What Constitutes an “Over-the-Top” HDR Shot?
First, a big thanks to everyone who posted such thoughtful and in-depth comments yesterday. I read all of them (over a 130), and not only did you guys make some great points (on both sides of the ball), everybody remained very civil throughout a topic that often sets “guns a blazin’” Way to go!
Because yesterday’s post resonated with a lot of folks, I wanted to do a brief follow-up post today based on a some of your comments, and I was hoping to get your thoughts and ideas on a couple of topics:
First, just what constitutes an “Over-the-top” HDR shot? What do you (we, us, they) consider an over-the-top shot? Take a look at the images above, taken by my buddy, and HDR expert, RC Concepcion. I love both of those shots. They both got loads of HDR tone-mapping going on (though slightly different styles), but is it “over the top?” If you think it is, does that make it a bad shot?
I read so many comments that basically said, “I like HDR as long as it’s not overdone. But exactly what is “over done?”
Is it:
(a) Pushing the Color Saturation too far, where the colors look un-natural?
(b) Is it “Poorly done HDR?” where the person processing the HDR photo, doesn’t really understand how to use the HDR tonemapping software (and if that’s the case, then is it just a matter of education—-teaching people how to do it right?)
(c) Is it shots where there’s no black in the photo—it’s all midtones–showing too much detail?
(d) Is it shots where the image is over sharpened, like too much High Pass sharpening?
(e) Or, is it like a Supreme Court Justice’s view of pornography, where you can’t really describe it, but “you know it when you see it?”
While you’re here, go ahead and take the Poll below:
Here’s my problem with all of this. I’ve seen way over-the-top HDR images that look horrible, and I’ve seen way over the top HDR images that look absolutely stunning. Which means; there’s more to it than just the post processing.
Recently, one of the images that won Best of Show at the Photoshop World Guru Awards was an image that had literally tons, loads, mountains of HDR effect applied to it. But it rocked! It looked really great, and the judges chose it as the winner hands down (even though some would technically consider it “over the top.”)
I guess my point here is; HDR is like any other effect you do in Photoshop. Too much of it looks bad. Usually. But not always. It just depends on the photo (and the person doing the processing).
So what I’m hoping the anti-HDR crowd will do is this; instead of dismissing a photo as “over-the-top” HDR, and automatically hating it—instead judge it on the merits of that particular photo. Give it a chance.
But beyond that—try making an over-the-top HDR image yourself. You might find that you like it more than you thought, and that other people like your shot more than you do (like I mentioned yesterday with my HDR shot). Real HDR tonemapping is built right in to Photoshop CS5. Give it a try. You might be surprised at how it changes how you view HDR images moving forward. Even those dreaded over-the-top ones. 
Hey Guys:
Thanks for the positives and negatives on the two images. Believe me – with the company I keep, you need to make sue you can take it when you hit “Print” and put it on a wall. We give as good as we get; it keeps us on our toes.
Here’s what I get confused on. I think that as a whole – HDR is a Style with a very wide range.. no different than Photography.
Is a Photograph a Photograph
————————————–
Peter brought up the point where he said “I’m tempted to ask whether it’s photography” and thats where the argument falls apart. Some argue that Ansel Adams was a big B&W HDR person. Does that mean that his work is not really ‘photographic’ at all anymore?
What about the people who do Infrared photography. Trees arent white- they’re green! Does that mean that it’s an illustration now? Or the concept of star trails – where giant circles appear in the sky – is -that- photography?
They Aint Pictures Unless you Smell Like Fixer
——————————————————-
There are photographers who spent an Immeasurable time in the darkroom – more than they spent out shooting – working an image. If I shot Tri-X 400 and spent 10 hours listening to “Dark Side of the Moon” pulling the image (Good times.. good times..) Does that make the result not as much of a Photograph?
I also take issue with the fact that HDR Photography is seen as ‘just a set of sliders’ that even the most simple person can use. Heck.. a camera has a P button – it does it all for you. It has an A button – where you dictate one thing and it takes care of the rest. Does that make Photography simple? Simpler – yes.. but not Simple.
There is a Such Thing as Software Specialists
——————————————————-
I think that point goes with an opinion of some that Software is just a series of buttons and that it’s not hard. I argue – old school photography was pouring liquid into a plastic container, holding a paper under it, and pulling it out.. big deal.. you want extra credit for knowing “Just When” to pull the paper out?
Point is – BOTH have a technique to them.. and knowing it is what makes the person an expert in it.
HDR Purists are the most Closet-ed HDR users
——————————————————
The other part of the HDR argument tends to fall on the “I like to use HDR in such a way that no one would EVER say that it’s an HDR. In essence: The HDR is a technique to repair what the camera -cant- do.
Now.. you use HDR to fix your landscape image. You subtly kiss it with HDR and put it on your port.
