What! Dave says HDR sucks? Are we in for some kind of major turnaround here? If you’ve read this blog for any length of time you’ll know that I’m a huge advocate for HDR so the post title can’t be coming from me, surely? You have to admit, though, that had I called it “Why a Sizeable Percentage of the Photography Community Thinks HDR Sucks”, you probably wouldn’t have clicked through that link, would you? 🙂 This post, however, puts forward my suggestions on why HDR sucks to so many seasoned photographers.
Just to keep the record straight, I most certainly don’t think that HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography sucks but I do have a pretty good idea why so many people seem to think that it does. Hopefully I can illustrate some of these reasons in this article which I’ve illustrated using embarrassing images from my past (all of these are still on Flickr – think of it as a kind of penance for me). I felt this was somewhat kinder than picking bad examples from other photographers but, if you want to see some, just wander through Flickr’s HDR group.
First of all, there will be people who hate HDR for reasons that are not covered by this article. I include in this group, the people who discount photography in general as a form of art. These people are of the opinion that all art must involve laying carbon, ink or paint onto paper or canvas by hand and, since photography doesn’t do this, it can’t be true art. To these folks, I say just move along and go back to your crayons since there’s nothing here for you.
There are another group who reject HDR and all forms of post-processing or digital manipulation of images on the grounds that the results are not “real”. This group appears to consider only single exposures valid but fail to take into account the fact that the capabilities of digital cameras are changing and improving all the time, and that the amount of processing performed on the images in-camera is increasing with every generation. As things move forward, assuming “real” is defined as the result of a single shutter click, these people will have to expand their definition of “real” to include wider and wider dynamic ranges and even in-camera HDR so they will likely change their opinions in the end. (As an aside, these people are often quite happy to include monochrome imagery in their definition of “realistic” photography. I find that rather strange.)
The majority of people who claim to hate HDR, I suspect, hate not HDR but badly applied tonemapping (the part of the HDR workflow which generates the output image that you end up seeing). HDR describes a set of techniques and not a look, but too many people fail to realise this and associate the term with funky looking images where the techniques have been applied very poorly. It’s disappointing but true that badly done HDR is extremely easy to recognise due to several commonly-made processing errors that stand out. Let’s consider a few images that exhibit these problems and which people should be encouraged to dislike. Click each to see the original on Flickr if you would like to see a larger version.
Why HDR Sucks (using my images as examples)
- The basic picture is pretty uninteresting. It’s a snap of an excavator. I did use a wide angle lens and I did shoot from a low angle to try to create an interesting perspective but the effect isn’t pronounced enough to really make this anything special. There are pictures to be had in this scene but, nowadays, I wouldn’t have shot this one.
- The ghosting in the clouds is horrid. You’ll need to look at the high resolution version to see this but there are multiple images of each cloud in the sky. This occurred due to the time between each of the 3 exposures that comprised the original bracket used to build the image. At this point in my development, I didn’t notice this and didn’t retouch the sky to get rid of the problem. Ghosting is a problem in all HDRs where any movement occurs between the individual exposures. A good photographer will notice this and fix it before publishing the picture.
- You can see a great example of tonal inversion in the clouds. When you push the HDR tonemapping too far, you end up finding that areas which should contain highlights turn grey. There’s a fine line between dramatic skies (which can be created really well when tonemapping) and overcooked skies like this one.
- What was I thinking with that vignette? I suspect I was worried about the fact that I had a bunch of blown-out highlights in the sky (another indication that my tonemapping wasn’t right) and tried to fix them by merely reducing the brightness of the sky and edges by painting partly-transparent black over those areas. The result is a horribly unsubtle blob of a vignette. Yuk.
If you produce work like this, please discard it immediately or, at least, learn to recognise the processing errors and practice techniques needed to fix them. In this particular case, more subtle tonemapping parameters followed by some time in Photoshop to replace the horrid sky would likely have yielded a far more acceptable image.
Katz’s Never Kloses
Take a look at the sky in this picture, for example. Have you ever seen a clear sky that shade of grey? The tonemapping choices I made to get the car looking about right caused the sky to become horribly unnatural. The fix here would have been to try different tonemapping settings or, more likely, generate a couple of versions of the image, one where the foreground looked right and one where the sky looked right then blend them in Photoshop.
Another problem in this shot is the strange variation in brightness over the front of the car. Why are the sides of the hood so much brighter than the centre? I’m not sure if that’s a tonemapping artifact (Photomatix does some really strange things to areas of the same colour that are crossed by high contrast lines – try tonemapping an image of a suspension bridge taken on a clear day if you want to see what I mean) or whether I tried to rescue the image by using some bad dodging to darken part of the car but, regardless, it’s something that should have been fixed before I thought of posting the image.
Wildflower Center Cistern Roof
As I mentioned before, HDR is a set of tools not an end in itself. To generate a good HDR photograph, you need to start with a great scene and compose the image well then, if necessary, use HDR techniques to overcome any camera-related limitations if the brightness range is wider than you can capture in a single shot.
Although I don’t like this picture, there is a picture to be taken in here. If I was reshooting this, I would likely have zoomed in and generated a pattern picture with the skylight sitting on one of the thirds. Maybe I’ll try that next time I’m at the Wildflower Center.
Texas House HDR
This problem is most commonly seen in skies. When you are about to publish an HDR containing a blue sky, take a look outside then look back at your picture and ask yourself if you’ve ever seen a sky that colour. If it seems a bit on the over-blue side, please fix it.
Live Oaks at Fort Bend County Courthouse
Fixing this type of problem is straightforward in Photoshop (this image is the example I used in my tutorial on the Magic Blue Sky Halo Removal Method but I was just being too lazy that evening to do the job properly.
Another couple of problems are evident here. I need to fix (or, at least, reduce) the converging verticals which make the courthouse lean into the shot and I also need to clean up the front of the courthouse building itself which is suffering from a bit of tonal inversion caused by my aggressive tonemapping. Again, these are pretty easy to fix in Photoshop but I was just being lazy.
The point here is that even if you have the material to produce a great image, if you do a slapdash job of processing it, you can ruin the result. Take the time necessary to get the image right (or as right as you can make it) and only publish it when you have done as good a job as you can.
I’ve spent quite a while airing my own dirty laundry but hopefully you see what I’m getting at. Pictures like these are the ones that the HDR-averse are seeing daily and which are causing them to come to the conclusion that HDR in general sucks. What they don’t realise is that the same techniques which were used so badly above are being used all over to great effect and that, because the job is done so well, you don’t actually notice the technique – you see only a spectacular image and not the tools behind it. Here are a few of mine that I hope fall into this later category. All of these use HDR and exposure blending techniques but would you immediately recognise them as HDR images?
To anyone reading this who professes to hate HDR, therefore, I would ask one thing. Please consider the image itself rather than the methods used to create it. I’ve offered several images that are, indeed, terrible and which do, as it happens, use HDR. Condemning HDR in general based on these (and other) example is, however, throwing the baby out with the bathwater since there are many, many examples of the same techniques being applied and resulting in good images.