Arts
Toronto in HDR
HDR photos of Toronto -- or anything else for that matter -- tend to inspire mixed reactions. Photography purists invariably dislike the the look of the over saturated and often surreal looking photos, while others often refer to it as "cheating." As much as I can understand the the former, I've never bought into the reasoning behind the latter. By that logic buying something like Fuji Velvia film or even using a high ISO setting on a digital camera would also be breaking "the rules," as these photographic techniques offer anything but a faithful representation of the wold in front of the camera.
In fact, nothing photographic is natural nor has it ever been -- what is the strange nature of this assumption? -- which is why I have no philosophical problem with HDR. Layering photos with various exposure qualities to increase dynamic range -- the ratio between the lightest and darkest aspects of an image -- certainly involves a hell of a lot of processing, but I would label this a difference in degree rather than kind to those that receive only in-camera work or minor colour-correction and levels adjustments.
The issue of aesthetics is, however, an altogether different story. Certain HDR images just look silly. Whether this be on account of poor technique or inappropriate subject matter, there are loads of circus-show photographs out there to give HDR a bad name. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some fantastic ones to be found as well.
For reasons that probably have more to do with personal preference than anything else, I've always thought HDR suits urban photography the best. And with that in mind, I've plucked some exemplary shots of Toronto from the blogTO Flickr pool to enjoy and debate. Lead photo by Daifuku Sensei [ hiatus ].
Also by Daifuku Sensei [ hiatus ].
Photo by bomb_tea.
Photo by syncros.
Photo by cl-s.
Photo by ~EvidencE~.
Also by ~EvidencE~.
Photo by fotograf.416.
Also by fotograf.416.
Photo by JdeB.
Photo by ronnie.yip.
Discussion
47 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Velvia breaking rules? Seriously? What rules?
And what does "faithful representation" and photography have to do with each other? If anything you're describing a simple point and shoot picture.
HDR falls outside of the realm of "photography" for the simple reason that it involves a whole lot of post-production computer techniques. Call it computer art if you will. Choose the right film stock, measure the light well, and you'll achieve similar high dynamic range in your shot without resorting to the computer - now that's photography.
And people should stop using the word surreal so inappropriately. End of rant.
Essentially, don't bring film into this argument. It doesn't belong here. Computer manipulations are just that. Some of these are great for it.
Corrective rant complete.
Seriously? - do explain please. Love to read this. And do mention photography's history in your argument. I'm lost.
stra, seriously. chill out. nobody cares.
it just happens to be unfortunate that everyone who pushes dynamic range to extremes tags their images "HDR", while those of us who simply blend a few exposures (like a simple shadow/sky/midtone blend) don't, despite the fact that it's still going for a high dynamic range. nearly every architectural photographer creates tasteful HDR images, even if they aren't labelled as such.
in short, this post should really be titled "Tone-mapped Toronto" :)
The nail in the coffin of "good" HDR is that several of the images including here are utterly terrible and overprocessed (2, 8, 10). The technique appears to numb the editorial impulse.
There is not an image on earth that doesn't have some form of post processing involved. Even cross-processing to create wacky colouring is still a form of heavy post processing, taking your C41 and developing in E6.
Even if you're just tweaking in a one light pass, bringing up some contrast, etc. etc., don't really think there is a difference between when I used to post process in the darkroom, when when I post process my raw CR2's in lightroom now. Its about me trying to get the image I took to serve my message as best as I possibly can. Whether that requires large post processing, or just some simple tweaks depends on the image and the message.
HDRI, like any other artistic process, both analogue or digital, can be over or mis used. It just depends on the artists message and whether his/her message or story is congruent with the craft, creation and execution of that message or story. There's nothing wrong with using HDRI Tone Mapping if it serves your message or story. Not sure if it does here at all.
Troll complete.
But here's the thing, what is "proper exposure"? Any photographer, be they analog or digital, knows that you have to push and pull an analog/digital exposure to "balance" an image. Rarely does a camera capture *everything* in a scene at just the right levels. Try taking a picture looking into the sun, or through a shadow into a well-lit area, and you'll see what I mean. It will be a terrible exposure until it's brought into balance by the photographer. What you see in your mind as a "proper exposure" is, more likely than not, an HDR image, whether achieved by dodging/burning, exposure blending, or software algorithms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping
But that's just it, playing with that reality too much means you end up generating a morass of inexplicable exposures and ultimately messing with your viewer. You end up jarring them silly with your supposed "perfect" balance that is being anything but. Sure, you'll think you now have great shadows on clouds and a vivid sky and sharp bright everything, but as a WHOLE, as an image, you've created nothing but busy, day-glo ADD pastiche. HDR overuse ends up in images that are far less than then sum of their parts - and talking about HDR like its an end in itself just encourages that overuse.