Your client says “Oh my goodness.. what a wonderful landscape shot”
I’m willing to bet the LAST thing out of the photographers mouth is “Why thank you.. it’s an HDR”
My point: If you’re looking at the technique as just a repair technique – chances are you wouldn’t even ’see’ it as an HDR image.. so why be included in the spectrum.. or give opinions on it?
Judge the Cha Cha for the Cha Cha – Not the Ballet
——————————————————————
Arguing that we can do better photography if we went back to X, is a slippery slope. For every person who wants to go back to Film, theres another who wants to go back to Polaroid. For every person who wants to use a Holga, theres another who wants to go back to Collodion. For every person who likes sitting on IKEA, another one wants to whittle out a chair from a stump.
Looking back in the past of ‘what used to be’ doesnt help judge what is. There are a set of loosely defined rules in this technique.. and you should judge based on that. If we were in a dance competition judging an act, and we were told “Next up is the Cha Cha”. Then we saw someone come out and do a beautiful ballet. I think we’d agree that it was a beautiful dance, but that it wasn’t the Cha Cha.
We wouldn’t sit around and go “Ahhh!! To be back to the days when we just pranced around in a circle around the fire… THAT was a mean Cha Cha”
Or would we…
RC
RC,
When, in your mind, does an image cease being a photograph? I don’t know the answer myself, but am curious for your own thoughts. If I pick up a paintbrush, some acrylic paints and apply colorful brush strokes to one of my photos, maybe paste in a magazine cutout of a big yellow sun, the scene may be representative of my vision of the scene as I saw it. BUT, is it still a photograph? Now, if I do the exact same thing digitally in Photoshop, is it any more a photograph than when I applied acrylic paints and collage to my picture?
Just where do we draw the line? Perhaps the notion of what is a “photograph” is no longer relevant and everything simply becomes an “image.”
Trev J.
Addendum:
Virtually every self-respecting newspaper and magazine in the world would rightly credit HDR photographs as: “Photo illustration by…” as opposed to “Photo by…” Not saying there can’t be such a thing as “fine art” photos, but the journalistic standard is one to consider.
To your addendum, there’s an interesting post on Black Star Rising today about the ethics of HDR in journalism. It appears they’re starting to question why HDR needs a disclaimer, or should be considered unethcical for journalistic usage.
I bet you do mean CHa Cha RC, lol
and “For every person who likes sitting on IKEA, another one wants to whittle out a chair from a stump.” -priceless
-DP
RC,
Great post. Okay, so I’ll admit it – I’ve used the term “over-the-top” and “overdone” for some photographs that are indicated as HDR-processed. I have also used the process by employing Photomatix, Topaz and of course Photoshop layers and masking and have submitted photographs to hdrspotting.com (which focuses solely on the HDR process). I have intentionally toned-down my images, as I like them better that way. I’m betting that many viewers of my images who only do HDR would say that mine are not detailed enough. But I need to get over that and do the best I can to represent my observations and ideas that I want to express in my photographs. Some will love my work and some won’t.
In the end, one’s feeling about a photograph is so personal that there’s little logic in saying that HDR is good, bad, overdone, etc. However, my personal opinion is that the HDR “movement” has gone out of its way to label the process. If Ansel Adams named his process “Light dodging” for example and lot’s of web sites focused only on the Light Dodging Process, maybe the same type of arguments and disagreements would be vocalized.
It would be great to look at a photograph for its own merit instead of focusing on the process that was used to make it. After all, it’s art. HDR-processed photographs do look very different than traditional one-shot out of the camera photographs. So what — one either likes it the photograph or not.
Sorry bloggers… some typos in my post. I hate typos (especially my own)!
RC,
I like the tone you set. And I agree that “photograph” is a continuum of styles with a very broad range, if it has an end point at all.
I’m a newbie photographer. Right now, I’m lucky if I can compose and expose an artistically and technically coherent image in my camera, let alone learn any sort of sophisticated post-processing. Whether I will one day learn HDR remains to be seen. I have nothing against the process itself.
So, take this comment as basically from an average Joe on the street looking at some prints. There are two types of HDR prints I see out there: (1) the “cleaned-up” kind illustrated by the mountain + lake landscape in this post, and (2) the “hyper-real” kind illustrated by those used by Scott to set off this discussion.
My own personal subjective opinion on the matter (since that is what this conversation asks for) is that I don’t like the first kind because they look too perfect and I don’t like the later because they look like video games. In both cases, it’s a gut-reaction against something that just doesn’t feel authentic to me. Reality is seldom that clean, sharp, vibrant, and orderly, as seen through my own eyes.
Thus, I feel disconnected from HDR-style photographs, in a way that is different from how I feel in front of, to use the popular example here, Ansel Adams’s work. Even though he clearly was intent on manipulating his negatives to expand the dynamic range and detail of his images, there was a certain comforting and familiar “messiness” and “randomness” to his work that I find lacking in most contemporary HDR work.
A quotation of his from “Examples. The Making of 40 Photographs” I think expresses what I feel when I look at an HDR-styled image: “Contriving a situation is very different from analyzing actuality. If a composition . . . is too perfect, I am convinced the viewer recognizes its artificiality . . . . The clothes are too clean or too theatrically mussed, the models too slick, the environment too manipulated.” p97.
