Everything is HDRish

[pge]

<p>Lex I'm not trying to give you credit where credit is not due : o ) Daniel made the point that studio lighting can be considered a sort of HDR, at least that is how I took it. It's true, by using multiple lights or reflectors we light up more than would be natural, we reduce the shadows and we bring out the detail. <br>

I took what you said here to mean something of the same thing. I thought it was an interesting point and not one that I had previously thought about in that way exactly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of the dominant paradigms of traditional photography -- deliberately choosing and using light and shadow to model depth as we prefer to see it -- is an artificial construct. The world doesn't often look that way, yet that style has been represented as "realism" in photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not mean HDR in the true sense of the word, my original post used "vague HDR" or "HDR junior". I am talking about the reduction of shadows resulting in an unreal look. All of the detail is there but it is beyond what you would have seen with your eyes.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Were ManRay's more personal and abstract photographic works real or unreal looking, and to what extent would we dismiss them if they are deemed to look unreal? Does Picasso's cubism look real or unreal and do we admire the unreality or regret it?</p>

<p>Now, nothing says I have to like every photo of ManRay or every painting of Picasso. But, in the abstract, the realness or unrealness of a process won't really guide me much. It will be the individual photo or painting that either works or doesn't work. And the use of realness or unrealness will relate to content, style, expression, and many other things. Realness or unrealness alone just won't tell me much about a photo or painting. It could be a good thing or a not good thing depending on the photo or painting.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'll say it again. It's like makeup. What's appropriate for the stage under spot lights is way too much for the street.</p>

<p>If you can tell it's HDR, it's too much HDR, except for fun.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Content decides how the final image will look. If it needs black, it'll be black. If it needs its shadows lifted, shadows will be lifted. It's the final photo that counts and that decides which technique is OK and which not.<br>

It's amazing how many threads exist and keep getting created over styles/looks/'tools in the shed' that are bad, or great or kitch or art or whatever. The horse is dead, no need to beat further to death. But even more amazing is that most of these threads are just random opinions on some technique, as a blank statement, without seriously considering the actual needs of the image.</p>

<p>When a human drinks too much water in too short a timespan, water becomes seriously toxic. So, you shouldn't drink water.</p>

[pge]

<p>Fred, I see that I used the words "unreal look" where I should have chosen better. When I said "unreal look" I meant specifically the reduction of the shadow region of a photo until an almost HDR look is achieved. Of course this can work sometime, usually not. I absolutely appreciate the abstract in art.</p>

<p>JDM, I like the analogy. As for your conclusion, I generally agree.</p>

<p>Ok Wouter, you convinced me. Next time I have a thought about something I see happening in photography I will keep my mouth shut. Jeff agrees with you. Sorry for taking your time, I am not sure why you bothered to respond.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Phil, that's too simple a defense, "I'll just shut up". Just because I (or Jeff) happen to disagree and say it more directly? Why not counter the actual point made about how these discussions on techniques (either loving or loathing them) are too generic and disregarding the needs of the actual content of an image?<br>

I bothered to respond because it just really amazes me how photographers (at least, that's what we're assumed to be here) are more occupied with the techniques than they seem to be with the final outcome - the image and what it communicates (and how). I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. But just offering a thought that maybe techniques shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of some (or a lot) of bad examples.</p>

[pge]

<p>I should defend myself for discussing the use of pp photographic techniques on a photo forum? Ya, that's what I came here to do. Discussion crushers. Its been happening more often lately. It will definitely make me quieter. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I always add a little black in the shadows to increase contrast and make the picture more visually attractive. It's what our eyes and brain prefer. Also, who really cares what's in the shadows other than real estate agents and property buyers? The eye goes to the lighter areas where the main subject is. Pictures are about light and form and content, things that are attractive to our eyes and brain, not DR. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan asks: <em>"[W]ho really cares what's in the shadows other than real estate agents and property buyers?"</em></p>

