HDR – Follow Up
Thanks to all for so many thoughtful responses to my HDR rant. The concesus, I believe, is that any technique is acceptable as long as the technique does not overpower the content. Seems logical and simple, yet there are some photographers who simply can not get past technique and see the photo for its content. For example, I know one photographer who hates square format images. No matter what the image content, if it is a square image, he rejects it.
I think as photographers we can spend far too much time trying to find little nitpick details about an image; little things that 99% of people would not notice or care about. But these little imperfections can sour a photo for us. If we are only looking for technical perfection in a photo (often self-defined), then we often miss the bigger point of the image–the message, the feeling, and the story. If we can only accept technically perfect photos, then most of the greatest photographic images of all times would have to be rejected!
I find that on many photo forums, people yap about the little details that don’t matter; the silly “I see some barrel distortion in this image”, or “the highlights are too bright”, or “the stone in the left corner could be a little darker”. Really this stuff shouldn’t be science; photography is art. Art is not about precision and technical perfection, it is about expression. Either the photo works on an emotional level or it does not. The more anal one gets about the technical aspects of an image, the less one actually sees what the image is about and in turn the less emotion is shown in one’s own work. I find that the most technically proficient photographers often have the most stale work. If we can get past the technical craft of our art, often the photo has much more to say to us.
Neil Young as a musician is technically not precise, but the emotion in his music shines through. I would rather listen to the ‘rough’ work of an emotional musician than the tight work of a technically perfect one (robots being the most precise). Give me mood and feeling over technical perfection anyday. Anyway, I think some photographers can’t get past their little hang-ups about technique. If HDR is not a tool you use, for reasons that are valid to you, then carry on. Art is personal, there is no right or wrong. But if you can diss an image because you ”think’ you can detect HDR remnants, then you are missing the point of the art of photography.
For those of you wanting to know which images were tonemapped and which ones were not of the nine (not ten) images I posted, here are the answers:
Image 1 – HDR4 – tonemapped
Image 2 – HDR5 – tonemapped
Image 3 – HDR6 – tonemapped
Image 4 – HDR7 – tonemapped
Image 5 – HDR8 – not
Image 6 – HDR10 - not
Image 7 - HDR11 – not
Image 8 – HDR12 – tonemapped
Image 9 – HDR13 – tonemapped
And the ‘Expert’, that said he could pick out a tonemapped image a mile away only got 50% of them right (with a half bonus point from me for one image he was sitting on the fence about). Which proves my point, people think they know how an image was created and have a bias for or against that image when in fact they may be making a false assumption. Judge an image based on the photo and not on your biases. For instance, the image below has technical problems but this image sells and sells and so has some kind of resonance in spite of its flaws. Are we, as photographers, too techy for our own good?? I think we are.
©Darwin Wiggett
June 21, 2009 at 2:41 AM
Yep, good demonstration … I think you’ve proved the point that you can make a natural photograph look tonemapped and a tonemapped photograph look natural. Out of interest, why did you use multi-exposure HDR techniques on the first shot?
Regarding ‘the average punter not caring about technical details’. I can see this to a point but in nearly all forms of ‘appreciation’, the consumers tastes change as they become more educated. For example, the ‘unexperienced/uneducated’ wine consumer will likely be ecstatic with a blended Valpolicella or Chardonnay; but as they taste more and their pallete develops, their likes and dislikes will change and initially unimportant criterion will become significant.
As photographers, we can’t satisfy all people all of the time; We make choices that subdivide our prospective audience at each step. Just because the majority don’t care about a certain aspect of photography, doesn’t mean it has no importance. If it did mean that then we’d all just take sunsets, rainbows and lolcats. Unfortunately, for most photographers, the primary audience *is* other photographers. Only a fortunate few can develop a significant audience beyond this.
p.s. This doesn’t mean I think being anal about technique is totally justified. I just think ignoring good technique because the masses don’t care is short-sighted.
June 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Tim I used HDR on the first photo to get more texture and ‘roughness’ out of the photo than a straight in-camera capture can give.