Similarly, the same can be said for the exposure of an image. In all the HDR I have ever seen, the colors, the details, the overall impression, are all too “perfect” and all too manipulated into an idealized reality to which I cannot relate.
God I hope HDR goes the way of Betamax. There’s no such thing as a good HDR image. I really think you post topics like this just to cause controversy and keep people interested in your blog. Anyone who posts blog topics on HDR or Mac knows what’s coming but does it regardless for some sort of sense of self importance I’m guessing.
Hey Jason:
Yet you’re still here.. and felt the need to comment. What does that say about your need to tell us how displeased you are over what someone -else- is doing on -their- blog?
I think interesting questions are being asked.. and people are actually thinking about what’s being said.
Till this..
rc, I like a good HDR photo. When a client asks “is that a photo?” I tell them “yes”. I realy don’t make that many HDRs and it depends on the scene if I think I can prosper by doing one. I have noticed, however , that when we have these discussions I tend to get the itch to go out and do one. Every one has their opinion on this subject but why not keep an open mind to new things and try them? I still find myself trying to convince people to switch to digital.
Would you be so kind as to give us the definition of a “good” image, and perhaps tell us where we can see some that you’ve developed? I need to know how to measure my work against the standard bearer.
William, i found this by RC:
http://layersmagazine.com/my-deconstruction-of-the-hdr-image.html
Thanks, Ken. The question was for Jason, but I’ll take anyone’s point of view. I just kind of bristled when I read “there’s no such thing as a good HDR photo.” Nonsense. I’ve seen many of them, including RC’s work. I’d like to know why I’m not supposed to enjoy these photographs or what makes them “not good.”
Thanks for keeping this interesting topic on track Scott. I’ll keep this post short. I’m somewhere between option b) bad technique and e) I know it when I see it. RC’s shots were definitely “over the top” in terms of processing. However, in my view it served the mood and content of the image, as well as RC’s artistic vision. Therefore to me, it isn’t bad HDR.
Here’s an analogy that I live with every day. In addition to being a photographer, I’m a professional recording and performing musician. I have a plethora of physical and virtual tools at my disposal in my studio. However, the tools must serve the musical statement. Otherwise its a technical showcase, rather than a composition. I don’t shred on every tune and sometimes (though not often), I don’t even include my guitar work. The music dictates my direction, as do the subjects in my photographs.
Nicely done RC!
Ultimately it’s a “I know it when I see it” thing, because there are exceptions to everything I’m about to say.
Halo artifacts, noise, and ghosting are usually deal breakers for me. When I see those things I usually think “Doesn’t know how to use the software” rather than “artistic decisions”.
A lack of contrast. HDR tonemapping is about removing contrast – and usually results in a very gray, drab photo. Part of making an HDR image is preserving the details that tonemapping makes possible, while strategically putting contrast back in. It’s more about blacks than highlights, but it’s more than *just* the blacks as well. Admittedly it comes down to a very subjective evaluation of aesthetics.
A photo that just didn’t *need* HDR processing. Again, admittedly very subjective. But there are just some scenes where tonemapping adds nothing or worse, detracts from the subject. Ideally, tonemapping should reveal details or create a mood that would otherwise have been absent – the answer to the question “Why did you tonemap this?” should be obvious.
A poorly composed base photo. A bad photo run through Photomatix is still a bad photo when it comes out the other side, no matter what you do to it in the program.
I’m compelled to repeat my comment from a previous HDR discussion:
Responding to a pounding from the critics, Billy Joel said “there is no such thing as bad music; there’s music you like and there’s music you don’t like, but in the end it is still music…”
Love HDR, hate HDR; in the end it is still someone’s art.
Couldn’t agree more! BUT, is it still a photograph?!? (Rhetorical question
)
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Don C.. This is ART, not science. In science we might argue whether it’s good or bad, true or not true, but with art, it’s up to the individual. Two different sides of the brain here.
. Art beauty is an opinion based on YOUR taste only, NOT those of others. Whether you like it or not is up to you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right.
Is it a photograph? Without question. It’s a “touched up” photograph …. just like every photograph you see published today. Now if you are taking a photo for the purpose of documentation, then that is science, not art.
I wonder if people were having this same type of discussion when cameras were invented? Did people hate photos because they didn’t include the feeling that a painting might produce?
Hey! Finally a voice of reason. Everything about HDR is subjective, and we can argue it up to a point, but after that, it’s just bickering.
HDR is like Picasso’s art work. It represents an artists desire to create art out of what he or she sees. Picasso’s work was a seareal represetation of what he saw. He exagerated colours, shapes and form all elements of design. HDR exagerates colour, value and texture again all elements of design.
In the end art is personal and can’t please every one. I think a true photographer can see the value of a HDR image as art. It doesn’t mean you have to like.