<p>Edward Weston is one among so very many good photographers who care what's going on in the shadows of their photos. <a href="http://media.mutualart.com/Images/2011_03/05/17/172319014/f172bcee-dfd8-41f1-a65f-bb8e3c7ab687_570.Jpeg">HERE</a> and <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/weston/weston_point_lobos.jpg">HERE</a> are examples from his work at Point Lobos in Carmel, CA, where the prints show exquisite detail in the shadows which make the photos as rich and textured as they are. Good photos are often about so much more than their light subjects. Weston could certainly have shot and processed to get the shadowed areas more black and had he wanted more extreme contrasts, he would have known how to get that. He obviously wanted something different and I think he got something quite refined and quite fine. I'm not suggesting this is anything akin to HDR, just good traditional photography with an eye for the importance, effect, and brilliance of shadow detail.</p>

<p>For an indoor alternative, and a very different handling of darks and lights, we have <a href="http://theredlist.com/media/database/photography/history/celebrite-portrait/edward-steichen/012_edward-steichen_theredlist.jpg">A PHOTO</a> with much more contrast by Steichen, where he gives more a sense of graphic black shapes, appropriate for the deco period as well as the kind of drama he's portraying, and yet there are still shadowed areas where we do have a good sense of detail and certainly a sense of depth rather than utter graphic blackness. He, too, finessed his dark areas to get them to look how he wanted them to look for the particular picture and got them to be quite expressive.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Well I guess due to the limited dynamic range the typical photo paper has very often we work to reduce the dynamic range. We do it by using soft light, fill light. Doing it by dodging and burning in. Doing it by raising the shadow in PS. Doing it by using Nikon Active D Lighting and by merging several shots with HDR. All of them are techniques for reducing the dynamic range. <br>

To be fair the HDR technique using multiple shots is used to capture a high dynamic range and then reduce it for printing or viewing. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I think most of it looks like Hell Done Right ( HDR ) but mostly like a lot of folks making up for poor lighting, poor technique and no sense of color and tone. I never use it, never will...</p>

 

[Sanford]

<p>When does balancing out the highlights and shadows become HDR?</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>When does balancing out the highlights and shadows become HDR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In fairness I only used the terms "vague HDR", "HDR junior" and "HDRish" to describe the bad side of "balancing out the highlights and shadows".</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>It`s an aesthetic judgement often applied in order to replicate what the eye sees. </p>

<p>Our eyes` auto-iris and auto-focus can not be defeated at will, so a high contrast scene is compressed as we scan around seeing no more than a small area the size of our thumbnail held at arms length at any given time - our iris opens up when looking into deep shadows and closes on bright objects. </p>

<p>A camera can only be optimally adjusted to see one small area correctly and the remaining scene is referenced to that area.</p>

<p>When a scene is captured by a camera and its entirety is viewed on a display screen or printed on paper, our eyes scan around when looking at it as we would viewing the real scene and more often than not expect to see it as we would in real life, except deep shadow details can not be extracted through our iris opening, hence necessitating the vague HDR. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I never use it, never will...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm not sure that matters to anyone but you.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think most of it looks like Hell Done Right ( HDR ) but mostly like a lot of folks making up for poor lighting, poor technique and no sense of color and tone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />Tell me how you would handle a job for $250 for a small condo. </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>No need to get bitchy.<br>

This self-righteous attitude which is often aired by some members, that disliking a particular way of doing things and expressing this dislike indicates a lack of understanding/maturity/artistic credentials, is disingenuous, ill-thought-out and mean spirited. It is simply not possible to be a person and not have an opinion on things and I feel that attempting to shut down a person's right to convey his/her feelings about photographic style/technique on a <em>photography forum </em>is pointless childishness masquerading as sage advice.<br>

Indeed, there are several posts from which these same comments could have been cut and pasted to this thread. To no end. It doesn't mean you've 'won' when people stop talking to you! I think my photographic preferences are known- I like a photograph to look natural, an instant-in-time, taken effortlessly [however much work it actually took], of an interesting thing. Simple. Now, we all know that photo.net is the home of obsessive Post Processors, who fiercely defend their right to spend four and a half hours on a shot of a tin bucket and <em>that is fine.</em> But this does not require every member to like it and it is not beyond the pale to discuss what one does or doesn't like.<br>

