The camera never lies… Or does it !?!?…

The Camera Never Lies

So I thought I’d use this opportunity to show some of what is professionally known in the trade as “cheating”… lol.. Well ok, maybe not cheating so much.. or at least as far as I’m concerned it’s not cheating, although I’m sure the purists would wholly disagree…  To me it is however making the most of what technology offers us to better represent the scene as we “actually” see it…

You may notice that quite a large percentage of my landscape work has had some “tweaking” done to it, and most of this is using a technique called HDR (High Dynamic Range)… And before the purists amongst you climb up on to your lofty steeds and start screaming for the celluloid police to come drag me to some dark corner kicking and screaming… HDR has actually been around looooong before digital photography…

HDR is actually in modern day terms a digital blending images captured at differing exposures, but dates back to as early as the 1850’s… “The idea of using several exposures to fix a too-extreme range of luminance was pioneered as early as the 1850s by Gustave Le Gray to render seascapes showing both the sky and the sea. Such rendering was impossible at the time using standard techniques, the luminosity range being too extreme. Le Gray used one negative for the sky, and another one with a longer exposure for the sea, and combined the two in a single picture in positive.” (wikipedia)

So there you go…. There’s one in the eye for the film purists who seem to have a deep seated loathing of anything HDR…. Now ok, I guess I can understand some disdain for the process as it has been much overused and some of the extremes of processing you see are quite frankly…. ummmm…. well…. It’s no wonder it has gained a bad reputation… But when used properly it’s intended effect is to more accurately represent what the human eye can perceive, which is a much higher dynamic contrast ratio than any static range achievable by any modern display technology… due to the constant adjustment of the iris and the chemical changes within the eye itself…

So below you will see the original SOOC (straight out of the camera) image…

And now the standard tonemapped (HDR) image… without any additional processing…

And I think you’ll agree that the tonemapped image isn’t particularly impressive and still requires some work… And this is where more technology comes in very handy in the form of Photoshop, and what I normally do is then blend the original raw image with the tonemapped image to obtain a much more presentable and hopefully much more realistic “as seen” scene…

Hopefully… if even one purist HDR hater reads this and thinks “Hmmmmm…. maybe he has a point there”…. then my work is done…. lol… ;)

Oh by the way…. Yeah I know the picture itself is crap, but I didn’t want to detract from the processing explanation with an image that would take the focus of the post, so I chose something deliberately mediocre so’s to show the processing itself… :)

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Bertie

    Oooh I’ve been waiting for just such an article from the master of hdr. Very well explained and demonstrated Mr. Funky. And I had no idea the beginnings of HDR began in the 1800’s. Wow. Too cool… Hopefully this will make some critics think twice ;)

    December 14, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    • “Master of HDR”… lol… Well I’m not so sure about that as methinks plenty are far better than me… but I do like to point out to the purists that the whole concept of blending images of different exposures isn’t a “digital” phenomena… and has deep seated roots back to the early days of film… :)

      Thanks for the visit as always though… and the compliment… :)

      December 15, 2009 at 12:05 am

  2. troy

    I had no idea …really! Thanks for the explanation and I’m looking forward to seeing (and learning) more.

    January 10, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    • Well it certainly does appear to be a conveniently forgotten fact by the film purists… and it does kinda annoy me when they slate HDR… I started out way back in the days of film myself and can’t understand why people see digital editing as evil… Most of it is after all based on many old film processes, but just using a different, and in many cases more readily available medium…

      January 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s