HDR “Quote of the Week”
A week or so ago, by buddy Dave Cross had a great post called “The Debate about HDR”, which talked about the strong feelings photographers have about HDR, both pro and con (here’s the link). But what really caught my attention was a comment posted by one of his readers, because I’ve heard other photographers say the same thing, but none as succinctly as this reader’s comment:
“I too use to love it…now, not so much…and for some reason, once I quickly identify the HDR effect, my opinion of the picture drops a notch.”
This reminds me of something my teenage son does. If it hears a song on the radio from one of his favorite new bands, and I tell him, “Oh, that’s a remake of an old song from the 70s or 80s—no matter how much he liked that song—it now drops a notch in his book.
So, what is it about HDR that, once identified, that kind of taints the overall photo for these photographers?
Is it that they feel like it’s “Cheating” to use HDR, because it transforms the photo so magically? I have to admit that I’ve taken an HDR shot or two that, when I looked at the original base exposure, the shot was totally unimpressive, but once I applied lots of HDR Tone Mapping, and then take it back through Camera Raw for the final tweaking, it looks much more interesting. (the HDR photo above is courtesy of istockphoto.com /photographer cinoby).
Personally, to me, HDR is an effect like any other effect. It’s a strong effect, but it’s still just an effect, and I totally understand that when it comes to visual effects, you either like them or you don’t (especially if they’re overdone). But I think there’s something more going on here, because creating a duotone is an effect but nobody seems to complain about duotones.
One of my photographer friends once said, “The photographers who don’t like HDR are the ones who don’t know how to do HDR—just like people who complain about the use of Photoshop in photography—those are people who aren’t very good at Photoshop. You don’t hear HDR experts complaining about HDR, just like you don’t hear Photoshop experts saying “There’s too much Photoshop!”
I’m not at all saying that’s the case, but I’ve heard and read that argument a dozen times or more. So what is it? What is it that makes people so emotional about HDR? When you learn that an image has been “HDR’d” does it taint your opinion of the shot? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I’ll squash this so we never have to talk about it again.
Ready?
Sometimes HDR is done well. Sometimes HDR is done VERY poorly. But it all simply reduces to the opinion of the viewer. It’s art. You either appreciate it, or you don’t. We all have a right to be critical. Who cares? Group hug! That’s it!
Now we can get back to important debates like Mac vs. Pc, Canon vs. Nikon, SD vs. Compactflash, and so on and so on… LOL
I think it is time to start simply accepting photos on their face. Whether anyone likes it or not post-processing is part of the art.
Why waste time worrying about exactly how an image was crafted? Just let it be.
I wonder if some people don’t like it because it’s cheating since you could use a graduated filter? (Or whichever is darker on top than bottom)
I tried, unsuccessfully to use HDR, but I don’t hate it. I think it works on some images and not on others. I also think it had more of a “wow” factor when only a few guys were doing it. Now it’s just another technique like high key or low key images.
I think it’s a healthy debate. But as any debate over right and wrong, there’s no clear answer. We may be trying to solve the wrong problem. I have a theory, and you tell me if it rings true or not:
HDR as originally intended, was meant to allow photographers to reproduce a fuller range of highlights and shadows than was possible by one shot alone. This basically means that highlights don’t burn out, and shadows don’t fill in. Generally. But the truth is, that our eyes do not see the world in such “high definition.” We make the mistake of thinking that because we don’t have as wide a range of highlights and shadows in one frame alone, that the complete opposite end of the spectrum must be needed; that is, we want every corner of every shadow, and every highlight of every point source of light to have tonality. And that’s where we go wrong.
These “bad” HDR shots, I agree, not to my taste. But certainly, they have an artistic quality all their own. IF that’s what the photographer intended, then more power to him/her. However, if the photographer wanted to simply use HDR to get the fullest range of highlights and shadows, and turned out an “overprocessed” image, then it’s bad technique, not bad art. Intention is the decider.
