Photography is my passion. I can talk about photography, shoot photos and learn about other photographers all day long. I like capturing a moment in time and upon viewing the photo being brought back that moment as it was.
HDR Photography (High Dynamic Range) is laying a series of exposures over one another to produce one computer rendering of the images. (Full Wikipedia definition here)
Here is a blog post that cites “85 Examples of Beautiful HDR Photography” – I think a better title should be “85 Examples of Beautiful Computer Renderings”. HDR images, to me – are something you would see in a science fiction or fantasy comic book.
I am drawn to photography because of the emotional connection I feel when I see a great photograph – and that connection is magnified if it is a photograph I’ve taken. To me, I have no emotional connection whatsoever to HDR imagery. The HDR rendering produced does not look anything like the object photographed – which is one of my complaints with HDR.
It seems that the HDR photo theory is If a little post processing is good, A lot will be better.
So my plea to photographers – Please Stop Making HDR Images that look like science fiction. Please for the sake of the art and the people who came before us and before HDR and digital processing and digital cameras and…
Weigh in on this – Am I the only one who hates this stuff? Together we can stop the madness.
Article by Greg Taylor
Founder of WordPress Development Company, Marketing Press. Vegetarian. Hopelessly addicted to music. Blogger, Collaborator, Phoenix Suns fan. NJ Native living in AZ
Greg has contributed 160 articles to this site.
If you like this article you can follow Greg Taylor on Twitter. For information about WordPress Development, Digital Marketing, Content Marketing or Social Media Marketing please visit Marketing Press - Thanks for reading.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, I agree that HDR can be overdone and done very badly, so it doesn’t look very good. I’d invite you to check out my site and see if you think they are tastefully done, because I try to make them as natural as I possibly can.
I disagree with your view of them though in general. If you look at a scene with your naked eye and try to capture it with your camera, minus filters, etc., you aren’t going to get the same look that you saw with your eye. It’s impossible for your camera’s sensor to pick up all the f-stops that your eye can.
So for me…when I see a sunset (this one for example: http://www.mikeolbinski.com/2010/01/sunset-on-the-four-peaks/) that is amazing with redish/purlish hues cast on a mountain and clouds, I know an HDR will capture what I saw.
Or this shot: http://www.mikeolbinski.com/2010/02/storms-over-the-superstition-mountains/
Getting the clouds to look like I saw them, plus the highway as vivid as it was…is impossible without filters.
Some people use filters to get this kind of clarity with clouds and sky, along with the ground in front of them. That’s fine and I want to try that. I don’t necessarily love HDR for everything, there are just some things that are amazing.
I’ve sold four prints so far in my young career, all have been HDRs.
I think there is this stigma out there by the classic photographer thinking HDR is just fake, processed crap. Well, photogs have been processing photos for years, even without computers. Ansel Adams used all kinds of methods to get what he wanted. There is an article out there in the recent Outdoor Photography magazine talking about how much he’d love computers, Photoshop, etc., so he could make a photo look exactly like he wanted it to.
When I see a giant thunderstorm over a mountain…I want to capture what I saw…HDR allows that.
But also…a shot still has to have good composition and skill…it takes practice, a lot of work and still people don’t know how to do it right. I’m always learning.
On a side note…”hates this stuff” and “stop the madness”…those are some mean words there man.
I love HDR, I also love B&W photography, portraiture, your concert photos, etc.
To hate that stuff…I dunno, I think it means you haven’t taken the time to understand it and find out why people love it.
Thanks for your comments – they are appreciated.
In my real estate days, I spent a fair amount of time trying to make HDR shots that I liked. Other people were doing them, and when dealing with shadows (particularly outdoor with covered patios, both front and rear), HDR seemed like a great tool to reveal what’s within the shadows.
It’s probably because I was just a dumb Realtor, but I was never able to get an HDR shot that looked better than just a properly exposed and lit scene.
Oh, that and the photoshop action “Shadow/Highlight” to clean up the highest contrast problems.
So I don’t hate HDR personally. I just wasn’t able to do it so it didn’t look fake.
Just a curiosity…I write that long comment…and you don’t respond to it other than that? Or are you planning to later?
