All photos are lies, but all photos are the truth (at least to that photographer at that time)!
All photos are lies, but all photos are the truth (at least to that photographer at that time)!Yes. It is unethical to lie, about HDR or anything else. Is that what we are really talking about?
If I don't notice HDR, it's fine. If I do, it's hideous. Photography is mostly about the interplay of light and shadow. HDR sucks all the shadows out, reducing a scene to a flat, lifeless, synthetic visual mush. Dynamic range is overrated, there's nothing wrong with a nice black shadow to counterpoint a highlight.
HDR is the digital wantabe for film photography. Rather than use the HDR crutch until digital had can handle a wider exposure range, digital should work on what it does best.
Perfect.If I don't notice HDR, it's fine. If I do, it's hideous. Photography is mostly about the interplay of light and shadow. HDR sucks all the shadows out, reducing a scene to a flat, lifeless, synthetic visual mush. Dynamic range is overrated, there's nothing wrong with a nice black shadow to counterpoint a highlight.
All of the things you listed probably would be unethical to a strict follower of "f:64", but not to a much maligned pictorial photographer. All would be acceptable and used in pictorial photography if that helped get across the feeling the photographer had when he/she took the picture. In my book, good pictures have emotional content in addition to technical expertise.........Regards!people have been able to do similar things to hdr for generations .. some films have had a small latitude
so many exposures were made and printed together just like HDR .. hdr being unethical or somehow different
ls like asking if burning + dodging, sandwiching negatives, dropping in sky, clouds, retouching negatives with graphite
cutting and pasting / combination printing or ... is somehow unethical .. i never can get the idea that hdr is unethical or somehow over the top ..
its no more over the top than doing anything else ...
hi sg
does that mean photographers who flash their paper or film before ( or after ) exposure
should just learn to deal with the film or paper's limited range ? or people who do selenium intensification
or oodles of other things to make their negatives better ... what about MG filtration
i mean how about if all photographers ( black and white i guess ) just used grade 3 paper and nothing else
( or was it grade 2 ? ) no filters and no funky developers to enhance or deplete contrast if their negatives weren't
"dialed in" to that specific paper ..
while i know where you are coming from ... just the same,
often times the gripes people put forth about HDR or digital photography
(as a film photographer myself)
generally seem to be sort of disingenuous seeing the same or similar things people who do chemical photography
to make better images, aren't allowed with digital users. ... just because.
yeah i know there;s a lot of ©r@P out there but there's always been a lot of that out there..
By the way, I never heard of HDR before reading this post. Photography shorthand would be great if everyone could read it and not everyone can. Old timers like me and beginners alike.......Regards!All of the things you listed probably would be unethical to a strict follower of "f:64", but not to a much maligned pictorial photographer. All would be acceptable and used in pictorial photography if that helped get across the feeling the photographer had when he/she took the picture. In my book, good pictures have emotional content in addition to technical expertise.........Regards!
i never said you said the other things, I said those other things ..Do not add in things that I never stated. I did not talk about those things, none of which have to do with multiple exposures. Nor did I discuss chemical [READ: REAL] photography. HDR takes multiple exposures, during which time the scene can change or overtly modified. Digital photography today does not have the exposure range to take some low light situations with enough data for the image and therefore uses the crutch of multiple images and mashing things around with software.
All of the things you listed probably would be unethical to a strict follower of "f:64", but not to a much maligned pictorial photographer. All would be acceptable and used in pictorial photography if that helped get across the feeling the photographer had when he/she took the picture. In my book, good pictures have emotional content in addition to technical expertise.........Regards!
+1To use or not use HDR is not an ethical question; it is an aesthetic question.
That would be true if you HDR processed in monochrome,. High dynamic range photography is multiple exposure processing to eliminate different areas of contrast or luminance. It's one of a number of tools, like sharpness and saturation, whose use some people have no discrimination over.It is a little like saying B&W photos are "hideous" because it suck all of the color out!
