The HDR Debate – What’s All The Fuss?
Before I get started, let me just say that I am not looking to stir the flames that seemed to have been fanned by Trey Ratcliff’s guest blog appearance over at the Photoshop Insider this past Wednesday. Trey wasn’t the one stirring things up, in fact his article really had nothing to do with HDR and was a very insightful piece that I highly recommend you read. Here’s the thing though, Trey is most widely known for his HDR photography (he has just released a book of his HDR work) and in some circles is widely credited with popularizing the look with his heavily toned, brightly saturated images. Of course Trey would be the first to downplay that analogy. He’s just a guy that found something that he really enjoyed doing and was passionate about and shared it through his website, Stuck In Customs. So why then is there such venom for over something that so many people have come to enjoy?
There are those that might call themselves purists and will decry even the mentioning of HDR as incorrect and a bastardization of the true meaning of high dynamic range. Are they correct? Well, technically yes. HDR is more about capturing the range of tones that fall outside of the normal dynamic range of a single image range. It is a process to capture that extended tonal range through the use of multiple exposures, which are then combined into a 32-bit file that contains extended highlight and shadow detail. When that information is squeezed back into an 8 or 16-bit file, those extended tones need to be mapped back into a gamut that can be seen and printed by today’s display technology, thus we get the term “tonemapping”. Sounds complicated doesn’t it? The simple truth is that the look that many adapters of HDR capture and processing can look over-the-top to some people. I have heard it referred to as cartoonish or Harry Potterish. Or, as someone said last Wednesday, “It Sux” and “isn’t real photography”. It’s this type of statement that I have a problem with.
Juan Gris - Portrait of Picasso
The mere words imply that we must all conform to one person’s definition of what is good and what is bad. What is art and what is trash. So if this is the case, who’s opinion is the correct one? Was it the person that said that Cubism isn’t art? How about Surrealism, or pop-art, or any other art form that was new and innovative and “different” from the norm. The truth is that, as much as it irritates some of you out there, the term HDR will forever be associated with a style of imaging, no matter what the process or software used. There’s no since in fighting it because it is just too popular of a label now to ever get that genie back in the bottle. As for whether or not HDR is art or not is not for me to say, at least not where you are concerned. You will need to form your own opinion. If you like it, great, if not, that’s okay too. Just remember that any art form is subjective and open to self-interpretation. Just as I don’t think that Campbell Soup cans are art, there are a lot of folks that would disagree.
As for those of you that are interested in learning HDR and exploring what it has to offer, I say play to your heart’s content. Photography should be personal before it is anything else. If you like what you see and want to try your hand at it, then by all means, you should. How many people do you think have ever tried to emulate the style and processes of Ansel Adams because they so loved the look of his images. They may not have been successful but I bet they learned a lot along the way, which probably made them better photographers. Just remember that you should always try to create for yourself. Do the thing that inspires you the most and then work at it, rejoice in it, and, if you are brave enough to face the haters, share it with the rest of the world.
Related posts:
没有评论:
发表评论