But back to what our eyes see…they don’t see the widest range of highlights and shadows. They see more than film. But not as much as HDR. So most of us balk at seeing the whole dynamic range that can be proffered from combining 2, 3, 5 or more images. Because our eyes don’t expect to see it, it looks “unreal.” How’s that for irony? The technique that was meant to make images look more “real” can be misapplied to make something that is wholly unacceptable to the human brain as unachievable in real life. And that is why most people instantly pick up the HDR and hate the look. We are trying to achieve saturation, brightness, and a dynamic range that more closely fits what we see in real life. We don’t see the subtlety of the shadows as we see it in HDR, when we look at the bright spots in our environment. Our eyes adjust quickly, from bright to dark portions of our environment, but they still perceive very dark shadows as not having detail. And our brain, when seeing over-processed HDR, tells us, “that’s not possible.” I won’t even get to the slight blurring of the image that adds to the whole “unreal” factor. I bet you severely over-processed HDR would be wonderful for beauty photography, since it would give that old Hollywood look to women that we used to see in the films of the 50’s and 60’s.
There was a time when photography in general was not considered by many to be art. You are right, this is not about good and evil.
I think HDR can be done well. It just means “high dynamic range.” There are HDR images that look realistic, because the naked human eye is an HDR “input device”. We see a much broader dynamic range than most devices (cameras, etc.) can capture. HDR held the promise of bringing print closer to reflecting our perception of the real world.
The problem is that people push the HDR effect to such an extreme that it is no longer about enhancing an image to protect the highlights and bring out the shadows. Suddenly the scene looks surreal. The example photo you used above has passed well into the “surreal” zone in my estimation.
Now sometimes surreal is OK. Some people love surreal art. Realism may not be the goal for everyone. But the original attraction of HDR for most professionals was not surrealism, but enhanced realism. Therefore anything that starts to look surreal looks amateur to them.
In some ways it is like the old drop shadow controversy in desktop publishing circles. Subtle shadows often do add a little punch to a design. But then 90% of the people using them overdid them, and then came this “drop shadows are ugly and amateur” reaction. Something that was really a perfectly valid tool became stigmatized. To me that is what is happening with HDR.
I agree with Cory from a few days ago. A powerful image stands, no matter what the process. If any of us went back and reviewed some of the famous LIFE photos, my guess is that we would be reminded that a good image is more than just a pile of technique. While technique matters, it is completely secondary to emotion. If my HDR’ing hinders an image (usually), I scrap it – and if it helps (occasionally) I’ll use it. The important part is that I feel something when I look at it.
I don’t like most HDR because of the over processed look to many have. I have seen some great HDR but out in the masses of digital photo land you can see mass amounts of HDR that just look over done. It’s kinda like a women waering tons of makeup, more often then not the effect just isn’t appealing…
I find the images that were originally shot to be an HDR image, with thought put into why and how it would enhance the image are the best ones.
However automatically bracketing every shot you take in the hope that an HDR treatment might save the image usually ends in something that looks false and overproduced. To have HDR in your mind from the perception of the image lets you consider why and how HDR’s work and what your shots should contain in order to maximise the effect.
I’ve been guilty in the past of trying HDR from one exposure in the hope of salvaging a photoshoot. That’s the point at which it doesn’t become effective. By only using it to salvage something and not having HDR in mind during the taking of a shot leads to shots that I generally think don’t work and look false and fake.
hdr is great and all but it makes photos more like illustrations than photos.
I love HDR! Most of my flickr photos are HDR. Yes, when some people overdo the effects it doesnt look good, but when you do something natural looking, its totally awesome! Plus, lets face it, guys… HDR allows your photo to compensante the camera lack of being able to expose different zones of light, which on the other side, our eyes can see perfectly.
Cheers!
ps: http://www.flickr.com/carvalheira for my HDR’s
It’s when I see a photo and immediately know it’s an HDR, that’s when I don’t like it. The overdone look reminds me of paintings on velvet, Kinkcaid and lot’s of other “arty” stuff that’s overdone for effect. However I have seen HDR done very nicely and tastefully – these I like.
Oops, that was supposed to be Kinkade – it shows how much I like his art.
You gave nice ideas here. I done a research on the issue and learnt most peoples will agree with your blog.