Don't be too harsh on photographers that use HDR. I'm one of the old dog photographers that didn't have the luxury HDR. Back in the film days shooting in the studio, photographers use to gobo hot spots and fill dark shadows. It was especially tough on interior photographers that had to balance out different brightnesses in an interior scene. They used to shoot a lot of Polaroids to figure out where to fill the shadows and where to gobo off bright areas. How about landscape photographers using graduated filters to hold back the brightness of the sky? HDR makes contrast control easier. If it's HDR is done too far, it doesn't look natural.
He's brilliant! He did a lot of work to get those shots. But here's an interesting tidbit. He was held captive in his darkroom.Look at how O Winston Link solved the problem of light and depth of field with his steam locomotive photographs.
https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/when-steam-locomotion-ground-to-a-halt/
http://roanokehistory.org/links-train-photos-document-rural-culture/
http://www.virginialiving.com/the-daily-post/full-steam-ahead/
https://www.americanheritage.com/content/o-winston-link-museum
My theory is HDR was a reaction to the limited dynamic range of older digital sensors, and it became part of the visual repertoire even though it was no longer needed. This may be an exposure issue, a sense that the general public require shadow detail even if the highlights blow out. This is easily eliminated by underexposing anywhere between a half and two and a half stops, and letting the shadows do their own thing. That requires manual exposure, or at least a thumb on the exposure compensation dial.at least my Fuji X-30 is polite enough to ask if I want HDR
We see with our brains not our eyes.
The picture of the outside world that we perceive in our minds is assembled from information sent by the eye via the optic nerve. The actual dynamic range of the eye is very limited so the signal with shadow detail has nothing in the highlights. The signal with highlights has empty shadows. But the brain seamlessly assembles the information and offers it to our perception as a biological equivalent of HDR.
The eye continually flickers about, a process called saccades, and sends multiple different glimpses of the world to the brain which dutifully stitches all the alternative pictures together to produces our perception of our surroundings.
Our view of the world is actually stitched HDR. It is no wonder that when these techniques are replicated in digital picture fabrication the results can look familiar and attractive. It is also true that no one, by effort of will, can turn off the constant stitching and HDR-ing that underlies our vision.
I'd suggest, with some irony, that the only way to see what the world looks like without mental stitching and HDR is to take a straight photograph of it. A photograph meaning, in this case, the visible impression of an optical image in a light sensitive surface.
As to the ethical question about which view is true, how we see versus how film sees, the answer is that both are true within their understood limits. And we can choose which one to embrace. But they are not the same thing.
I personally think adding elements (a moon, clouds, etc.) might be more of an issue (maybe not quite an ethical issue) than HDR. I notice some photographers always seem to come across scenes with super dramatic skies, and I often wonder. From another perspective it also detracts when a photographer does capture a super dramatic sky, because you might,wonder...
In one sense digital photography has killed the innocence with which people approach an image. The truth of a picture has been under attack since the earliest double exposures and mattes, but the effort to deceive was more than most people were prepared to invest, and we satisfied ourselves with a little burning in or holding back.I notice some photographers always seem to come across scenes with super dramatic skies, and I often wonder
I just like to say how what a wonderful job you did on the first picture, wish I could edit even close to that. Im sure the others are good as well, but the b&w stands out.Nothing wrong with HDR. No photo police. If you are shooting for a client then suck up to the client and do as they demand. Otherwise do as you like, a photog is free to choose.
I have the impression that most film shooters scan rather than print their images from the negative. So they have every opportunity to monkey around with them in scanning software and Photoshop.Part of the return to film is a quest for authenticity and away from ISO invariance, HDR, pre-sharpening and a world mediated by slider controls and Photoshop.
I have the impression that most film shooters scan rather than print their images from the negative. So they have every opportunity to monkey around with them in scanning software and Photoshop.
Like I said, it is an impression. It may be wrong, but I don't see many questions in this forum about how to make color prints. How else do these young film shooters get their images up on Instagram?Where do you come to the conclusion that the majority of film shooters at Photrio scan rather than chemical print? Did you find that secret mysterious non-existent survey? Many film shooters here still use a darkroom and not Fauxto$hopping. What percentage? I do not know but I am not going to make some wild assumptions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?