I’m assuming that the writer will never use a computer when processing his film. He couldn’t possibly own a dslr because the firmware inside it would violate his anti-computer rant. So I’m curious: since the writer doesn’t shoot in Black & White either unless he’s color blind (that moment didn’t happen in B&W I assure you) what does he shoot? Does he use a pinhole camera? Photography is a lie in the place – it’s not about “taking” pictures “of” things it’s about “making” pictures “with” things. So what’s “reality” when a camera will always see something different than the naked eye? And my eye will see something differen than your eye? Are we still talking about photography as truth? Gimme a break.
If someone doesn’t like HDR then just say so. To use kneejerk absolutes, faulty generalizations and flawed logic to support a dislike makes one seem narrow minded and ignorant of the subject at hand.
All the best,
RD
I wouldn’t go as far as say I hate HDR, but when HDR over done as it often is I could do without it.
I think photography is like classic art trying to remain objective but still expressing a point of view. HDR on the other hand is more like expressionism more concerned with emotional impact than reality. Bottom line is they are both art and your preference boils down to personal tastes.
Nevertheless, Greg to need to let it go, HDR is here to stay and life is too short to focus on the things we don’t like.
I am saddened when I read articles like this one. I truly am. I find it very disconcerting when anyone, regardless of how accomplished of a photographer they may be, takes it upon themselves to generalize the definition of what ‘is’ and ‘is not’ photographic in principle.
Your plea to urge people to stop creating an image in the way that they see fit is also a bit alarming. You, yourself, claim photography to be a passion. If that truly would be the case, you would not ever broadcast such a close-minded article campaigning for others to conform to a specific set of arbitrary criteria. I read this akin to you asking people to not experiment, not grow, not explore.
I fully respect your opinion that you may not care for HDR. No problem there. That is the wonder and beauty of photography – HDR is simply one facet of it. We can explore every part of it. No one is saying that HDR is a requisite to becoming a better photographer. It’s like no one says that shooting color over B&W makes you a better or worse image maker. Each of us who picks up a camera does so because we are driven to capture a specific moment in time. What we choose to fill the frame with and how we choose to share it to the world is totally subjective and open to interpretation and that, right there, is the wonder and beauty of this art form.
I invite you to visit my website and blog (http://brianmatiash.com) and provide your opinions that warrant your claim that my HDR work is not photography. Please let me know what photographic merit is absent. I would be glad to listen and have a thoughtful conversation about it.
Best,
Brian Matiash
photos@brianmatiash.com
HDR images may as well be called Photoshoped images. Do any of you HDR supporters consider Photoshoped images “real” photography?
I don’t.
And I’m not even a photographer.
Photography is about capturing a moment in time that can never be recreated.
HDR is about manufacturing an image.
Greg, I have to say I’m always a little annoyed when I read posts like this. It smacks of a one-sided, closed-minded opinion. As photographers, I think the common ground that we can find is that we all have a passion for creating beautiful images, and beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Truer words have never been spoken. Everyone’s view of what comprises a “great photograph” is by definition going to be different, and you’ve every right to voice your dislike of a particular image but I don’t think you can voice your dislike for an entire field of photography so blatantly.
The photographer has many tools in his post-processing tool-kit to help him achieve his vision. I myself flip between HDR and non-HDR work and when I apply it my main goal is simply to achieve more detail in the images I’m creating. Yes, when applied poorly, some HDR images can look terrible. Some HDR images though are simply stunning and jaw-dropping. They accentuate what the human eye is actually seeing as if you were standing there behind the viewfinder. No single raw image taken by cameras today can recreate that. Fact.
I invite you to read a recent post on my photo blog where I compare two images, one single RAW image and one HDR image from 5 separate exposures:
http://www.jflphotography.com/Blog/Entries/2010/3/21_Why_HDR.html
When processing this picture, I wasn’t looking to create a “computer rendering” of the image. I was looking to create an image that matched my vision of the scene and how I wanted to convey to the viewer what I’m feeling when I see this particular place. Truth be told, I did attempt to process a single RAW image of this and it was nowhere near what I was after when compared to my HDR version.