I agree with your point about tastes becoming more refined with education, but sometimes the pendulum swings to far the other way. The wine taster getting so fixated on micro nuances that may be real or imagined that they simply can not enjoy the wine for for the totality of the experience. This was the point of my rant, some photographers are just trying to find ‘excuses’ to diss a photo.
My point in the follow-up is that if we paid as much attention to story, message and mood as we did to micro-technique, then we would all be better photographers. Darwin
June 21, 2009 at 3:29 AM
I agree minor technical faults don’t detract from the overall image, and this is one reason I no longer ask for critiques on my photos. Usually if there are technical flaws then I’m already aware of them so there’s no need for others to point them out too! The other ‘flaws’ people usually comment on are usually subjective so there’s usually no right or wrong there either.
However some people post photos with quite major technique flaws (e.g. huge blown highlights, misfocus, etc), usually beginners, and they are people who would genuinely benefit from having those flaws pointed out (in a constructive way).
June 21, 2009 at 7:09 AM
Darwin, do you know of a forum besides Flickr where people don’t nitpick the tiny stuff. The three major ones that I know of are full of members like that.
Unfortunately, I stopped posting in those for that reason. I’m not as good-natured as you are about it. Perhaps because I’ve shot professionally for so many years it p***** me off when an amateur tells me how to make my photo look better, his way. I prefer to view others work and leave my commenting for when I really like something, not tell them how they should be shooting. That’s none of my business, I think.
Enjoy the photo forums. I can’t. I browse once in a while but find that I get too wound up when I am told my horizon is off. Again. LOL
All the best. Maybe I’ll see you in the parks this summer.
Dan
June 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I prefer, as you do, to tell people when images really resonate with me and then I tell them the precisely the reasons why. If there is stuff I do not like about a picture, it is usually just that I would process or crop or compose differntly. That is the equivelant of me saying, ‘if this was my picture, this is what I would do”. But it is not my photo and I respect we all have different takes, if I disagree with the presentation does it matter? I want to tell people when they really grabbed my eye and tell them why I love the work (not just ‘nice image’ though). Telling them I would do it differently is really not that helpful IMO. Darwin
June 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Interesting.. I think the pervading complaints on the main forums are that they are just about giving praise and pats on the back.. don’t think I’ve really head many complaints before that people are giving too much critique! While the impact of the image is the most important, be it perfect or not, if you’re not willing to listen to the suggestions and thoughts of your peers then I think you’re really missing out. Critiquing an image is difficult, and it should stress both what works (this could likely be the emotional impact that doesn’t depend on technicalities), and any constructive advice to make it even better. Some people aren’t as good at critiquing, but very few will just point out the flaws – there’s lots of pats on the back handed out! I can’t see any logical reason why one would want to ignore people’s thoughts and settle for mediocrity.
The only danger I see is that on the forums tastes and styles are largely evolving without the input of consumers, so it’s important to keep that in mind. However, if you think a consumer is going to like an image with some haloing, blown highlights, tilted horizons or other ‘nits’ more than the same one with no technical flaws, then I don’t know what to say.. unless of course it’s purposefully done holga style, which some do like.
June 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I think some of the nits, are so minor that really it is just the photographer trying to show how clever ‘he’ is at finding stuff to complain about that really have no impact on the photo. Often I find little is said about all the positive aspects of the image but rather that the critique concentrates on a tiny almost impercetible flaw. This happens on some sites where the level of technical and artistic quality is so high that it is hard to find anything negative to say about a photo. Then the only thing to discuss is whether the photo resonates or not and then telling people why or why not. Finding obscure technical faults (which often are only in the eye of the beholder) is like trying to measure your waistline to a 100th of a cm. It is the hairsplitting critique I am complaining about here. Darwin
June 21, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Floris, my situation might be different than most photographers on forums. Where it is a hobby or passion, I actually had to sit through two years of photo critiques. When you are learning critiques can be a wonderful thing.
You might not feel the same way that I do about critiques after earning a living full time and working with editors everyday who offer “informed” criticism. The proof is in the pudding. Before I would take anyone’s critique seriously I would like to see what kind of work they produce and do I want my work to look like theirs.
