Posted by Jack Brauer on July 13, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Ok, I have to throw this out there... I've been seeing lots of great shots posted on this site that have been degraded imo in photoshop by this trendy obsession for perfectly even exposure throughout the image.
Here's the example that inspired me to post this topic, though I've seen countless other examples: Storm light over the gates of Zion. Here Michael used a 2 stop grad which worked perfectly. The foreground has all the pixel detail you'd want, yet the bright focus is still the sunlight on the rocks, as it should be. A beautiful image with perfect exposure and nice subdued foreground colors. Yet after feedback encouraging the possibility of "more detail", the photographer posted a repost with a brightened foreground which imo steals the drama of the sunlight and looks generally less natural, losing some of the nice darker contrast of the shadowed valley.
I'm a big fan of grads and hdr blends, when used with subtlety to give an image a more even exposure overall. But I get the feeling that many photographers are striving for a perfect exposure on every square inch of their photo, without regard to how the picture looks as a whole! Who says that every tiny portion of a photo needs its own perfect exposure? The end result oftentimes is a perfectly exposed image that shows off the camera's amazing dynamic range and the photographer's impressive photoshop skills, but that looks flat and unnatural, losing much of the dramatic impact of natural highlights and shadows.
Ok, so new technology these days, whether in-camera or in photoshop, enable us to exploit enormous dynamic ranges and bring out every pixel's personal detail.... that's great that we can do that... be it doesn't mean we always should. This is just a trend.
Jack, with a few substitution I'm sure you could find similar "rants" on digital photography, on Velvia/E100VS film, on any format vs. another, color vs. B&W, film vs. wet plate, etc.
Technology keeps offering us more options, which I think is a great thing, but personal tastes always have been and will continue to be subjective.
By the same token always doing something a certain way just because it's "traditional" or the current norm is no more logical than always doing something the new fashioned way.
Practically every form of art or skilled craft goes through periods. Cave paintings have a different aesthetic association than impressionist paintings. Clay figurines have a different aesthetic association than marble or bronze. No one is inherently better than another and not one of us is qualified to determine a collective "taste" other than our own.
Guy, good points and I agree with you. I just get disappointed when I see a great image over-processed to the point of sacrificing natural drama for technical excellence.
Jack, me too, though I know I personally tend to walk a fine line. If you get this sense about any of my work - please don't hesitate to call me on it.
"HDR" has been undoubtably abused by many photographers in their search for the holy grail of imaging technique. Rendering every value as a mid tone simply does not work. However, as Guy hinted at, there are many other techniques that have been debated and undoubtably abused as well. This is nothing new in that sense. You mention that oftentimes these images showcase impressive photoshop technique but result in unnatural finished product. I would go so far as to say that if the product looks unnatural and believablity is compromised, the photoshop technique actually isn't so hot. The basic fundamental idea behind fine art printmaking suggest that printed image is a highly tuned representation that in turn acts as a window into another place or moment. Anytime the "window" transforms back to just paper (whether it be by blown highlights, blocked critical shadows, out of hand saturation, highly unbelievable renderings, etc.), the illusion is ruined and the photographers work is seriously compromised. This seems to especially hold true in highly "conservative" genre's such as landscape photography.
At the end of the day, HDR is simply one tool of many to achieve a desired end result. I don't see it as being intrinsically bad/wrong. Used properly, it can be highly effective. I use 4x5 color negative film on occasion for the same reason that digital users will use HDR. That is, an area is percieved as containing critical detail and you need a way to capture/render it in a print. The photographer's eye is really the deciding factor here...I'm convinced that certain people can "see" what makes a great print while others can't. A great print still requires that one knows how to get there. I don't see how that can ever change.
I guess I really don't see the issue here. HDR, Shadow/highlight, Levels, Curves, etc. all are minipulation of some sort. Strictly speaking for me mind you, but my take on it is do whatever you want to do, to whatever degree you want to do it in order to make YOUR image look they way YOU want it to look. If it pleases you, that what matters. If others like it or don't like it, I can live with that, but if my image doesn't please me first I've failed completely. Not arguing with your opinion Jack, you're certainly entitled to it, just putting in my .02...
