R.I.P. HDR?!
Submitted by mitch on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 21:02.
Tom Hubbard has posted a controversial blog entry on The Portland Metro Photographic News site.
R.I.P. HDR has a complicated perspective on HDR photography.
Tom says he's not opposed to HDR, but ovedone HDR is a fad and HDR is a tool used more to fix bad photography than its intended purpose. Then he launches off with talk about Ansel Adams, the Zone System, etc.
Along the way, he openly insults many digital photographers with comments like this:
"Some may argue that the exaggerated use of HDR is a creative choice that produces stunning results. All well and good -- dealer's choice. But, it doesn't fit into my definition of photography or the potential offered by this photographic tool."
You can read the full blog entry here:
http://www.pmpnonline.com/apps/blog/show/1626055-r-i-p-hdr
I'll be the first to agree, there are some badly done HDR photos out there. I'm not a fan of hypersaturation and hypercontrast generally, although there are some exceptional examples of each that are excellent photographic art, in my opinion.
What bothers me about Tom Hubbard's blog entry is the tone that's familiar from some older photographers on forums like DPReview. The idea that using digital photography tools like Lightroom, Photoshop, HDR software, etc. is some sort of crutch for poor photographic skiils or a cheat.
There are many of us who use digital software and who have just as much experience and just as much skill as the Tom Hubbards. Where do the Tom Hubbards get the idea that so much of HDR photography or Photoshop editing is compensation for poor photographic technique?
Sure, there's some photographs on the Web with bad technique. Some have been rescued with digital photography software. Some, not quite rescued but improved. So what? Bemoan all the bad photography.
If someone underexposes by a stop, why blame Photoshop for it's ability to compensate?! Who among us has managed to get every exposure correct? Certainly not Ansel Adams!
I get tired of old duffers gesturing at Ansel Adams. I'm old enough to have met the man at a photo exhibit of his work. He'd be the first to tell you that he had lots of imperfect exposures and compositions and he went to great lengths in the darkroom at times to overcome his mistakes behind the lens.
Visit the Ansel Adams Gallery sometime. For every commercial photo you've seen, there's a box of negatives. His keeper rate was a long way from the near 100% that I hear claimed by "long in the tooth" photographers who complain digital photography encourages bad technique.
I'm old enough, almost 50, but no duffer. I don't chastise people for using tools like HDR anymore than I did in the late 1970s when many of us were pursuing fads in the darkroom like posterization and solarization. Sure there are fads. Techniques can be done badly or applied to inappropriate subjects. It's all still photography.
The other sort of comment that chafes me from the Tom Hubbards is this:
"And that's sad. Because using High Dynamic Range processing as a tool to capture a photographic reality is a challenging and lofty goal in itself. When used as originally envisioned, photographers can expand their vision whether in color (above) or in black and white (below)."
Photography as a scientific tool or evidenciary tool is preoccupied with capturing photographic reality. Photography as an artform is not.
When I'm editing a photo, I don't ask myself if the color of the sky in my photo is identical to the color of the sky in the scene when I saw it. Bluntly, I don't care if it is or not. I care whether the color of the sky in my photograph is pleasing to the eye and contributes to my overall photographic vision.
There are important areas where getting faithful color and tone representation is required. Astrophotography, forensics, commercial photography involving logos and trademarks, etc. I do astrophotography, and I have long bemoaned the overuse of Photoshop to apply color and tone that's not there in the originals for astrophotographs. The distinction between astrophotography as a scientific study and astro art is critical. I don't blame Photoshop, however, when someone uses it to make a faux-astrophotograph.
HDR R.I.P. didn't make any distinction between photography as art and photography as evidence. The example from the author is a landscape shot along a river. It clearly falls in the photography as art category.
It's OK to point your finger at too much saturation or colors that are unpleasant. Those are legitimate artistic assessments. But, who cares if the shades of green in the foilage along the river "capture photographic reality"? I'd rather see an interesting photograph, and if some adjustment in Photoshop or extending dynamic range with HDR adds interest and creative possibilities, I'm all for that.
Technorati Tags: - mitch's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Tom may be blunt but he nailed it
Mitch,
I read Toms' and post and the replies he received, so far most agree with him, I'm one of them. Please note my question for you at the end.
He did say his original title was meant to provocative, and that HDR is a fine tool/method. My take on his post is that it's become a fad that is used seemingly without any skill or forethought or critical eye for the most part.
I heartily agree. Here's my own blunt statement - from the hundreds of shots I've seen (mostly online) I would say that more than 80% maybe 90% are junk. Why? Not because they are photo-art, or started maybe from a poor original - no it's because they have been clearly done in an amateurish, no I correct myself, a 'sloppy' way. Pro or amateur - there is no excuse for sloppiness.
I suspect most have been done mostly on auto-pilot - oh look at the pretty picture I made mummy!
I also suspect that if we could magically get the 'true' story behind each image - we will find most are just pale imitations of work done by someone who has some real skill, for example here's a (satirical) hypothetical scenario:
Q to the artist/creator, could you tell us if you really wanted that enormous halo in the blue sky around the central object? What's that you say, you never noticed it? Hmmmm, OK, so if you wanted to keep the look but get rid of the halo how would you do it?
Answer=, umm, umm, umm which button do I push? is there an auto fix for that?