This should not be confused with posting on forums to have your work seen. Neither praise nor criticism affects how I take photos. It is simply to get the work viewed. This is why I thnk Flickr is head and shoulders better than the landscape forums I have visited.
Show your work. See other’s work. End of story.
June 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I totally agree that most “critique” forums are just people praising each other’s work. “Great shot”, Nice photo”, Amazing”. Come on. don’t you have better things to do with your time other than going through all the images posting one and two word comments on all of them? If you like the photo and can’t find anything to make it better, at least give a little more detail regarding what you like about the photo. I think it just a big game. I give you a postive and I get a positive back from you. On the contest websites, your score depends on how many friends you have. Most of the highest rating photos are good at all.
Some people act like they are afraid to say anything negative about an image. Maybe they feel they don’t know enough to point out what’s “wrong” with the image and everyone else will jump on them and reject their comment. Maybe they are afraid that the photographer will take it the wrong way and say something negative about one of their photos in return. Maybe they feel that the photographer will just reject the critique and say something like “The horizon is tilted because I wanted it that way.”, The clouds are blown out because I was going for that effect.” Ok, then if nothing is wrong with your photo, then why did you post if for a critique?
In my opinion, if you post a photo for a critique, you are asking for honest opinions. You are posting your work for positive or negative comments. You really learn nothing from “Great shot” comments.
I be honest, I don’t agree with all the critiques I get on my photos, but
when I post an image on a critique forum, I welcome critiques from photographers of all levels. If someone makes a comments that I disagree with, I will explain to them in detail why I shot the photo the way I did. For example, I like to include the sun in my sunset and sunrise photos a lot. Sometimes, I use a tight aperture for the “star” effect on the sun. I had a critique once that said “It would be better without the flare. You should never shoot into the sun.”. I then responded, indicating that it was a sunburst effect created by using a tight aperture. Some photographers were taught strict rules and never ventured from them. I learned the rules, then I learned how to break the rules.
If there is something in the photo that may confuse anyone, I include a note along with the image so that people will know ahead of time that it was something I wanted in the image, not just a mistake.
June 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Oops, hey Darwin, we need an Edit feature. The end of the first paragraph should read “not good at all.”. Maybe I should proof read BEFORE I click the submit button. Hahaha
June 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM
We need to achieve a certian level of technical precision so that bad technique does not overshadow the message of the image. I am not talking about obvious detracting flaws but the little tiny things that really are not noticable except by those that are fixated on technique or are biased against certian techniques (like HDR). If we spent more time on getting a strong message in our images and working on developing our abilities to see we would be much better off than working on fixing an image at the pixel peeping level. I am for critiques and benefit greatly from them, but we also need to talk about the message and story in the photo, does it resonate or not? Darwin
June 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Darwin,
I have known many photographers who are into more of the technical part of photography than the art of it. Their work is technically correct, but not something I would want to hang on my wall. Photography is a technical art. When I look at some of my favorite photographers’ work like yours, I can believe that the image is technically good and in addition, it is a photo that is pleasing to look at. A photographer can photograph a telephone pole with great lighting, exposure, sharpness, etc, but is it something that makes me say “WOW, I would love to have a big 30X40 inch print hanging on my wall.” or “I could look at that everyday and never get tired of it.”? No. Maybe someone who is really into telephone poles, but not me.
Darwin, I remember years ago, as a test, you purposely posted an image on a website which you knew it had all kinds of things wrong with it. You did it just to see if anyone would post any negative comments. They were all positive. I think it may have been something like “Online Photo Contest”. That was where I first saw your work. The website no longer exist. I think photosig.com or photoblink.com are sites that give real critiques, but there are sitll some people who will only mention the things they like about the photos.
June 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Yes Dennis, a major problem with critiques is the politics of the forums. A certian photographer produces evocative work and garners a following and no matter what this person posts, it is met with adulation. Even ‘crap’ is adored. And then down the line the work gets so popular, there is a backlash aginst this person’s work and then the harsh microscopic critiques start to happen. It becomes fashionable to diss the person. (I see this happening now with a number of internet forum ’stars’)
We also see this in pop culture. A person rises meteorically to fame and then is condemned and critiqued for the same work that was once adored. Human nature, I guess. All we all want is honest unbiased opinion. It would be great if most forum sites offered anonymous postings. Darwin
June 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM
“A certian photographer produces evocative work and garners a following and no matter what this person posts, it is met with adulation. Even ‘crap’ is adored”
How true see this a lot.