Steve
Great analogy between HDR and Picasso. That is a great way to put it.
I think this topic has gotten way too complicated. Scott has already said it. HDR is a style, like any other. Be it Black & White, Split-Toning, or the popular sports portrait over sharpening. HDR, like all these other styles, is relative to the artist, and I’ve liked and disliked them all. Asking why only sparks the debate, aiding its popularity. If you truly hate “over the top” HDR, keep quiet and let nature run its course. If you want to see more, complain away.
One point to make is that HDR at its very core, offers the opportunity to produce a closer idea of what you saw in the view finder. Who doesn’t want that opportunity?
I would say it offers an opportunity to produce a closer idea of what you see in your mind. Photography is an art, not merely replication of a 3 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional media. Art is accomplished in the mind of the artist, not the glass of a viewfinder or the surface of a canvas for that matter.
I don’t do HDR, because I don’t see things that way in my mind. I find that HDR images that are appealing to me are simpler, more “toned down.” Probably because that’s the way I see things in my mind. Other people, artists, see things with more detail, vibrance, etc. So, the “overdone” HDR images appeal to them more.
Artists should make art that appeals to them first, if they don’t then they’d probably be happier as accountants or air conditioning repairmen.
What cracks me up is that many of the people I’ve run in to who “hate” HDR will do similar edits to their photos – but since it’s a single exposure, they are “not doing HDR”. Yet, they will boost colors/saturation, sharpen like crazy, lots of dodge/burn….all of those things. HDR-like.
So when you review their image and ask “So, did you edit anything” they will then admit what they did, almost reluctantly. It seems some people love the “wow” effect but like to make people think it’s right out of the camera that way or it’s their camera skills ONLY that produced that wonderful image. With a “good” HDR, it’s a little harder to hide the fact that you did something to the image to produce that result – especially if you understand exposure.
It’s hypocritical (to me) to make all sorts of other tweaks and edits of an image and that’s ok, but drawing the line at HDR processing with such a cut/dry opinion. I really don’t see how it’s different. If you go to that extreme then you should look at a black and white the same way since the image it represents is not “real”.
It’s my image. I took it. I tweaked it. I’m showing it to you. If you like it or don’t, I don’t really care. As long as I like it. I’ve actually learned a lot about exposure and photo taking just by trying HDR and seeing what can be done. I’m a fan. There are plenty HDR shots I don’t like, but there are plenty of non-HDR shots I don’t like too.:)
I have to admit that I’m amazed to see a number of people who commented that HDR is not photography. You can’t produce one without a photograph, so I’m unsure of the logic behind those statements. My gut feeling is that some people aren’t comfortable with it because HDR is different than what they’ve accepted as photography.
We accept a lot of unnatural effects as photography – bokeh, light streams, high contrast, lens flare, desaturation, oversaturation, black & white, graduated filters, artificial light and more. None of these techniques seem to be dismissed as unnatural or not part of photography. They’re accepted.
Things change. When I was young and watched the evening news with my parents, cameras were not allowed in court rooms. To tell the story, sketch artists created images of the events. The TV cameras would pan across the sketches, as we now call the Ken Burns effect, to convey the feeling of being there. We accepted it as a device to tell the story.
HDR is a technique to tell a story. It’s a tool to help us share what we experienced at a given scene. Evoking a reaction in the viewer is ultimately the objective (for me). Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. That can happen using any of the techniques I mentioned, not just HDR.
“I have to admit that I’m amazed to see a number of people who commented that HDR is not photography. You can’t produce one without a photograph, so I’m unsure of the logic behind those statements.”
But… Using that logic, William, you can’t create a wooden table without a tree, but the table is NOT a tree. The table is a byproduct of the tree.
As I said earlier, maybe the term “photograph” is simply no longer relevant, certainly less definitive than ever.
Trev J.
Trevor, next we will have to start calling them “manipulated photographs” by the photo police. (rhetoric here). Wait, all photographs are manipulated the min. they enter the lens. This “discussion” will never end. I like them, thats all that matters (sarcasm).
I disagree with that analogy.
Photos = Photons (aka light)
Graphos = To paint
If photons were captured in the image, it is by definition a photograph. Whether it “looks” like a photograph is an entirely subjective matter open to interpretation. But lets be clear, the technical description is 100% correct.
I like that you keep bringing this up – that is what bothers me about this discussion.
What is a photograph?
My spin on that question is – Is that relevant?
I’ve never considered the end result of my work as a photograph. I’ve always called and considered them ‘images’. By defining what a photograph is and then working within those boundries we limit the possibilities of creating great images. Photography is a physical medium that we use to create visual images. As oils is medium, water paint is a medium, etc.
You could use these same arguments against Picasso, the Impressionsts, Jackson Pollock – anyone who went outside of the ‘accepted’ bounds of their medium.