Most importantly, it does not make the photograph of the bucket any good!</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Discussion crushers. Its been happening more often lately. It will definitely make me quieter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Really? It would make me louder!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>It is simply not possible to be a person and not have an opinion on things and I feel that attempting to shut down a person's right to convey his/her feelings about photographic style/technique on a <em>photography forum </em>is pointless childishness masquerading as sage advice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is that people who express that they disagree are perceived as attempting to shut down other's rights. This is not at all what happens. You express your opinion, I express mine. If that already makes you feel that your right to express your opinion is being shut down, then how firm do you stand behind your opinion?Why would I be self-righteous when I express my (differing) opinion, but people with your opinion are right, and good and not ill-thought-out?<br>

Instead of thinking you are being stopped, why not address the different opinion on its arguments? If you want to discuss, then discuss. If you just want to see your opinion confirmed, write a blog.</p>

<p>In this case - HDR leads to unreal looking results, so it's not a sound photography technique (paraphrasing very loosely, Phil's OP was far more nuanced than that and I realise that) - fine. As it happens, I do very light PP only and never use HDR as my photography doesn't call for it and as a result I have no use for it. But as a technique, a generic principle, I can see its usefulness. I have seen well-done subtle use of HDR which show it to be a valid technique with added value to the resulting picture. So I do not dismiss HDR because I personally do not like the overcooked examples. I do not want to reject a tool that may come in handy just because there are examples of bad use of it.<br>

This is mean-spirited, ill thought out and disingenuous? This opinion stops you from having yours? Sorry, but I do not think it is. As ever, feel free to disagree, though.</p>

<p>Either way, I am not stopping anyone to participate here, nor to make others stop expressing themselves. My opinion is as insignificant as any other. But any thread with any opinion does have place for different opinions, and if a different opinion scares you away, the problem is not that different opinion.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'm going to agree with Wouter, here. If his (reasonable, I think) observations are Discussion Crushers, then the OP's very assertion/thesis is exactly the same, only preemptively so. Which it clearly isn't meant to be, no more than is Wouter's contribution.<br /><br />I'll also agree with Jeff that things like no-time-to-mess-around commercial photography (real estate/interiors on a time and money budget being a classic example) present the perfect opportunity to raise some shadows as part of raising some revenue. Not as kitsch, not as an exercise in ham-fisted Disneyfication of reality ... but in showing people what the cabinets look like while not blowing out all the well-lit parts of the room - and getting it done with quick enough post work that you aren't ultimately making below minimum wage to produce the deliverable work. Yes, the results can teeter on the edge of what makes Very Serious Photographers note the lack-o-black. The difference is that those Very Serious Photographers aren't the ones paying for the effort and expecting those informative images to be on a web site by lunchtime. And those very same Very Serious Photographers, when shopping for an apartment online, probably bitch and moan when a realtor's photos have important room details blocked up or blown out.<br /><br />Like many here, I also cringe at overcooked HDR done <em>for HDR's sake</em>, but I don't see it everywhere, or particularly care. Because any pain that comes from staring at it is an entirely self-inflicted wound.</p>

[pge]

 

<p>Jeff, I see your point and I do not disagree. I had two similar experiences. One, I was photographing an apartment for a design competition. I took my time, added lights, cloned them out in PP and all this work lead to having to lift the shadows only slightly. Two, I am doing a website for a store and needed a fast few shots of the inside. No light, quick shots, and I fixed them in post by substantially lifting the shadows. Two situations call for two different approaches. Neither was wrong as I see it. Yet I am aware, as you are, that lifting shadows too much can be a disaster. I do my best to stay within the bounds of good taste.</p>

<p>Michael your comments made me look at your portfolio and indeed you do adjust for the situation. I particularly liked this one <a href="/photo/856151">LINK</a> as an example of the perfect time not to lift shadows. Given Fred's examples he might like that shot too. Yet you certainly did some lifting in your Quebec City shots. Different approaches for different desired results.</p>

<p>Wouter, I expressed my opinion, you said that the discussion was stupid, I called that a discussion crusher, you objected wanting to discuss why the discussion was stupid - since we are paraphrasing. I have no response.</p>