I've certainly used photoshop to produce a large variety of crappy images. Sometimes they look ok to me, but when I show them to an honest person they barf. That's why I ask. Part of my problem is that I take many baby steps without looking back, then when/if I do look back, I'm like wiley coyote who suddenly realizes he ran right off the edge of the cliff. HDR is just one example of something that can be easily overdone. If it can be overdone, it will be overdone - HDR, saturation, color balance, sharpening, the list is infinite. I consider myself a beginner at digital photography, so I have a get out of photoshop-hell free card.
Pete D.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on July 13, 2006 at 4:56 PM
HDR is a great tool but I have to agree that some images are just way overdone. I feel the same about oversaturation too. Some people think there is no such thing as oversaturation.
"Jack: there's enough HDR cartoonery here to keep you gagging for days "
I just took a look at some of them. Some of them are pretty cool looking, at least when the person was going for effect.
But some of them just HURT to look at
I think I really comes down to what the person making the image is after, the tools available and having a sense for what makes a good image. That the result is not "natural" is acceptable, if that is what the situation calls for. But I think that Jack is on the right track here - so often you see it done not because it should be but because it can be.
arent 2 & 3 stp ND filters, hard and soft edgges, B&G filters,,etc, used to do the same thing,,arent they used to brign out exposures/DR that the camera itself cant due to film/sensor limitations,,,,,so whats the difference whether its a glass filter or a mathemeatical computation to do the same thing,,just because people are putting out some funcky stuff in the learning process dont poo poo it yet,, i would suspect folks are just playing with it as its capabilitys are new and some ugly stuff may come out as people find its usefullness, they too will look back as the capabilities mature and say oh thats ugly,, but will have learned what may an may not be good candidate situations for the tool
Here's my rant, I really get tired of this trendy idea of writing in acronyms...so can anyone tell me what HDR STANDS FOR
I'm guessing you mean taking two seperate images of the same subject at different exposures and blending them together later in Photoshop. I should check out the link MIchael provided I guess.
As far as Jack's statement, I wholeheartedly agree (though actually I'm not sure about the example used--I don't think when he re-worked the image it was as extreme with evening out an exposure as many I have seen).
Maybe there is just a natural tendency among people in the arts to think there's some sort of magical mathmatical-like equation, like 1+1=2, when composing images. At any rate, I get really tired of reading comments in forums like "if you bring out the exposure and detail more in the foreground..." A while back Rod Planck had an excellent article in Outdoor Photographer with perfect illustrations as to why contrast is not an enemy, or some sort of failure, when composing images.
This is why I refuse to look at the histogram when out in the field taking photos. I'll do that later when processing the image, but I don't want to feel like some sort of robot who spends more time looking at whether there's under or over exposure in an image than in just simply looking at the scene before me and considering the mood that I want to create with a composition.
On other hand, film has its limitations on creativity as well. Using high grade slide film we were often stuck with a high contrast, high saturation look. It feels really freeing to me using digital capture to have so much control over how the final image will look.
So I don't think the problem is as much with the tools, like Photoshop, as it is with people's mind set, if that makes any sense. Art is just a little more complex than considering where everything fits on a histogram, or having every photo have that "velvia look." Randy
Jack, I disagree with you on the example chosen. I think Michael did a good job on both images. I could accept either interpretation, and feel he stopped short of going overboard on the foreground - (at least on my monitor at the office). However, I agree there are many instances where my first reaction is "what is wrong with this image?" It seems we will all draw that line in different places, and I have certainly had the same reaction to some grad filter applications...but then sometimes "unreal" works!
Interesting to hear everyone's viewpoints. I may have come off sounding pretty bitter in my "rant" which was not my intention. I just think that it has become a recent trend that many photographers perhaps may be putting too much importance in having a high dynamic range and even exposures throughout their images, to the point of degrading them. Certainly every photographer is free do whatever they want with their images; and I am not losing any sleep over this.
