In the meantime, HDR techniques can be used to make a better photographic image, truer to what the photographer saw, or it can be used to manipulate a digital image to create something else, usually quite a bit on the surreal side. I would agree that the latter probably ought to be called something other than photographs, but from what I’ve read, I also think the “argument” between “realistic” and “painterly” photographers is a debate that has been going on since the early 1900′s.

Not all scenes are suitable for applying HDR techniques. I read a book (which has gone back to the library, so I can’t say if it’s the one cited above) which pointed out that there is no point in using HDR techniques when the EV range of a scene is entirely within the sensor’s range. On the other hand, as a photographer in the “realistic” school, I think an image like this one greatly benefited from having an HDR tool in my digital darkroom: http://redwoodtwig.deviantart.com/art/Afternoon-Light-160318996 The lighting and coloring and tones are much closer to what I saw, unlike any of the individual frames that I made, even though this HDR rendering has been dumbed down to 8 bits. I have found that subtle improvements through HDR techniques usually turn out better than tweaking with other digital darkroom tools like curves and layers.

But, if you look close, you will see that the images didn’t quite line up due to the light breeze. I now realize I just needed more patience — I should have waited there for the whole afternoon until I had enough time to make three exposures with no wind. There’s still no substitute for getting the exposures you want out of the camera.

I think the biggest problem with HDR is that, while sometimes it can make for better art (but not photos), it is NEVER with current technology a higher dynamic range. It baffles me how people think taking the shadows and making them mid-range, and then taking the highlights and making them mid-range as well would somehow result in a final image with higher dynamic range. Most (crappy) HDR images are pretty much just grey!

(Yes, I realize it’s a very old post, but I just had to say this )

Often when I see a HDR image it isn’t really a HDR image… That’s deep. It is most of the time some overly tone mapped exposure(s) pushed far beyond the range of what the data that was actually captured is capable of covering.

There are 2 major problems with the HDR argument.

One: What constitutes a HDR? How large of an EV range does an image need to have to be considered a High Dynamic Range image as opposed to a LDR?

And

Two: Your eye can see a much large range of light then the best digital or film camera can capture. So, when you look at a LDR image from your camera it isn’t actually anything like what your eyes see in terms of EV stops. So your feelings about the realism or accuracy of HDR images is based on what we have grown accustomed to expecting in LDR exposures.
A properly constructed HDR will more accurately depict what your eye sees then a traditional LDR photo. We just aren’t used to seeing images like that. For over a hundred years we have been stuck in a LDR world where we have to interpret what we see into a flattened contrasty, dumb down version of what is really visible to the human eye and we have taken that as the standard.

Now I’m not knocking standard photography. I personally like high contrast and silhouettes in my images. I do however think that most people are truly uninformed as to what a HDR image is and where it falls into the grand scheme of things.

Some Numbers:

Human Eye: 14 EV some even say it goes as high as 20EV but the standard agreeable figure is 14
HDR: as many as you want
FIlm & Digital Sensor: 6-8 EV
Print: 6 EV

I would like to know what cameras are taking higher EV stops then the human eye…. We should all have one if it exists.

Often when I see an HDR image I have to look closely to determine whether it is a photograph, a very detailed drawing, or a 3D render. I’m a little bit wary of them for this reason, and I’d really rather people don’t misrepresent them as anything other than HDR images.

all in all don’t discredit HDR its just another field

My problem with HDR is that too many people, particularly tech geeks, focus on it instead of basic traditional photographic techniques for handling lighting, color, and timing. I’ve even heard people say things like “wow, that’s a nice HDR!”.

[I unfortunately also fall into this bin of tech geeks who know a lot more about camera equipment than photography. On that note, i'll also say that the latest and greatest of DSLRs has a higher dynamic range than the human eye, but lacks the brain for adjusting the exposure on the fly]

Display technology is limited, and print technology is limited in different ways, but a good photograph looks good on both.

I’m not really such a stranger – I visit pretty much every day, but am shy of commenting on every post, though I enjoy all, be they plants, photography, family or just life in Japan !