I agree that excessive tone-mapping leads to day-glo, ADD pastiche. but using different techniques to create a high dynamic range image is something that most photographers do, especially if they don't want to use artificial light. Think of architectural interiors: you can't show the indoors and outdoors in natural light - faithfully and realistically - if you don't blend exposures. Does that give you an image that "jars people silly" or is "busy, day-glo ADD pastiche"? No, but it still has a higher dynamic range compressed into a lower one.
Your beef is with overuse of tone-mapping, not HDR images in general.
The argument comparing 'cheating' to Fuji Velvia is SPOT ON. The comparison shouldn't be taken as literally as dynamic ranges, but expanded to the broader idea that the way you see the world through Velvia is NOT the way you see the world through your eyes. Blues approach green, reds approach deep fuschia... not to mention the saturation of the colors. But, at first glance, YOU didn't manipulate the film at all, that's just the way it came out,, right?
The shift in autonomous creative power in the digital age is apparent in the use of techniques like HDR (which has been used since the days of film, both of my 35mm canon SLR's have a nifty little function called Exposure Mapping which serves this very purpose). Just because you have more knobs to play with either on the camera or at home in post-pro, doesn't mean that photographers in the dark room or chemists in the labs of Rochester or Tokyo weren't aiming for the same goal 20, 30.... 75 years ago.
It's all tech. And it always will be.
It's all subjective (art) at the end of the day.. All in the eyes of the beholder...
Thanks blogTO..
At the end of the day... it's all in the eyes of the beholder.
At the end of the day, it's all in the eyes of the beholder...
At the end of the day, it's all in the eyes of the beholder...
Rob Ford HDR.
Not my best work.
LOL ... pretty much, actually. They both celebrate "more is more" as an aesthetic (and those into brash visual trainwrecks get all slack-jawed by both).
Duh. We both know the technique I'm talking about is being used as a sledgehammer and it's hardly as subtle as a little hand-waving over the paper in the lab. People have decided that every photograph has to "go to 11" -- and it's played-out. When I see these sorts of images now, they look cheap, amateurish, and worse than both: cynical, in that they suppose with enough artifacts and colours and absurd expanses of oversharp contrast I'll be suckerpunched into believing the photograph's good.
You're correct with your terminology, but the overuse has got to end. Some of the pictures here are horrid.
One thing I've noticed, the positive feedback of my HDR work comes from the public, non-photographers (at least non-serious photographers).
The only time I've ever had negative words about my HDR pieces have been from other photographers.
I've always found that interesting, and in fact it seems the pro/anti HDR debate generally follows that line (even these comments seem to follow that throughline).
Not anything groundbreaking, but just food for thought.
everyone has their perspective.
here's is my Flickr site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/torontocub
In the mid-1800's Gustave Le Gray (and others-see works by Oscar Gustave Rejlander for example) put negatives together to produce a single image. He overexposed for the water (with blown out sun and sky), then underexposed for the sun/sky (with water clipped in dark shadow). People have been debating the integrity and validity of these techniques ever since. 150 years later...here we are on BlogTO still mud-slinging over the very same issue!
funny that....
I personally think that HDR can definitely be overdone, though I think it can be a very cool effect when used "properly". But even if it isn't...why should we argue about it? Even if it's totally unrealistic...someone created that image because it was interesting to them. I think that should be valid enough whether I like it or not. If I'm a photographer why should I have to depict things exactly as they are? On the one hand, HDR can help us get closer to the dynamic range our eye sees, though it's still a long way off. On the other hand even if it's "unreal" or unbelievable, we can think of it as taking something out of nature and creating something new just as many other art forms do.
Other visual artists strayed from realism long ago, and despite heated debate, it has become now more widely accepted to paint vertical and horizontal lines filling the boxes with red, yellow and blue. So why should this not be accepted in photography?
Does a musician have to mimic the sound of the wind in the trees?
And speaking of music, if I don't like...say...Brittany Spears...what difference does it make if I publicly say how terrible I think her music is? Lots of other people seem to like it. I can still have my opinion and others who like it can have theirs - really it's a moot point to argue whether it should be there or not....
KS - does "the overuse have to end"? If I don't like...I won't look at it. When Brittany Spears comes on the radio...I'm well within my right to change the channel!
This really is an interesting topic and the discussion could go on all day. I'll try and post a discussion within the week for anyone who's interested at: www.shaynegraylearnsphotography.blogspot.com