To me the problem of HDR is not the process itself it's those that are using it. That link shows what happens when novice's get a new toy and use it and actually think they are doing well. It's no different than ND Grads, give them to someone who has never used them and we all know what the effects can be, obvious grad lines is the easiest, or wrong strength grad.
HDR is no different and while for myself I'm happy with ND Grads those that are starting to use HDR just need the time to master it. Like all things their is a time and a place to use them, work that out and HDR just like Grads would become invaluable to the user
I agree with Keith. The HDR apps really aren't doing anything that folks aren't trying to do with GNDs or negative films or dodging and burning, but I think because the apps are still in development, they've got a long way to go before they work in a natural way. It was interesting hoping on Flickr and seeing the default strength photomatix stuff. There are some examples that are just downright terrible and a few that really had some dramatic pop. I could probably do a better job blending some of those images blindfolded.
RE: the grad line comment, the Galen Rowell shot on the cover of the July OP has a huge grad line running though the mountains. Yet he was/is highly respected for his vision and craft. I see HDR as bringing better control to this situation where there isn't a level horizon. The problem that I don't think has been resolved is how to get the right "strength" and response curve with HDR. But right now HDR is a big pain to use, and I'd rather catch the shot right the first time using a GND.
I see no problem with many of the HDR images. I really like the effect on some of the images, but not on some of the others. Like any technique, it can be overdone. A lot of images like this will get old after a while, which would be just the same if someone did nothing but Orton soft-focus images.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 15, 2006 at 11:10 AM
Micheal--
Thanks for providing the examples. I agree with Keith that some shots are very good, while others just don't look right to me. I suspect that far too many beginners have bought into the "digital fixes everything" mentality and don't really give things enough thought.
I completely agree with your rant on the type of images we're seeing from HDR - I can't stand images with no shadows, where the photog is too scared to let anything be dark or black. Let the blacks be black I say.
The difference between grads and HDR/the shadows tool is that grads darken(lighten) a major part of the image but maintain local contrast. A lot of the PS techniques result in reduced local contrast, even exposure everywhere, and a lack of drama.
Posted by Jack Brauer on August 17, 2006 at 2:54 PM
Not that anyone reads this post anymore, but I just wanted to thank everyone for their insights and different perspectives. There are quite a few points of view that helped broaden my perspective a bit more than I was initially considering.
Discussion
21 repliesHere's the example that inspired me to post this topic, though I've seen countless other examples: Storm light over the gates of Zion. Here Michael used a 2 stop grad which worked perfectly. The foreground has all the pixel detail you'd want, yet the bright focus is still the sunlight on the rocks, as it should be. A beautiful image with perfect exposure and nice subdued foreground colors. Yet after feedback encouraging the possibility of "more detail", the photographer posted a repost with a brightened foreground which imo steals the drama of the sunlight and looks generally less natural, losing some of the nice darker contrast of the shadowed valley.
I'm a big fan of grads and hdr blends, when used with subtlety to give an image a more even exposure overall. But I get the feeling that many photographers are striving for a perfect exposure on every square inch of their photo, without regard to how the picture looks as a whole! Who says that every tiny portion of a photo needs its own perfect exposure? The end result oftentimes is a perfectly exposed image that shows off the camera's amazing dynamic range and the photographer's impressive photoshop skills, but that looks flat and unnatural, losing much of the dramatic impact of natural highlights and shadows.
Ok, so new technology these days, whether in-camera or in photoshop, enable us to exploit enormous dynamic ranges and bring out every pixel's personal detail.... that's great that we can do that... be it doesn't mean we always should. This is just a trend.
Technology keeps offering us more options, which I think is a great thing, but personal tastes always have been and will continue to be subjective.
By the same token always doing something a certain way just because it's "traditional" or the current norm is no more logical than always doing something the new fashioned way.
Practically every form of art or skilled craft goes through periods. Cave paintings have a different aesthetic association than impressionist paintings. Clay figurines have a different aesthetic association than marble or bronze. No one is inherently better than another and not one of us is qualified to determine a collective "taste" other than our own.
