27 Oct 11. Having gone about as far as we could up a local "hill" and still have a view, the three of us were each working on our individual approaches to capturing the moment when I made an offhand comment about the lighting being a good time to employ the HDR approach, which you will observe I didn't for this image (dark area in LRH corner). One of the other photographers immediately stated that such photography was gimmickry and that real photographers shouldn't have to compete with them. In that I like the approach, and think it a valid way to show what the eye can capture and photography can't in a single exposure, asked him to explain himself. He stated that images shouldn't be manipulated but be required to be just what comes out of the camera. I then asked if he was shooting the RAW format and he said no, he was shooting jpeg images. The third photographer then made the statement that jpeg images were manipulated by the computer in the camera. That tended to really irritate the other individual, and when I then asked about how making an HDR image was any different than the manipulations done by Ansel Adams on ALL his images I got a red faced reply that what Ansel did was different. To which when I asked how, the response given was that Ansel used chemicals, not a computer. Both of us who were asking the questions then did a bit of "education" about how the modern cameras manipulate the images for him, sometimes considerable amounts over which the jpeg shooter has no control, as compared to the total control available with a RAW image, and things shortly returned to normal. All-in-all I found the conversation to be somewhat amazing considering the digital age in which we are all shooting. The image you see today is a composite of 10 shots that I've stitched together. Mt Baker at 10,781 feet is on the left and Mt Shuksan at 9,131 feet is on the right. In the very ULH corner you can faintly see the moon. ISO 200; 1/200 sec @ f /14 on a tripod.
The adjusted version.
28 Oct 11. Since I've been discussing the HDR approach to imaging for a couple of days I thought I'd comment on one aspect of this form of photography of which a lot of individuals find less than appealing, and here I'm not addressing the "grunge" look, but rather, the generally flat, i.e., lacking in contrast, appearance to the images. This should not be surprising as the HDR process is one of toning down the bright highlights and brightening the shadows, hence the term "tone mapping." While this process allows the photographer to capture a wider dynamic range in the original scene, it does leave the final image looking somewhat synthetic. Newer HDR programs are offering controls to overcome this, but many users apparently either don't understand their use, aren't aware of what the controls provide, or just imply like the flat look of the HDR output. There is obviously nothing wrong with the flat look, or the grunge look for that matter, it is simply a matter of taste. But for those individuals who prefer there be more contrast, and thus a somewhat livelier image, the solution is simple, either use a curves adjustment layer to brighten the highlights and darken the shadows, or use a shadows / highlights adjustment tool to achieve a similar effect. The two approaches differ a bit in how they achieve the goal, but either tool works equally well. To illustrate the point, I'm including two images for today's mailing. The copy of the photo that says "adjusted" has had a curves adjustment made to it; the other copy is the direct HDR output without enhancement and is much flatter. My intent is not to place emphasis on either image, but rather to illustrate why some folks don't like the HDR "stuff" and a simple solution to the problem; you pick what you prefer. There is no correct choice. ISO 200; 1/200 sec @ f / 7.
