Back in the olden days of the darkroom—the 1990s, in this case—I remember suddenly seeing Photoshop images everywhere: layered photos and skillful composites. Some were stunning, though a lot of them looked alike. I was also working with layers and composites, but I created my images with age-old darkroom techniques. To get a layered image, I had to double- or triple-expose, line things up precisely, make endless calculations—and ruin a lot of photo paper. I resented the idea that a bunch of spoiled lazy artists were making magic with a few mouse clicks.
Actually, I was secretly dying to get my hands on the program, and I jumped when an acquaintance invited me over to have a look at it. In her large Emeryville live-work, she booted up her Mac, opened the program, and demonstrated some of what is possible. I smiled. My smile grew wider as she showed me all the images she’d been working on.
I walked out an hour later still smiling, my reservations all but gone. I’d been suspicious of Photoshop because I had the impression that almost anyone could sit down and turn out wonderful images with the click of a mouse. It was a revelation to see that her computer creations were as sloppy and amateurish as her paintings. I’d discovered that Photoshop isn’t cheating: it’s simply a tool, like a brush, a pencil, or a negative. It responds to the mastery of the person using it. I got Photoshop as soon as I could and learned to use the program. I worked hard at it.
I try to remember that lesson when I find myself scowling over the latest HDR photo-monstrosity.
When I first heard about High Dynamic Range photography, I was excited. Even the best digital sensor doesn’t come close to capturing the range of tones that the human eye can perceive, so I imagined that great photos would follow.
But, no.
If I look hard, I can find lovely HDR images, like this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynchburgvirginia/407618927/ but the vast majority of them make me cringe. Something about the process gives the resulting photos a freaky glow and super-saturated funhouse colors. “Like a bad Japanese postcard from the 60’s” according to a friend who also has HDR issues (although to me they’re more like bad acid trips from the 80’s). And they all look strangely alike. “Icky”, in many cases.
Again, I feel some resentment, because a tool has been invented that artists can use to get superficially spectacular results.
And again, the answer is to quit my bitchin’ and shoot my own damn HDRs. I’ve attempted a grand total of two, and both totally sucked. But I will keep at it. I have faith that this great power can be used for The Good.
Raise the white flag.Give up.
The revolution continues.
p.s. no good can come from this.
Hi and thank you for your linking to my photo Foggy Wood. I imagine the trick in the HDR process is not to become to fascinated with how out of tune your photo can become. It is a temptation for many to push that envelope and end up with the results of what you speak. Really there is no substitute for good honest photography: composition, exposure, and the right aperture are all the factors you must get right. It is much like the old saying you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. I think that applies. The trick if you want to call it that is the enhancement has to be subtle and not stray away far from what the original image offered. Its very easy to do, I have done it myself more times than I can count.
But when just the right amount of spice is applied you can and may end up with a very unique and beautiful image. Foggy Wood has become a very well liked image by many. I suppose there are some who would not like it. And that is fine with me. Ultimately I pleased myself and that to me was all that mattered. It will be coming out in a National Geographic Book titled ‘Simply Beautiful Photography’ Oct 19th. And it went on display along with other photographs at the National Geographic Museum exhibit Sept 3rd.
The photo has taken an interesting journey and I have enjoyed watching it find a path of its own.
And thank you, Robert, for showing us what is possible with this exciting new technology. Your love and skill shows in your work. As I re-read my entry I was surprised I hadn’t credited you by name for this fine photo–sorry, I should have. I’m glad to hear this photo is getting the attention it deserves.
When I first looked at this photo, it pepearad to me to have unusually sharp focus through very deep depth-of-field and I guess it does, because of that HDR thing. I read the article you cited, and now I wonder whether it’s worth all the fiddling around, considering some of the wonderful photos you’ve produced without it.
For me, HDR is not worth the trouble. For a photographer who loves all the fiddling, it can produce stunning results.