Scott, now thats the correct term to use…relevant! If I like my images however I have created them thats great. If my client likes my images and will purchase or even compliment them then thats great too. I know one thing that is ablolute, you cannot please everyone all the time. I am just happy that every now and then there is no frustration in what I do. Like Scott Kelby said to Jay Maisel, he gets frustrated with his photography (that makes me feel better) and I do too. If I can create one HDR that satifies me then that is relevant.
Trevor:
I think I understand your point, though I disagree with it. However, I do see one enormous advantage to not calling an HDR image a photograph.
The next time I’m at Downtown Disney and they want to question me about my photography, I can wave them off by saying, “This isn’t photography. It’s HDR.”
Maybe that will leave them scratching their heads and I can get on with my shots.
Agreed. I think this debate is mainly about a resistance to change.
I don’t think photography purists should shun an image with HDR effects. You might as well say that even adjusting RAW data of an image no longer makes it a photograph.
I like some over the top HDRs and dislike others, just like any effect or style. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. However I wish someone would come up with a different name for the over the top images and stop calling them HDR. HDR (High Dynamic Range) is intended, as I understand it, to capture and reproduce in one image information and detail in the bright highlights and deep shadows of a scene. This is something that no film or digital sensor can do in one exposure. The idea is to create a photo that looks much the way the human eye sees a full range scene. This is not a new idea. Photographers have been trying to do this since the inception of photography. It usually involves additional light and light modifiers. This works great for people and many interiors and small sets, but very hard for landscapes, large buildings and so on. If non-photographers think HDR means fantasy photos then it may already be too late to give them a different name. In that case I’d like a new name for normal looking HDRs. Maybe N-HDR for normal and F-HDR for fantasy.
Again I like both when the process fits the image.
Whether we are talking about art, photography, music or any creative endeavor – we owe it to ourselves to push the limits, experiment and develop new ways of eliciting a feeling or reaction. How boring would it be if everyone took the same types of photos and processed them exactly the same way. We get better at what we do by pushing our creativity. Impressionistic painters were thought to be without talent because of how they chose to render a painting. What a difference a few hundred years make. HDR causes people to stop and look – to stop and comment. To think about the image. That can’t be all bad.
At least we now know who made the photographs!
What constitutes a Photograph? Let me explain what does. Using William Beem’s analogy and applying Trevor Johnston’s theory I came up with perfect solution to what constitutes as a Photograph.
Turning a Tree into a Chair…
The Tree is there. Some one comes along with his/her tools: Axe, knife, and maybe his butt cheeks. He whittles a chair out of it. Now the chair is there.
That’s the same thing with Photography.
The tree is a representative of the subject/object being photographed. The camera, lights, reflectors, and any other photographic tool needed to capture the Photograph are the tools. Once the picture is captured the Photograph is made. Just like the chair was made from the tree.
Now once it’s a chair you have the option to leave it like that or you can carve details into it, paint it, and/or add upholstery. It’s still a chair whether you improve upon it or not… It just then becomes a specialized type of chair like victorian, modern, or such.
That’s what HDR does. It adds details, paint, and upholstery to the Photograph. It’s still an Photograph but now enhanced. If you like the regular old whittled chair then don’t HDR it… But if you think your butt cheeks would like it in HDR then do it…
GusDoeMatik
Well, my personal preference is to use HDR to bring out all the details but keep things looking fairly natural, however I completely agree it depends upon the particular image you are working with.
Even though I feel that some of his images are a little “over the top” I have to admit that many of Trey Ratcliff’s images over at his Stuck In Customs site are truly beautiful.
If anyone is interested, here is a shot of mine which illustrates how I like to use HDR, again it’s my personal preference, but I love people to share what they are doing. If we were all the same and all did the same things, it would be a pretty boring world! You can find my image here: http://theblogatainsworthimages.ainsworthimages.com/blog/archives/545
What is art? Are we art? Is Art Art?
-Lisa Turtle on saved by the bell
Also on the topic of “Over The Top” HDR… There is no such thing as over the top. There is just good HDR and bad HDR. You can only tell once you look at it.
The problem lies with people not knowing how to do HDR correctly and trying to get their HDR’s to look like yours. It frustrates them, so they give up and be like “I don’t like HDR”. In that case you’re at the right place. Sign up for Kelby’s Online Training courses and you learn from the best. Then you will be guaranteed to convert. LOL
HDR is a technique. To me Photoshop techniques are like old flames. Learn it, Love it, and Embrace it, then forget about it one you tapped it a few times. And only go back and tap it when you’re in the mood for it. Try different styles and don’t lock into one… After learning different styles, combinations, and variations, you build a library of techniques that will have them coming back for more…
Another thing you can’t HDR EVERYTHING…. So many times have I seen something done really good in HDR, so I visit their page to see what other images they have. Then l get scared and run off, NEVER to return…
Yep.. I think HDR is great in a few situations, but it can be overkilled. As much as I enjoy Black & White, I do shoot somethings in color when the BW just doesn’t/wouldn’t work.
One nice feature of RAW shooting is that I can make those decisions later after getting home.
Is D-Town on today? Thats never over the top!!
