High-Dynamic-Range: Style or Technique?
Everytime I see a post on reddit, digg or on the web which features a series of HDR Images you can bet on a specific discussion going on. Most of the time there is one or more people saying that an overdone HDR isn’t a photograph and as such has no right to exist. They hate it because it doesn’t require as much skill to pull some levers in Photoshop or Photomatix Pro to create an HDR image. This is especially true if it is created from just one. An HDR out of one image isn’t technically an HDR it is just an image where the HDR style is applied to.
The following quote is from reddit user xnecrontyrx:
I think its a shame this is popular. It flattens tones and doesnt require nearly as much thought from the photographer about where shadows should be, where highlights should be, etc.
Using HDR to get detail you can’t because of technical limitations is a choice, this stuff seems like a way to make skills less necessary.
He does have a point. With applying an HDR effect on an image makes it more interesting just because it’s different, it screams at you and because of this the photograph itself does not have to be an exceptional one.
But, some people REALLY like that effect. And they don’t care if the photographer was especially skilled. They want saturated and contrast rich images. It is the same with every style of art out there: If there is an audience for it, it will be seen and consequently has the right to exist (not that anything doesn’t in art, on second though… well).
I think that we have to understand that two different definitions of HDR images exists. One is the mere technique. The use of multi exposure images of a scene to create an image that has a higher dynamic range (hence the name). Photographers use it because a camera can’t see the same range of light we can and because of this we use HDR to counter that effect.
This is an HDR image:
A Plea for HDR by Alexandre Buisse on Luminous Landscapes
It is a great photograph and the photographer used the HDR technique to accomplish what he wanted. The first thing that pops in mind seeing this image is certainly not: “Wow, good HDR”. This is because if the technique is used primarely to show a scene as it really looked like for the photogapher shooting it, it doesn’t fit the description of the style we used to see when thinking of HDR. This is what I call an HDR photograph.
There is, however, a case for the super loud and color rich HDR style. Look at this image for example:
Taxi Newyork by TonistL on deviantArt
I think we can say that this scene never looked like it does in this image. I think that is fine. It is what I call an HDR image instead of an HDR photograph. It is about the style not about the technique. You wouldn’t call a realistique painting of a landscape a disgrace to art either and an image like this is a variation of that. Sure, you don’t need nearly as much skill to create an HDR style image than a painting but why should the discussion be about skill only? It is, in the end, about the finished product and if there is an audience for it.
What I want to say with this post is that we should stop fighting about the definition and just accept that there are different ideas about HDR. Sure, technically we should create a new word for the “overdone images” but we can’t. We can however differentiate between the HDR style and the HDR technique and this is what I will do in the future.
What do you think about my opinion? I would love to have a discussion about this in the comments, so feel free to participate!
You might also like these posts:
Thanks for your comment and welcome to our site! You're right and I wanted to say that we shouldn't really have to talk about the issue. But because it happens all the time I want to bring another perspective into the discussion. I think most of the "I hate HDR style images" just don't think about it. (harsh I know...)
I like the distinction you've made. I think one could distinguish between HDR technique and HDR style, but...
It assumes that the photographer actually gives a damn about what people are saying about the outcome. To engage in an argument about what HDR is or isn't, or should be but isn't, is a rather pedantic argument that I, for one, don't choose to engage in.
Put another way, I think that photographers should execute their vision, showing in the best way possible their interpretation of a scene as they saw it, without regard to satisfying a particular audience. In the end, isn't this about a individual's vision?
When we free ourselves from some constraint about what is or isn't proper, then creativity can flourish to the fullest. Some outputs will hit, and some won't, but if we don't break free of arbitrary limitations and push the envelope of the technology, then we won't advance/evolve at the rate that is possible.
More simply put: You can't please everybody all the time. Be true to your heart and do what you want to do. F-em. All the great artists bucked the trend and flew in the face of propriety.
Expand,
Rob
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like