“It would be great if most forum sites offered anonymous postings.” They probably would if it was popular look at the one on NPN and youll see why they don’t . Folks seem to need to know who the author is in order to formulate their opinion .
Rodney
June 21, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I think when A Photographer becomes known as “masters” on a forum, people think their work is automatically perfect. They think “Who am I to point out something wrong with the work of a master?”, “I will probably be wrong and end up embarrassed.”. Then, other “masters” who come along and see the small technical flaws and nothing but praises think “Well, this photographer is not as good as everyone thinks he is.”. “I’m going to show off my knowledge by pointing out the flaws.”. That’s when all the extreme microscopic critiques begin to try to downgrade him. Maybe it jealously. Some people can’t see the forest because of the trees. In other works, they are looking so closely at the photo, trying to find every little flaw that they are missing the “big picture”.
June 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Dennis, your summary is perfect! This was the point I was trying to make but I did it with alot more words and much less clarity. Thanks for the excellent summary! Darwin
June 21, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I just can’t write anything without those errors popping up after I hit the submit button. The first line should read “I think when photographers become knows as “masters”…
June 21, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Darwin,
You have said what I have known for the last thirty years.
There are just too many photographers that think they better then the rest of us. I say, “Show me your stuff.”
I call them, (not all) Arm Chair Photographers. They never spend any time in the field and they are the experts. Experts at cutting down other photographers work that’s about it.
Well done on your HDR Rant. Maybe it is put to rest.
July 27, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I am a photographer that has had extensive experience in the Visual Effects industry for film. Some of my colleagues and I have a saying. If it looks right it is right. Meaning if you look at it under normal circumstances, such as a photo hanging on a wall and it looks good…who cares about the rest. I get very irritated with some of the photographers that pixel peep and judge a photo by how they think the final result has been achieved. I know at least 6 people off hand that could manufacture an entire picture without a camera that would have people arguing about wether or not it was a photo. That’s what they got paid to do, trick you into thinking something was real. So in this day and age it’s a waste of time arguing or judging about techniques or whether or not it was edited this way or that. Look at the picture as a whole. Do you like it when you first look at it? That’s most likely what your real opinion is. The one you have 10 seconds after seeing the image. Before you pulled out your little Loupe, zoomed in to 200% or looked at the name of who took it.
I really liked what Darwin said earlier “I am for critiques and benefit greatly from them, but we also need to talk about the message and story in the photo, does it resonate or not?” People are often as interested in the story with the picture or the story the picture tells itself. Something they can talk about with their friends as they describe why they like it. Most of the time only fellow photographers will start to discuss the technical details.
Sorry if this came off as a rant. I guess this topic just got me thinking about some things that frustrate me.
Shannon
August 4, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Fantastic write up Darwin, this read made my day, i was torn between the comments i sometimes get in the forums, i know that something is missing in the image but still i like it for something that is there in it and that very thing made me capture it.
When people tear it apart for technical reasons and other nits, it makes me think what the heck!, but after reading your post and other replies from Dan and Dennis, am now more clear in my mind on what i need and what am doing and what i visualise.
thanks again for clearing up my thoughts and making it right
August 8, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I’m going to keep it simple.
If you like it then its good but if you don’t like how it looks then its never going to be good.
I am getting more tolerant in as I get older and tend not to get hung up on how it was made but just enjoy the image if it appeals to me.
I personally have no qualms about heavy processing or HDR or anything of that nature, it just boils down to personal preference.
I did the heavy duty processing HDR routine for awhile but find myself back to doing exposure blending. Having said that, I personally would like to learn the art of exposure better and Darwin is an excellent example to follow with regards to ND grad filters to balance the light in nature photography.
that’s where I’m headed, but you know, its just all good.
all the best to everyone and hope you get fantastic photo’s for the summer of 09
regards,
Evan Spellman