I’m coming to photography(and this topic) from a different perspective.. 3d graphics and animation. I learned about lighting, lenses and focus using virtual equipment in Maya. It was often the goal to try to get the scene rendered to look as real as possible. Often what you get is a ‘movie’ sort of real where you can see everything going on in the shadows. The top image is what you get when you give an animator way too much time to build complicated textures and render using global illumination(lots of light bouncing around). The top image looks like a scene right out of a video game. Take a look at this wallpaper from the game Bioshock: http://underworld-games.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/plasmid-search-bioshock_wallpaper_1280×960.jpg It’s interesting to see Photography and 3d computer graphics meet like this.
When I realized that images such as these were produced using photography and not hand painted or modeled in 3d it became my goal to master the techniques that would allow me to take an image and manipulate the textures and lighting to see how far I can get from reality. Push the limits! I can always pull back and use less. It’s a matter of seeing what can be done. It’s not unlike giving a model perfectly smooth skin.. then fading the effect to keep her from looking plastic.
As far as the image being an honest photograph.. try creating a scene like that on the computer entirely in animation software… you have to model every object, create every texture… place every light. hundreds of test renderings, countless tweaks to surface textures and light placements. After doing it that way, just going somewhere and taking a picture seems like cheating! It’s the end product I care about. If the end product is easy to achieve.. it will become commonplace and loose commercial value. But if we take this where only skill and experience can go.. we have a product people are willing to pay for.. just ask Dave Hill.
Mathew, very interesting, but how does that tie into HDR? Not hatin here just seems like there is more to what your saying.
Agreed, I think that train of thought could be fleshed out more… maybe a topic for another blog post!
HDR is usually not the issue in a poor shot. Poor composition is usally the problem.
I really enjoy debates like this when they stay civil because lots of good questions come out and it makes me think about things from different perspectives. Personally I think that good/bad HDR is in the eye of the beholder. It’s like asking what’s your favorite flavor of ice cream. In my opinion it’s a good HDR if I can look at it and see what the photographer/artist wanted me to see.
I liked Scott’s shot of the boat yesterday because the extra detail he was able to pull out of the image did not take away from the overall image. I like the stove image today because the processing added to the overall feel of the scene. The second image I disliked because I thought the processing did something strange to the lighting on the roof and I found it really distracting. I loved the image in RC’s post.
As far as the photograph/not photograph debate, everytime I tried to put my thoughts for this into writing I ran into a contradiction. The best I could come up with is intention. If you are intending to reproduce what you saw as accurately as possible then it is a photograph. If your intent is to alter what you saw then it is a different form of art.
In my opinion there really is no such thing as an over the top HDR photo. The first photo was processed to the point where it looks like a painting … if that was the intended result, then I really don’t consider it over the top. The look of the second photo is what I create for my customers. When I create an image for a designer or builder of a commercial building or home interior I use HDR versus bringing in big lights to illuminate the room. Many designers I work for are very specific about the lighting schemes that they have created for a space and do like when they are altered especially when they are having the space photographed. Occasionally I will have them select from different levels of image processing and 9 out of 10 times they choose the image that has been pushed pretty far. While not for everyone, HDR has been and will be an effective tool for photographers for a long time to come.
Scott mentions the Guru winners and I’d like to see the work you guys chose (the judges chose) to win. Is there a web page we can look at to see them?
As an image creater, photographer, artist, or goofball (depends on who you talk to) thats been using Photomatix for well over 2 years now, I still find it rather fascinating that anyone still has a passionate hate for this. Its simply another tool to help one create art. Some like it, some don’t….just like other mediums. As far as it dissappearing? No way. Evolving for sure, but like all art, it is simply another wasy to express yourselves. This love hate debate will, I am sure, continue for decades as we continue to express ourselves in mediums we have yet to even discover!
In some ways this reminds me of the Introduction to the catalog for the Ansel Adams 100th Anniversary Exhibition. The curator commented that he felt Adams’ changed the way he printed his B&Ws later in life and went to a a more dramatic, contrasty style compared to his original prints which were more subdued. The curator felt that this made for “worse” photos than the original versions. But if Ansel Adams wasn’t allowed to change his view of what looked good to him, where does that leave the rest of us? I think it will take us some time to come to a conclusion about what we like.
Sorry, I voted “I don’t know, but when I see it I will!”
I use HDR to assist in making my rendition of an image what I believe to be what I saw. (I merge photos) Others use HDR as, “in my mind”, another form of photographic art. I see both sides and strongly feel there is a place for both.
Lots of good comments today. I’m late to the party, but bravo on the greate dialogue here!
Hey Scott, this is completely off topic but I just wanted to tell you that I really liked the way you handled your book cover appearing on “that site.” Your comment was great and shows what a decent, down to earth person you are. Good job.
Ian.
HDR can be a barrier to viewing the image critically. Automatically, we assess our bias for or against HDR before we pass judgement on whether the image has any other merits. Our expectations have been modified to the limitations of photography of the past. That’s why for one the HDR images works perfectly, and for the very next person it is over the top.