Guy
Guy
"HDR" has been undoubtably abused by many photographers in their search for the holy grail of imaging technique. Rendering every value as a mid tone simply does not work. However, as Guy hinted at, there are many other techniques that have been debated and undoubtably abused as well. This is nothing new in that sense. You mention that oftentimes these images showcase impressive photoshop technique but result in unnatural finished product. I would go so far as to say that if the product looks unnatural and believablity is compromised, the photoshop technique actually isn't so hot. The basic fundamental idea behind fine art printmaking suggest that printed image is a highly tuned representation that in turn acts as a window into another place or moment. Anytime the "window" transforms back to just paper (whether it be by blown highlights, blocked critical shadows, out of hand saturation, highly unbelievable renderings, etc.), the illusion is ruined and the photographers work is seriously compromised. This seems to especially hold true in highly "conservative" genre's such as landscape photography.
At the end of the day, HDR is simply one tool of many to achieve a desired end result. I don't see it as being intrinsically bad/wrong. Used properly, it can be highly effective. I use 4x5 color negative film on occasion for the same reason that digital users will use HDR. That is, an area is percieved as containing critical detail and you need a way to capture/render it in a print. The photographer's eye is really the deciding factor here...I'm convinced that certain people can "see" what makes a great print while others can't. A great print still requires that one knows how to get there. I don't see how that can ever change.
Nathan
Pete D.
I just took a look at some of them. Some of them are pretty cool looking, at least when the person was going for effect.
But some of them just HURT to look at
I think I really comes down to what the person making the image is after, the tools available and having a sense for what makes a good image. That the result is not "natural" is acceptable, if that is what the situation calls for. But I think that Jack is on the right track here - so often you see it done not because it should be but because it can be.
I'm guessing you mean taking two seperate images of the same subject at different exposures and blending them together later in Photoshop. I should check out the link MIchael provided I guess.
As far as Jack's statement, I wholeheartedly agree (though actually I'm not sure about the example used--I don't think when he re-worked the image it was as extreme with evening out an exposure as many I have seen).
Maybe there is just a natural tendency among people in the arts to think there's some sort of magical mathmatical-like equation, like 1+1=2, when composing images. At any rate, I get really tired of reading comments in forums like "if you bring out the exposure and detail more in the foreground..." A while back Rod Planck had an excellent article in Outdoor Photographer with perfect illustrations as to why contrast is not an enemy, or some sort of failure, when composing images.
This is why I refuse to look at the histogram when out in the field taking photos. I'll do that later when processing the image, but I don't want to feel like some sort of robot who spends more time looking at whether there's under or over exposure in an image than in just simply looking at the scene before me and considering the mood that I want to create with a composition.
On other hand, film has its limitations on creativity as well. Using high grade slide film we were often stuck with a high contrast, high saturation look. It feels really freeing to me using digital capture to have so much control over how the final image will look.
So I don't think the problem is as much with the tools, like Photoshop, as it is with people's mind set, if that makes any sense. Art is just a little more complex than considering where everything fits on a histogram, or having every photo have that "velvia look." Randy
HDR is no different and while for myself I'm happy with ND Grads those that are starting to use HDR just need the time to master it. Like all things their is a time and a place to use them, work that out and HDR just like Grads would become invaluable to the user
RE: the grad line comment, the Galen Rowell shot on the cover of the July OP has a huge grad line running though the mountains. Yet he was/is highly respected for his vision and craft. I see HDR as bringing better control to this situation where there isn't a level horizon. The problem that I don't think has been resolved is how to get the right "strength" and response curve with HDR. But right now HDR is a big pain to use, and I'd rather catch the shot right the first time using a GND.
Thanks for providing the examples. I agree with Keith that some shots are very good, while others just don't look right to me. I suspect that far too many beginners have bought into the "digital fixes everything" mentality and don't really give things enough thought.
Kent in SD
I completely agree with your rant on the type of images we're seeing from HDR - I can't stand images with no shadows, where the photog is too scared to let anything be dark or black. Let the blacks be black I say.
The difference between grads and HDR/the shadows tool is that grads darken(lighten) a major part of the image but maintain local contrast. A lot of the PS techniques result in reduced local contrast, even exposure everywhere, and a lack of drama.