This was a pretty good explanation for the non photograpic public.I just hope it doesn't heat up the manipulation vs non-manipulation in the public's eyes.
Good share Dave, thanks. I was actually looking at Photomatrix myself this morning. Its amazing how these photos come out like paintings. While they look nice and some may prefer them I myself think they look too manipulated on most occasions. I personally would call this manipulation but that is my personal opinion.
I like the explanation that HDR images can look fake because they don't look the same as film images. I like it because a logical extension is that film images are fake too. They're just a different kind of fake and one that we are used to seeing.
People accept the visual lies they've been told for years more readily than they accept new visual lies.
This is probably going to get me sworn at again, but no photograph is "what it really looked like." If you want reality you have to be there.
I have no problem--either aesthetic or ethical--with the concept behind HDR images; I've been doing my own manual version of this process for more than three years. I frequently combine at least two separate shots (or, in some cases, two iterations of the same RAW image) for all scenes where the sky is involved, for instance. Where I do have a problem, aesthetically speaking, is when the final HDR project has a wider range than what my eye would be able to see and, yes, I've seen a boatload of images of spectacular sunrise/sunset shots with perfectly exposed foregrounds and midgrounds; these are clearly beyond the range of what anyone can discern with their own vision. Now those images look "fake" to me. Of course that's just me; if other people like that sort of thing, that's fine.
Perfectly mimicking what something looks like to the eye via photography may well be impossible, as Pete suggests, but I think there's some reasonable level of approximation that can achieve a consensus of sorts. Whether we choose to be restrained by such a set of guidelines is a personal matter.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 4, 2006 at 12:27 PM
I think the problem with the results from Photomatix is that it just goes too far at the default settings. The default settings create huge halos aroung high contrast objects and the color saturation is off the charts.
I think that the other problem with most of the HDR stuff out there is that it is looking at the problem in a mathematical sense and saying "Well, I can use 32 or 64 bits to solve this color problem", but then they haven't developed the correct response curve to match how the human eye sees high contrast. And its not that we necessarily need the software to match the human eye since that is not a requirement of art, but setting the baseline response as the human eye sees instead of the photomatix cartoon world, would certainly make adjustments easier.
I have great hope for HDR, as there are many situations where a GND isn't a great solution, but I'm still finding that I'm having trouble working with HDR applications.
HDR sucks, I can do better manually and still make the photos look 'real'. like the human eye sees them - is this arrogance on my part ? No - the human mind is more flexible than any computer program. The HDR images look phony cause they don't have the creativity and touch of the eye that the human mind can give the photos. HDR - looks auotmatic and phony - a talented PS user doing it manually can finesse an image to look like his/her eye remembers the scene - the computer wasn't there nor has those experential memories. Darwin
HDR sucks, I can do better manually and still make the photos look 'real'. like the human eye sees them - is this arrogance on my part ? No - the human mind is more flexible than any computer program. The HDR images look phony cause they don't have the creativity and touch of the eye that the human mind can give the photos. HDR - looks auotmatic and phony - a talented PS user doing it manually can finesse an image to look like his/her eye remembers the scene - the computer wasn't there nor has those experential memories.
That's what I do--handle the process manually in PS. (How "talented" a user I am is certainly a matter of opinion. ) I haven't even given the PS HDR algorithm a spin, let alone any of the stand alone programs, but based on what I've read, it doesn't sound to me as though using this process as a starting point and then pushing select aspects of the working image back an order of magnitude (or several) is going to save me any time or prove any less frustrating than my simply doing the whole thing from scratch myself. At the very least, I never find myself having to dial back exposure.
Posted by Randy Beacham on August 4, 2006 at 2:29 PM
Interesting, one thing I noticed is that, regardless of techniques used, you still must start with a strong composition. The guy Joe highlighted in NY Times obviously has a strong knowledge of photography and composition. Personally it's not my cup of tea, but one of the things that makes photography an art form is the ability to go in so many different directions. Randy
Posted by David A Bliss on August 4, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Pete hit the nail on the head. To go further, not only does film not capture a completely "accurate" view, photographers have been maniuplating film since it's invention. PS uses terms like "dodge" and "burn" and "layer" because that is what was being done in the dark room. Photogs have used filters, wide angle and fish eye lenses, zoom lenses to compress... None of these will create an "accurate" rendering. It is art, always has been, always will be.
Posted by David A Bliss on August 4, 2006 at 2:42 PM
Randy, you also make a good point. Ansel Adams said you had to start with a perfect negative. That doesn't mean he didn't "manipulate" in the dark room (we all know he did!) You know, I have always said that I think Ansel Adams would have loved Photoshop!!
Popular Photography had a beautiful HDR image on the back page of its latest issue. It shows that, properly done, the technique can more closely approximate what the eye sees. Since, the process does not add elements not in the original scene, I don't consider it excessive digital manipulation.
Discussion
11 repliesInteresting article on HDR use.
Dave
I like the explanation that HDR images can look fake because they don't look the same as film images. I like it because a logical extension is that film images are fake too. They're just a different kind of fake and one that we are used to seeing.
People accept the visual lies they've been told for years more readily than they accept new visual lies.
This is probably going to get me sworn at again, but no photograph is "what it really looked like." If you want reality you have to be there.
Pete D. D for dogmatic today
Perfectly mimicking what something looks like to the eye via photography may well be impossible, as Pete suggests, but I think there's some reasonable level of approximation that can achieve a consensus of sorts. Whether we choose to be restrained by such a set of guidelines is a personal matter.
I think that the other problem with most of the HDR stuff out there is that it is looking at the problem in a mathematical sense and saying "Well, I can use 32 or 64 bits to solve this color problem", but then they haven't developed the correct response curve to match how the human eye sees high contrast. And its not that we necessarily need the software to match the human eye since that is not a requirement of art, but setting the baseline response as the human eye sees instead of the photomatix cartoon world, would certainly make adjustments easier.
I have great hope for HDR, as there are many situations where a GND isn't a great solution, but I'm still finding that I'm having trouble working with HDR applications.
That's what I do--handle the process manually in PS. (How "talented" a user I am is certainly a matter of opinion.