I spent some time in my garden patio Sunday crashed on the futon with ‘Ansel Adams in Color”. He has many great quotes in there but one stuck out. He said that he had finally realized he preferred black and white over color because of the unrealistic-ness of Black and White compared to the color available at the time, and the extremes that you could get with it. I spent some time just looking at the colors in my garden and realized that I see in HDR unless the sun is directly overhead. There are some HDR’s that make me want to screech and others that I think are beautiful. The picture above of the lake, mountains and rocks is Beautiful. I also liked the second one above that. I didn’t like the first one (sorry – HDRporn). But, I do realize why I don’t like it. One, it looks like a D movie set, two, the other two are realistic and I have seen scenes that I saw in exactly those tones. In most rustic settings the colors are very, very washed out and when you apply HDR to them it is a fine line between HDR (saturation) and over saturation. In some HDR’s the changes didn’t make them look anything but dirty. Not cool dirty but grunge. Lots of people like the grunge effect. Lot’s don’t. Another effect that is very, very similar to HDR that I love in every instance that I have seen it used in was the Orton Effect.
To add my 2 cents, I’m surprised no one has brought up faux or pseudo-HDR, such as Topaz Adjust and similar plugins and apps used on only one exposure. A photograph is (generally) the type of image that is modified with these plugins, and they’re meant for artistic control and creativity. No app or plugin can make a *bad* photograph into a good one. And by “bad” I mean one that is unintentionally out-of-focus, contains undesirable lens or motion blur or is very poorly exposed and can’t be recovered (unless you want to make it somehow artistic – that’s often done with great success), and so on. “Over the top” is subjective, eye of the beholder, to repeat what many have already said. I’m of the school that photography, whether straight from the camera or manipulated to any extent, is art, except when made strictly for editorial purposes. As such, it’s our our form of freedom of speech. I love using Topaz products, as well as Nik, OnOne and others. Do they make me a bad photographer just because I like getting creative, or that certain adjustments (major and minor) can be done much more quickly with a plugin or preset (which is great for those with hundreds or more images to prepare for a single client!)? Well, that’s a matter of opinion. I get enough feedback (and sales) to believe that I’m a good photographer, but that doesn’t mean that everyone likes all of my images. *I* don’t even like all of my images! But people sure do like lots of them, including my HDRs and faux-HDRs (some more “over the top” than others, although I try not to overdo it). I also like b&w conversions, split-toning, cross processing, and other creative forms of post-processing. They’re still photographs, right? More often than not, I just do the minimal work that may be required on an image, such as applying an s-curve and unsharp mask at the end. And, like Pam above me, I love the Orton Effect (I do mine in post usually). I don’t do it often, as it has to be the “right” image, IMO, but it’s another way of expressing oneself, another form of photographic art. So, to all purists, I say, please live and let live. To all who like to manipulate their photos, whether to make exposure or white balance adjustments, or to get creative (”over the top” or not), go for it! Enjoy it! It’s a form of expression! For me, it’s even a form of therapy. It’s my relaxation for when I can’t actually be out there shooting. My friends, family and clients LOVE my creative post-processing! My newspaper editor needs “pure” images. It all works, depending on the goal. I like what Scott wrote, as well as others. HDR and other techniques, plugins, effects, etc. are photographers’ tools. They don’t make us good photographers, no matter how “well” we use them; they are tools to help us achieve our desired end result, whether it’s to create or recreate a mood, to render an image into “fine art,” to make colors and hues “pop” or whatever your poison. We’re the photographers, not our cameras, not our other tools, although it certainly helps to have *good* tools! HDR or no HDR; if you like it, do it. There. Did I go over my 2 cents’ worth?
I think the controversy is simply a result of HDR extending the limits of what’s possible to capture with a camera. It yields an image whose dynamic range comes much closer to what can be seen with the human eye, so it’s now possible to capture more lifelike images. But here’s the rub: people don’t like change and they’re always slow to accept it. Some folks seem to think the definition of what constitutes a “real” photograph was established way back when cameras were much more limited in what they could capture. Being dismissive of HDR is akin to saying the cars of today aren’t “real” cars, because they go faster and get better gas mileage than the car Ansel Adams used to drive. People will get over it of course, but it’s going to take a little while. BTW, the HDR images you posted with these last two blogs were terrific.
Hey Scott! Am I last? Was this “Sweeps Week”? :>) (Sorry I don’t do emoticons). A great dialogue, but lacking a bit in the history of the medium. The discussion about what constitutes a “photograph” goes way back to (at least) to Oscar Reijlander’s photo montage “Two Ways of Life” 1857 and Henry Peach Robinson’s “Fading Away” 1858 (both involve analogue “selections” the hard way). The discourse was apparently pretty heated at the time. So while it would seem that everything old is new again, the debate shows how dedicated folks are the the medium after 170 years! Pretty impressive. And as a Hong Kong resident, I’m impressed that you rode steerage on the Star Ferry. Cheers.
