Comment on HDR - Good or Evil by Gerard1972
Well actually, the reason I bothered to write at all is because of the HDR workflow you posted, and this journal entry. I would take issue with several points you made in them, but most of all with the underlying suggestion running through it - that HDR results are somehow an improvement on past processing techniques, or that they allow for something which was not possible before. Photographers have been blending exposures for a long time.
The simple fact is that almost every image which has been tonemapped is easily detectable to a trained eye. Despite what you say about your subtle use, most of the images in your gallery scream HDR. Now I am not saying that they are bad, because your compositions are interesting, but a more natural look and waiting for 'special light' would improve your photography dramatically. With time you will start to realise this, but I found it frustrating that at one point you even suggested that on windy days people should shoot static subjects.
It has been my experience that people go through an HDR phase, because they have not yet learnt how to take advantage of the light properly, and don't know how to process images effectively. I have done it myself, and I know plenty of others who have done it. Therefore I think that rather than write journals talking about the merits of HDR (and it does have some, in limited circumstances), your time would be better spent exploring ways to shoot the light in such a way as to prevent the need to spend hours in Photomatix and Photoshop.
Whilst this whole message my seem rather aggressive and unnecessary, it is sent with the best of intentions. I don't expect you to agree with it, but given time you will realise the downfalls of your current technique.
The simple fact is that almost every image which has been tonemapped is easily detectable to a trained eye. Despite what you say about your subtle use, most of the images in your gallery scream HDR. Now I am not saying that they are bad, because your compositions are interesting, but a more natural look and waiting for 'special light' would improve your photography dramatically. With time you will start to realise this, but I found it frustrating that at one point you even suggested that on windy days people should shoot static subjects.
It has been my experience that people go through an HDR phase, because they have not yet learnt how to take advantage of the light properly, and don't know how to process images effectively. I have done it myself, and I know plenty of others who have done it. Therefore I think that rather than write journals talking about the merits of HDR (and it does have some, in limited circumstances), your time would be better spent exploring ways to shoot the light in such a way as to prevent the need to spend hours in Photomatix and Photoshop.
Whilst this whole message my seem rather aggressive and unnecessary, it is sent with the best of intentions. I don't expect you to agree with it, but given time you will realise the downfalls of your current technique.
Steve, thanks for your comments, I appreciate them. Your own gallery is first class and you clearly know what you're talking about. As I'm sure you could guess, I'm no authority on HDR or photography in general. I'm just a guy who has spent a fair number of years experimenting, reading and practising.
It is true to say that I stumbled on the HDR style a few years ago, and it seemed to give me what I regarded as better results than I could get from a single shot. No doubt a lot of this may be down to my lack of real knowledge regarding correct exposures.
Perhaps some of my views are incorrect, maybe they will change in time. I have read before about various techniques used by photographers in the pre-Photoshop days. I don't doubt someone can achieve more pleasing results using traditional techniques.
I would imagine most photographers, even the ones who scan film, would still spend time in Photoshop touching up the shot. Ideally, it would be better to take the perfect shot in the camera, but I'm really unqualified to guess how much post-processing the average professional shot goes through.
While it does rather affect the end result, HDR creation is only a small step in what I do, and to be honest, a lot of time is spent covering over the flaws in the technique. E.g. my point about shooting static on windy days. HDR does not cope well with movement. I am not trying to say never shoot moving objects - clearly some of the best photos depict movement. Just that it would be unwise to use HDR on such shots.
I stated, although didn't go into details, that I think the most important step is in taking a good photograph in the first place. Those moments of thought before taking the shot, trying to get the correct composition, exposure, depth of field etc. I am certainly no expert, but it is an area I am aware needs a lot of work, and something I am trying to improve. No amount of fancy processes or writing these journals is going to help me there.
I wrote this journal because I am interested in sharing my limited knowledge of what I do, and at the same time, trying to learn more from the feedback I get. I realise it is a divisive topic, and perhaps, in years to come, I will move beyond HDR. Certainly, I will give some thought to what you say, because, as I said, from the high standard of your photographs, you clearly speak from experience. I do really appreciate the feedback.
Gerard
It is true to say that I stumbled on the HDR style a few years ago, and it seemed to give me what I regarded as better results than I could get from a single shot. No doubt a lot of this may be down to my lack of real knowledge regarding correct exposures.
Perhaps some of my views are incorrect, maybe they will change in time. I have read before about various techniques used by photographers in the pre-Photoshop days. I don't doubt someone can achieve more pleasing results using traditional techniques.
I would imagine most photographers, even the ones who scan film, would still spend time in Photoshop touching up the shot. Ideally, it would be better to take the perfect shot in the camera, but I'm really unqualified to guess how much post-processing the average professional shot goes through.
While it does rather affect the end result, HDR creation is only a small step in what I do, and to be honest, a lot of time is spent covering over the flaws in the technique. E.g. my point about shooting static on windy days. HDR does not cope well with movement. I am not trying to say never shoot moving objects - clearly some of the best photos depict movement. Just that it would be unwise to use HDR on such shots.
I stated, although didn't go into details, that I think the most important step is in taking a good photograph in the first place. Those moments of thought before taking the shot, trying to get the correct composition, exposure, depth of field etc. I am certainly no expert, but it is an area I am aware needs a lot of work, and something I am trying to improve. No amount of fancy processes or writing these journals is going to help me there.
I wrote this journal because I am interested in sharing my limited knowledge of what I do, and at the same time, trying to learn more from the feedback I get. I realise it is a divisive topic, and perhaps, in years to come, I will move beyond HDR. Certainly, I will give some thought to what you say, because, as I said, from the high standard of your photographs, you clearly speak from experience. I do really appreciate the feedback.
Gerard