<p>I never meant to give the impression that I globally dismiss lifting shadows. Most photos these days include this technique to some extent, whether it is in camera or in PP. Yet now it is so easy to make adjustments like these, it is more and more important to be aware of there overuse.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phil, I think the key to the success of the Steichen photo is that the woman is not completely in silhouette even as the piano appears to be mostly so (I have not seen the print but I imagine I'd get a feel of texture from the piano rather than pure blackness, though at first glance its black overwhelming shape plays an important role). The woman's gown and darker parts of her hair, still retain some detail, light, and depth, rather than becoming pure silhouette. That captures my imagination and interest and allows for a dramatic but nuanced and rich experience. It was obviously quite intentionally lit in order to accomplish such a finessed finished product.</p>

[pge]

<p>Fred, I thought that the Steichen photo still worked as a little 475x600 pixel webshot because of its strong form although the subtlety of detail is mostly lost in such a presentation. I am drawn to the strength of the piano and to her face, the black and the white. As for the Edward Weston photos, in my mind this presentation does not work. The detail IS the image and it just does not draw me in as a small webshot. I would likely have a different reaction if I saw them hanging on a wall.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00cXaV"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 23, 2014; 07:17 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Alan asks: <em>"[W]ho really cares what's in the shadows other than real estate agents and property buyers?"</em><br>

Edward Weston is one among so very many good photographers who care what's going on in the shadows of their photos. <a href="http://media.mutualart.com/Images/2011_03/05/17/172319014/f172bcee-dfd8-41f1-a65f-bb8e3c7ab687_570.Jpeg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">HERE</a> and <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/weston/weston_point_lobos.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">HERE</a> are examples from his work at Point Lobos in Carmel, CA, where the prints show exquisite detail in the shadows which make the photos as rich and textured as they are. Good photos are often about so much more than their light subjects. Weston could certainly have shot and processed to get the shadowed areas more black and had he wanted more extreme contrasts, he would have known how to get that. He obviously wanted something different and I think he got something quite refined and quite fine. I'm not suggesting this is anything akin to HDR, just good traditional photography with an eye for the importance, effect, and brilliance of shadow detail. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems, Fred, my post wasn't clear. As you can see from my picture, <a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">PHOTO </a>, it's very much like Weston's. In fact , it shows more detail in the shadows then his do. So on this point of getting the best range of tones including whites and blacks, we agree. </p>

<p>The point I was trying to make and what you saw in Weston's photos is that blacks make photos more aesthetically pleasing if they are part of a full range of tones. Some people ignore that and make a requirement of showing every detail in every shadow. Either because our processing capability allows us too. (We get caught up in the technology). Or they mistakenly believe that our brains really "see" with no blacks. </p>

<p>Sometimes shadow details are very important as in the real estate example. But that's a special case. HDR reduces contrast which would make a photo exciting. Sliders and other processing techniques should be done with a scapel and not a hammer. Certain shadow areas that go completely black are an important visual component of pleasing photos. Even when our eyes can see those details, our brains ignore them so we can concentrate on the lighter areas which usually have the main subject. By allowing certain areas to go black, we both duplicate the way the brain interprets and processes and provide for a more aesthetic result. Our eyes and brain may see details like HDR. But the brain doesn't process the image in HDR. This is why overdone HDR looks so unnatural to most people.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phil, agree. What works for a jpg online doesn't necessarily do justice to the print it's standing in for. The Westons, as great as they are, don't translate as well to the screen as the Steichen. Grander and bolder gestures often seem to be considered more effective when seen with the effects of backlighting on a computer screen. Photographers of yore had no such screen image in mind and were obviously shooting for the print. How well they now translate to the screen is really not their problem at all, which is why I try to look at books and go to museums to see past masters. Today, many folks are creating photos specifically to be viewed on screen and many are not printing at all. And I do notice that many great, subtle, detailed, and textured photos don't get attention online in favor of bolder moves (and quicker ones to digest since attention span online is also an issue) such as use of HDR, super-saturation, and high contrast, or close-ups of wrinkled old men as opposed to more nuanced character studies of people with less immediate pathos built in.</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Today, many folks are creating photos specifically to be viewed on screen and many are not printing at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I read this by you it reminded me of an earlier conversation we had. <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cSey">LINK</a></p>