Mitch, you said "I'm not a fan of hypersaturation and hypercontrast generally, although there are some exceptional examples of each that are excellent photographic art, in my opinion."
I agree with you 100%. I use HDR myself quite often, it's useful both practically and artistically.
Now here's comes my (loaded) question. You didn't really tell us what you think of the use of HDR - you just said "some are badly done".
I ask: what percentage of ALL the HDR images you have seen are, in your view, are well done, substandard or appear to be copy cat attempts with little originality, in other words less than mediocre?
I'm all for making things easier, however this doesn't usually equate to any increase in skill - mostly just more people producing more mediocre output.
Brian - Melbourne Australia
Re. Tom may be blunt but he nailed it
Thanks for the comment. I love replies to the blogs, articles, tools, etc. :)
I don't have a percentage in mind. I'm not evading. I just don't think of this in terms of 50% overdone, 60%, etc.
I've seen some excellent HDR. There's been several inspiring HDR galleries here on the site.
Trey Ratcliff at http://www.thelightsright.com/node/855
Les Forrester at http://www.thelightsright.com/node/939
Ben Willmore at http://www.thelightsright.com/node/372
Bottle Bell Photography at http://www.thelightsright.com/node/860
Maciej Duczynski at http://www.thelightsright.com/node/190
There is some excellent HDR in these galleries. Some of it is overdone, IMO. HDR is like seasoning. A look one photographer likes can be too much (or too little) for another.
There is no doubt that HDR is a fad. No doubt that it sometimes applied where it's unnecessary or, worse, it is sometimes overdone and becomes a very obvious artifact.
Same is true with saturation generally. It is one thing to add some "pop" with a saturation boost. I shot Velvia for years for its rich, saturated colors. But I see photos with colors that are very obviously oversaturated. Grass that is way too green, it almost glows.
I don't blame Photoshop or the HSL command in Photoshop when a photographer oversaturates their photograph. I just question the experience and creative choice of the photographer.
What mildly irked me about Tom's commentary was the undercurrent of, back in the days of film photography, we couldn't rely on Photoshop or tools like HDR software.
So what? ;) Back in early days of photography, there was lots of stuff that couldn't be done or that required a lot more effort.
A decade ago, long-time veterans were telling us, the only reason we relied on AF was because we didn't have their skill at quickly focusing our cameras, etc.
I remember when I bought my first Canon camera AF. My father's reaction was, why do you need AF. Is your eyesight that bad?
If the only point of Tom's commentary was to point out that there's some overdone HDR out there, then we agree. ;) Or, that HDR is a fad, again, we agree. ;)
The controversy, I believe, is more about the air of superiority in his own photographic skill relative to people who use HDR as a creative option. I don't doubt he has both experience and skill, But so do many people who use HDR and even occasionaly overdo the effect. ;)
Please, let's keep this discussions going . . .
I think we are in 'furious agreement' :)
Mitch, I agree this is bigger than both of us :)
At the bottom of my distaste for sloppy HDR is IMO the degradation/dilution of photographic skills in recent years - i.e. dare I say since digital became all prevalent.
BTW in many cases HDR is really pseudo HDR, e.g. multi process the same Raw file, or (where many of the horrors come from) using macros/actions that 'imitate HDR'.
Furthermore I believe that the appreciation of skilful photography and skilful post processing has been seriously diluted.
Let me explain - (excuse the slight ranting ;):
Firstly the good news:
1- Digital is great! no more overpriced film, costs etc, not just for the consumer but for the pro as well
2- Instant feedback helps to get the shot right - for 0$
3- Processes that were very difficult and many that were impossible are now available - allowing rescue missions and more artistic freedom
4 Digital has effectively surpassed (35mm)film in quality as well
OK the down sides:
1- Instant feedback does not mean people are learning from it- just the opposite i.e. very little reflection on why the first one was wrong - who cares it didn't cost anything so why should I bother?
2- When tasks that were difficult to achieve (both in effort, skill required and forethought needed) become (roughly) do-able by anyone who can push a button - the result is:
a) a massive surge in mediocre results
b) mediocre becomes the new 'standard', as everyone who can push that button now thinks they have 'skill'. When shown something truly worthwhile, they must cry 'but I like mine - ipso facto it is good' to do otherwise would be admitting they had no idea what they were doing.
3 - Images that took great patience, waiting for the right light, careful composition, imagination, etc , are now being 'achieved' by a few minutes (or seconds) of talentless fakery.
And there's the rub, when it was hard to fake good photography, the talentless were less inclined to do so, now any twit can create a 'fake'. I'm not talking about happy snaps, digital has been fantastic for that.
Let's apply my theory to money - if it was suddenly easy to create fake money, what would happen to the value of real money?
I think this is what is happening to photography and photo art. The average person can't tell the difference, so the value of the real thing is diluted.
Now don't get me wrong - I do not subscribe to 'digital is not real photography' or 'real photography is only what the camera saw' or 'it's gotta involve nasty chemicals'.
But what (other than self-fulfilment) is the point of waiting for that perfect sky, when any twit can create a mediocre fake, that most will think is just like the one that took some real talent?
I love that digital has made things easier in many many ways, unfortunately it has also allowed everyone to be 'driving a Formula 1 car on city streets' with the inevitable results.
Brian - Melbourne Australia