I think your missing on vote option. I think HDR is over done when the photograph no longer looks natural but rather looks like something that was created natively in photoshop or like method. That does not mean I consider them to be bad “pictures” but I’m not sure if they could any longer be called “Photographs” at that point. Alas since the “No longer looks real.” option is not in the voting lineup I will have to say I know it when I see it.
I tend to agree with Raleigh above… ” think HDR is over done when the photograph no longer looks natural but rather looks like something that was created natively in photoshop or like method. ”
I guess that to me anything beyond what you could do in developing regular film starts to go over the top.
It passes from photography to “art”. That isn’t bad but it should be considered or compared with photography.
Scott et al,
I was one of those people who responded with the “Over the Top” comment about HDR. I can only speak for me and my opinion but I personally believe the “Over the Top” issue is a matter of photographers who use HDR as their ‘go-to’ effect and many of their images are processed as HDR. What then ends up happening is all of their photos look exactly the same, have no depth, soul or emotion and use that effect because it’s cool. Furthermore, the colors are far too saturated and the photos have a FAKE look and not an ENHANCED look.
I think that the stuff we see here from RC is an amazing use of HDR because it enhances the photo and makes them stand out from an otherwise average photo (similar to what Scott posted with the boat in China). When good post processing takes place (regardless of filter or effect) it ultimately enhances the photo making it more interesting. Unfortunately, many people use HDR way too much to make the image look like, well, um, er, someone using a filter to make the image look cool. Then again, it’s all subjective.
Here’s my $0.10 my $0.02 are free.
Seth
To me, the above images become more like artwork, and not a photography. I feel that it becomes too much of not being within reality. So, when I see those, I don’t perceive or view them as photographs anymore, but rather art.
I think there are certain types of photographs that can benefit from a little HDR work, such as landscapes and architecture.
I also think that discussing this with examples that are professional level, like RC’s, doesn’t really show what is considered over the top HDR. I consider over the top to be images with obvious halos and where the image is mostly mid tones.
HDR has become the Thomas Kinkade of photography. Sure some people think Kinkade’s artwork is great while others find it to be a crime against art, the same is true with HDR.
I’m a bit late for the party but……………. in my view all forms of Photography is art and as with all art it’s very subjective and personal,
to one person an image maybe “high key” ……. to another person that same image is over exposed,
So as for HDR……………….over done HDR or under done HDR ?
the answer lies in the eye of the beholder.
Photography is the joy of personal expression. If your personal expression pleases you, it’s good.
If you shoot to please others, and they are not pleased, then I guess it’s bad.
If you shoot for editors, and hope to receive a check, it matters what they think.
I’ve done all the above, and I like pleasing myself, with my work, the best…………
Now, if I like my work and God likes it too, that’s very good…………
Bill
Maybe photography is having an identity crisis, again. Like the Photo Secessionist “Movement” of a century ago, digital imaging in general and HDR in particular brings into question what constitutes “legitimate” photography.
I think that it could be argued that the emergence of scanned photographs and digital printing signaled the end of photography and that everything after that is something completely different. Now that so many cameras capture photons and convert them into a signal, instead of converting that energy in a chemical process on film, doesn’t that make a completely new art form that is only analogous to photography?
If you take that view it renders mute the whole discussion about whether certain HDR images are legitimate photographs, and opens the field to discuss whether it is a good image or not, and why. It takes us out of discussing the technical process used to get the image and gets us back to composition, intent, and other arty terms.
At our local County Fair the photo exhibition has separate categories for “Visibly Manipulated”. One of my images in the Color category won a ribbon, and I had used HDR process. Another of my images was re-categorized by judges into the “Visibly Manipulated category. To my eye, all of my images are visibly manipulated. In fact, I think that all traditional wet process photographs look visibly manipulated. So what? That is what artists do – manipulate. It’s time we got past the mistaken view that photography records or “accurately represents” reality.
Let’s take the viewpoint that all photographic images are telling a story, a fiction. Fiction often represents the fullness of the human experience more completely and accurately than “just the facts” does. How we expose an image, how we crop a scene, how we select depth of field all contribute to the story we want that image to tell. Did Kodak VPS tell the story more accurately than Fuji Velvia or Kodachrome 25?
Use HDR and all of the Photoshop filters, or print on fiber in the dark room all day, but I say the point is to tell the story you want to tell.
The question is, “What is art?” If you have a poorly done piece of art, it impresses no one. If you have a piece of art that moves or inspires someone, it has done its job.
What exactly is the difference between photography and HDR enhancement? Who cares? I am looking at these pieces as something that either connects…or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t connect, then it is not worthy of my time.
There will be some purists that insist that James Cameron’s “Avatar” was not a “real” movie. Ok, it’s not traditional, but it was an outstanding piece of cinematic history (the BEST retelling of “Pocohontas” EVER!) But, is it art? Did it move you? Did it make you believe that it existed? If it did, then it worked for you.