If correctly applied, HDR helps to achieve what the photographer is trying to say about a particular scene, why are you so against it? Yes, I’m even talking about computer-rendering-style HDR here too. We’re all artists, and all art is subjective and open to interpretation. Not everyone will like what you create and you know what… that’s just fine! I’m not here to please a crowd with my photos, I’m here to capture the world as I see it in imagery and sometimes HDR helps to achieve my vision. It’s sad that you choose to close yourself off from a facet of your craft so completely.
I invite you to view the rest of my (mixed HDR/non-HDR) portfolio on my site and welcome any constructive and open-minded discussion you’re willing to enter into both here on your site as well as offline.
Here’s to free creation of art using whatever means to an end,
Jacob.
Tyler…since you aren’t a photographer, I wont be too harsh here. But an image enhanced or edited in Photoshop is still an image.
Photography is about capturing a moment, but it’s also art…and art is about conveying something to people that YOU feel, as the photographer.
Like I said in my post above…Ansel Adams, one of the most respected photographers of all-time…he didn’t just develop his film in a darkroom and walk away. He tweaked, enhanced, changed things to make the photo look how he wanted.
Photoshop is just a computerized dark room.
People who knew Adams said he’d love the ability Photoshop would have given him.
I appreciate everyone’s comments and letting know how passionate you are about HDR and photography in general.
Let’s make one thing clear this is not a personal attack on anyone. I do not like HDR Imagery and I am not going to apologize for it.
I also do not apologize for being somewhat of a photography purist or as much as one can be these days. Over processing images has always been a pet peeve of mine and I will not apologize for that either.
I am sure in some instances over time certain Masters of Photography did not like or endorse styles of other Masters.
I’m sure it’s to no one’s surprise I also do not like the designated hitter in baseball.
There is a difference between not endorsing and not liking a style, and then writing a post that is “Anti-HDR” and “Together we can stop the madness.”
You’ve lost a reader I guess in me, too bad, I liked your work, but I’m not going to follow someone who has such a ridiculously strong bias towards other people’s visions.
Mike – I am sorry to hear that. In theory we could agree to disagree. I also hate mustard and tuna fish but I have many friends who enjoy them both and sometimes even together.
Take Care- Greg Taylor.
I don’t dismiss hdr, as it can be a very useful tool to capture scenes that would otherwise have been impossible to capture, but I agree on disliking overdone hdr processing. I just don’t like it and to me it’s not about photography anymore.
How can one ‘anti’ a form of art? I find that astounding, art is about creativity and our vision, how we see it and how we chose to re-create it defines us as artist and shouldn’t be labeled as ‘wrong’.
Thank you for you comment. My ‘anti’ stance is due to the fact that I feel HDR is more gimmick than photography.
Gimmick…lol.
People have been doing “HDR” in a way with graduated ND filters for awhile now…I don’t think that was a gimmick.
Count me in! I’m not against the technology; I’m against the way people overuse it.
I just wrote a long blog post about it, here.
I HATE HDR!!
The ones (HDR) I have seen they are over saturated, over the top paint like colors. They look more like paintings that photos. Go out take wonderful shots instead of rushing home stuck in front of you PC editing, long live Velvia.
I hate HDR photos…especially those that come from photographers who pawn them off to the innocent public (without telling them about the process).
Nothing worse than a bad HDR!
http://www.flickr.com/ericfleming/ – no hdr there!
I’m not huge fan either but Mike Oblinski does it right and very few do.
http://grtaylor2.com/2010/05/27/hdr-another-point-of-view-guest-post/
Hi. I would like to say that “enhance” is not “overdo” and that is the problem with HDR. Many people with lack of advance photography knowledge has wrecked a tool that could be used in a great way to enhance photos turning them into plastic-overdo pieces of “art”. Please consider a play like Hamlet or any other dramatic play. what would you feel as an audience if you look an OVERDO performance of the actor playing Hamlet ? You would immediately think of that actor as a fiasco and not that the drama portrait in the play is the fiasco. This new technique could tend to be, from my perspective, be an Andy Warhol piece (and I do not dig into Warhol that much). I would consider HDR a mere fashion-temporary thing but time has the ultimate word.