HDR and Me (or You)
inspired by G+ post https://plus.google.com/u/0/103486150650858067282/posts/WTgoQUUEf4m and article http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/digital-pitfalls-a-cautionary-tale.html
+AJ Schroetlin, I agree with most of your points. However, with the advent of the digital age and the relative inexpensive method of digital manipulation we have at our disposal, I think many photographers have taken to compensating their lack of camera skill/knowledge with being adept photoshop users. A crutch.
However, I do agree that many photographers took on HDR as a gimmick. They saw how popular HDR processed images were and in order to stay in the game, took on that method for their own work. I can't fault anyone for that as many business that plans to stay relevant has to adapt to current market trends, or find their niche.
And, I also agree, HDR does have it's place and that one and only place, in my opinion, is when trying to capture those ranges that camera sensors just can't capture. However, as you also mentioned, HDR can be seen as a tool, just like using a filter can be seen as a tool. And +AJ Schroetlin, what's more important the means or the ends?
Many of us would say, "the ends" since that's what the customer is purchasing. Although, if we consider photography as an art, then the means are always important to the art, just like a brush stroke is important to connoisseurs of paintings. Is it the photography that is admirable or the skill in digital editing that's to admire?
Personally, even I with my draconian beliefs in regards to photography, have realized I've become lazy when it comes to proper exposure. I can't tell you how often I'm taken the shot, looked at the instant replay and said to myself: I can fix that on editing. Each time I think that I hate myself a little more and I have to make a conscious effort to go back and take a proper exposure.
In all aspects of life there is a learned skillset. Usually, when undergoing training we learn what is generally termed "the Basics." The Basics are there because they are the foundation every other skill is built off of as one progresses in their endeavor. Knowing the Basics and working with them even as an adept is a good principle for us all. It's a good habit to get into when riding a motorcycle, training our dogs, remodeling our houses or sailing a boat. It's also a good habit in art and if photography isn't art then it's work and no one wants to work. ;)
You and I seem to have a lot of same photogrpahy traits, +AJ Schroetlin. I've been to Moab for 5 days and taken 300 images throughout the entire trip. That includes "set-up" images. I try to work hard had composition and settings so I don't have to be that guy with 1100 images to go through because he held the shutter down. And I like minimal post-processing, usually to deepen the shadows and/or go for a monochrome image.
I've been shooting since 1990 and with a film SLR until 2005 when I bought my first Pentax dSLR (*IST DS). My techniques improved greatly because it was less expensive and time consuming to see an immediate result rather than waiting. I think digital saved consumer-grade photography but probably hurt professional photographers.
In college I had to take an art class and, naturally, I took Intro to Photography. The class still used film, enlargers and enough chemicals to clean a crime scene. The instructor had us using a new method where we would expose for "highlights" and for "shadows" with the enlargers onto the photopaper. We had to record the exposure levels for both so we couldn't cheat and just get a good image off the bat.
That was my first exposure (pun not intended but I like it anyway) to HDR. I didn't even know it was called "HDR" I only remember when the instructor told us she read of a new technique where the image is exposed for both the light and the dark separately.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen good HDR where it just looks like a great exposure, but I've seen terrible HDR that looks like a blind kids water coloring by numbers.
In the end, I still think it's a crutch to use instead of good camera techniques but it's most definitely a gimmick for people to produce images the public wants to purchase.
Does it have a place? Sure, but there is a difference between owning a Monet and owning a well produced copy of a Monet.
I asked the some very similar questions when HDR became the prevalent mode of photography. Aren't we losing the art of taking a good photo if all we're doing is letting software make the picture "perfect?" Is photography dead and digital artistry taking it's place?
Perhaps it's because I first learned photography with a 35mm and a darkroom, keeping to those tools until 2004 or so when I bought my first dSLR. Still, I try very hard to capture the images in camera using post processing in a limited fashion. It may be why I can't compete with the "big boys." Who knows?
A year or so ago I got into a discussion (on G+) with Jay Gould about some photographers obsessive use of HDR. He was one and he may have taken my point of view personally, but I didn't care. He was adamant that a photographer has to give the people what they want or they will die penniless. And that may be true for fine art or portraits, but as an artistic medium?
I don't know ... Perhaps I'm too much of a purist. I've been thinking about dusting off my old 35mm and giving it a go again, if only for fun - to get back to the basics, so to speak. Of course, I have no idea where I'd develop the film these days.
But yes, to your point, Ugo: the ease of access and use of modern photography has created a stale playing field. Brilliant colors are easily come by, unique landscapes are only a short walk from the car to the best photo location away. Photographers, like photography, follow trends as each of us tries to re-create or improve on other's work that inspires us. Are we artists or are we just the button-pushers? As artists it's our responsibility to push the edge of our medium. As button-pushers ... well, maybe we eat regularly.
Can we be both? That is the question. I don't have any artistic ability what-so-ever. I can't play an instrument or even read music; I don't paint any better than an ape (and sometimes not even as good); I can't draw, sculpt or work wood. Photography is my artistic outlet and while I may not be the best or even good, it's something I need in my life to force my mind into using the other hemisphere.
