard. So no one wanted it. So Fuji stopped making it.

 

So once again, as the Fuji has shown, digital DOES have the potential to pass film in all aspects. I can't wait for that day to happen. But as long as there is the kind of misinformation and poor understanding floating around that I have seen in this forum, that will never happen. And meantime film, still the better medium, is dying. Those of us who don't mind sweating to produce a good print are running out of options.

 

I think the correct way to phrase things should be: Digital is Good. Now make it Bettter!

 

 

PS: I'm waiting to get my hands on a D700. I think Nikon is making the right choice in backing away from the Megapixel madness. Now they have to unconvince all the customers they have convinced to buy into it.

[david_f._stein]

It's pretty easy to do HDR that looks natural. You only notice the ones that don't. And as others have said.

 

Exactly, the greatest art doesn't draw attention to its "technique," but without the technique the work wouldn't be as powerful. It takes a while to accept that no photograph is reality but an interpretation of such. Great thread and thanks for the info/links.

[Spearhead]

<i>Exactly, the greatest art doesn't draw attention to its "technique," </i><p>That's not true at all. How did Picasso's paintings not draw attention to technique? Dali's? DaVinci's technique has been the subject of numerous books. The list goes on and on. <p>In the photography arena, Moriyama's work has always had pushed technique. Avedon's technique, especially with the "American West" series, is front and center. There is no way to avoid seeing it. Mario Giacomelli, probably the most famous Italian photographer, almost everything he does draws attention to technique. Palma, Rio Branca, Meatyard, all great photographers, all show their technique alongside strong vision.

[jbs]

I think HDR looks cool. I may try it. You can do this type of thing with a single image using Pshop as, I think, someone else pointed out. Great fun and interesting images. Ruining photography? No.

[obakesan]

Having just done a quick n dirty to test Photomatix I thought I'd add the following perceptions

<P>

I personally can't wait for the sensors to actually have the range to capture this sort of range in one go,

perhaps a true 32bit would be enough. After dealing with people and things moving slightly in images I can

honestly say I prefer motion blur (which is even emulated in animation to provide a greater sense of reality).

The fact that the Fuji camera (S3 and S5) have been less than successful (to me) says more about the market and

photographers than it does about the technology. For example while I was taking this shot the woman in the candid

picture didn't want to stick around (well, it would hardly be candid then ;-). Sure this is a issue when using

HDRI but there's no reason why this should always be a limitation (for example if we had 32 bit sensors which

perhaps were constructed along the lines of the Supper CCD).

<P>

In adopting new technology it could be said that there are 5 major

groups:

 

<ul>

<li> Innovators - impulsive, like what is new and fun, invest in time to learn, very technically literate, like

to be the first to own and then move on to next;

</li><li> Early adopters - like new things, study available information before investing, technically literate;

</li><li> Early majority - like to be on-trend with new products, have good knowledge but want feedback from

first adopters before investing;

</li><li> Late majority - uninterested in novelty, utilitarian, dislike investing time in learning, believe

innovations are hard to use, information only used if based on someone’s direct experience

</li><li> Laggards - information form interpersonal communication only

 

</li></ul>

 

<P>

Perhaps if companies actually looked at the "early adopters" and the "innovations" for the driving edge I think

we would be be better off, as personally I reckon that the masses buy what ever they're flogged. I've heard Canon

(for example) talk about "the future" being this gimmik or that gimmik {such as advanced stuff like helicon focus}.

<P>

Wouldn't it be nice if they provided "tools" which were simply simple to use (like 35mm cameras were when there

was just Av, Tv, P and M; no portrait mode, or sport mode, or family fun mode...) and gave us the best basic

material to work with?

<P>

Perhaps I'm just seeing things my own way.<div></div>

[obakesan]

I guess I'd like to back up my statement above with some example, here is two images one is an assembled HDRI from 3EV over normal and 3EV under. The middle image was not really high enough contrast to warrant HDRI, but it was an interesting and revealing experiment

 

The photomatix image is the usual "scary" HDRI, while the curves applied version (from raw), at first the "normal" image would seem better (and given the wind conditions even in more careful evaluation)<div></div>

[obakesan]

Now, when I look down in the lower left (where the wind wasn't blowing) I can get an amazing amount of detail and significant colour accuracy too<div></div>

[obakesan]

And yes, those red specks are there (its a rose bush) and the colour is spot on.

 

So, to me, this indicates that existing sensors have a real capture limitation when compared to negative film (which will capture this more with a single shot) but that the digital has much greater potential (especially with HDRI) to capture nice smooth ranges allowing much better tonality for burning and doging (no new discoverys there though)

 

(Edward, this was just for the "unbelievers" out there ....)

[obakesan]

err ... that should be the lower right :-)

[obakesan]

Ohh

 

and I'm not really a pro digital or pro film user, each has its pros and cons. While I like HDRI (and appreciate its limitations) I often prefer to use negative film

 

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2008/02/while-hrd-is-all-rage-ive-taken.html

[ricardovaste]

Its a useful tool. No one tool can ruin photography.

[photo_dark]

Richard just nailed it.

 

Next thing you know people are going to start saying that off camera lighting is ruining photography because it takes too long to setup. But isn't that just the same thing? For most of my shoots i'm using 3-4 lights with modifiers so that I can smash down the background and get things in a manageable range. In the end I hardly do any real editing aside from minor contrast/WB adjustments in lightroom or capture1.

 

Off-camera lighting is basically "HDR" without the post processing.

 

Give me a break. Anyone who criticizes a technique has their head up their ass. Criticize photos, not techniques. If you don't like the technique, then don't use it!

[photo_dark]

On that note, I thought both Dave Hickey and Edward had some great points in this thread...

[diane_madura]

Hi, Dave. Lots of opinions on HDR. With all due respect, Dave, you seem to be a little bit of a "tortured soul." If this is a hobby for you, isn't this supposed to be fun? Be honest, now, don't you think there are a lot of photos where you just know when you're taking them that HDR won't improve on them?

 

Dave, I also think that 6000 photos on a vacation is a bit much. Does your wife ever get to see your face at any time during the vacation? ;-) I would be overwhelmed with the thought of post-processing 6000 photos. Perhaps, Dave, you need some balance. That said, I understand where you're coming from. Balance is what a lot of us (including myself) struggle with.

 

Yes, there are some HDR photos in this thread that are quite good. I find that with a lot of HDR images, though, that the person doing the post processing seems to think that the scene looks better not with -details- in the shadows, but with -no- shadows. I think photos look weird without shadows. I agree with what someone above said, those 35 from that Web site look more like paintings. The only one of the 35 that I thought quite good was the 13th photo, of the inside of a cathedral.

 

I've tried HDR using Photomatix. I haven't been satisfied with one HDR image yet. This could be due to my lack of technique. What I have been satisfied with is overlaying two exposures using Photomatix. I think that maybe HDR is overrated.

[MichaelChang]

Let's not forget that HDR has legitimate technical uses in disciplines such as astrophotography and scientific imaging - there simply is no other way. It's merely a technique like any other.

[sy_balsen]

<p>This has been a silly post. Did Van Gogh ruin painting? Did Picasso? Is science fiction really literature? Ansel Adams certainly spent a lot of time in the woods working on expanding the dynamic range of his art.<br>

Art is good or bad. HDR is a technique, no different than flash or dodging and burning. Go take some photographs.<br>

Thanks for reading,<br>

A sometimes HDR photographer.</p>

[carlomogavero]

<p>I started only few days ago with photomatix and have the impression that the best you can get is with architecture and metallic objects like cars...or not?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8560921">http://www.photo.net/photo/8560921</a></p>