+AJ Schroetlin, I agree with most of your points. However, with the advent of the digital age and the relative inexpensive method of digital manipulation we have at our disposal, I think many photographers have taken to compensating their lack of camera skill/knowledge with being adept photoshop users. A crutch.
However, I do agree that many photographers took on HDR as a gimmick. They saw how popular HDR processed images were and in order to stay in the game, took on that method for their own work. I can't fault anyone for that as many business that plans to stay relevant has to adapt to current market trends, or find their niche.
And, I also agree, HDR does have it's place and that one and only place, in my opinion, is when trying to capture those ranges that camera sensors just can't capture. However, as you also mentioned, HDR can be seen as a tool, just like using a filter can be seen as a tool. And +AJ Schroetlin, what's more important the means or the ends?
Many of us would say, "the ends" since that's what the customer is purchasing. Although, if we consider photography as an art, then the means are always important to the art, just like a brush stroke is important to connoisseurs of paintings. Is it the photography that is admirable or the skill in digital editing that's to admire?
Personally, even I with my draconian beliefs in regards to photography, have realized I've become lazy when it comes to proper exposure. I can't tell you how often I'm taken the shot, looked at the instant replay and said to myself: I can fix that on editing. Each time I think that I hate myself a little more and I have to make a conscious effort to go back and take a proper exposure.
In all aspects of life there is a learned skillset. Usually, when undergoing training we learn what is generally termed "the Basics." The Basics are there because they are the foundation every other skill is built off of as one progresses in their endeavor. Knowing the Basics and working with them even as an adept is a good principle for us all. It's a good habit to get into when riding a motorcycle, training our dogs, remodeling our houses or sailing a boat. It's also a good habit in art and if photography isn't art then it's work and no one wants to work. ;)
You and I seem to have a lot of same photogrpahy traits, +AJ Schroetlin. I've been to Moab for 5 days and taken 300 images throughout the entire trip. That includes "set-up" images. I try to work hard had composition and settings so I don't have to be that guy with 1100 images to go through because he held the shutter down. And I like minimal post-processing, usually to deepen the shadows and/or go for a monochrome image.
I've been shooting since 1990 and with a film SLR until 2005 when I bought my first Pentax dSLR (*IST DS). My techniques improved greatly because it was less expensive and time consuming to see an immediate result rather than waiting. I think digital saved consumer-grade photography but probably hurt professional photographers.
In college I had to take an art class and, naturally, I took Intro to Photography. The class still used film, enlargers and enough chemicals to clean a crime scene. The instructor had us using a new method where we would expose for "highlights" and for "shadows" with the enlargers onto the photopaper. We had to record the exposure levels for both so we couldn't cheat and just get a good image off the bat.
That was my first exposure (pun not intended but I like it anyway) to HDR. I didn't even know it was called "HDR" I only remember when the instructor told us she read of a new technique where the image is exposed for both the light and the dark separately.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen good HDR where it just looks like a great exposure, but I've seen terrible HDR that looks like a blind kids water coloring by numbers.
In the end, I still think it's a crutch to use instead of good camera techniques but it's most definitely a gimmick for people to produce images the public wants to purchase.
Does it have a place? Sure, but there is a difference between owning a Monet and owning a well produced copy of a Monet.
I asked the some very similar questions when HDR became the prevalent mode of photography. Aren't we losing the art of taking a good photo if all we're doing is letting software make the picture "perfect?" Is photography dead and digital artistry taking it's place?
Perhaps it's because I first learned photography with a 35mm and a darkroom, keeping to those tools until 2004 or so when I bought my first dSLR. Still, I try very hard to capture the images in camera using post processing in a limited fashion. It may be why I can't compete with the "big boys." Who knows?
A year or so ago I got into a discussion (on G+) with Jay Gould about some photographers obsessive use of HDR. He was one and he may have taken my point of view personally, but I didn't care. He was adamant that a photographer has to give the people what they want or they will die penniless. And that may be true for fine art or portraits, but as an artistic medium?
I don't know ... Perhaps I'm too much of a purist. I've been thinking about dusting off my old 35mm and giving it a go again, if only for fun - to get back to the basics, so to speak. Of course, I have no idea where I'd develop the film these days.
But yes, to your point, Ugo: the ease of access and use of modern photography has created a stale playing field. Brilliant colors are easily come by, unique landscapes are only a short walk from the car to the best photo location away. Photographers, like photography, follow trends as each of us tries to re-create or improve on other's work that inspires us. Are we artists or are we just the button-pushers? As artists it's our responsibility to push the edge of our medium. As button-pushers ... well, maybe we eat regularly.
Can we be both? That is the question. I don't have any artistic ability what-so-ever. I can't play an instrument or even read music; I don't paint any better than an ape (and sometimes not even as good); I can't draw, sculpt or work wood. Photography is my artistic outlet and while I may not be the best or even good, it's something I need in my life to force my mind into using the other hemisphere.
Comments