hahaha

[quote=St3v3M]Published on January 18, 2012 by Michael Zhang


“By using HDR,” he told me by email, “The Washington Post has combined different moments, and thereby created an image that does not exist. The aircraft visible in the final product was not there for all the other moments combined into the final, and that alone simply raises too many questions about the factual validity of the actual published image.” [#]

Hmm, aren't HDR and compositing two completely different things? Aren't they apples and oranges?

Isn't HDR is the blending of multiple exposures of a *single composition* to produce a net dynamic range image of that single composition that is wider than what can be captured in a single frame -- without adding or deleting elements to the composition?

And, isn't compositing the combining (or removing) of selected elements of two or more *separate, unique compositions* to create a final image that never existed in a single captured frame?

And, isn't there even more photojournalist dishonesty perpetrated by simple cropping of a non-HDR, non-composited image? See below...

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

The gentleman I spoke of often took HDR images of only the front view of the home. He used it to cancel / enhance any large differences in shade and/or light. He used 5 images to correct the difference. The corrected image only shows the correction, but arguably not what the image looks like at the time taken. It does however look great online or on a flyer. Unless you were charging enough to afford scouting the property beforehand, then choosing the time of day to photograph, I would say not only was HDR an advantage, it was a necessity.
It was a great tool because you have to include the entire front view. The side or rear views were generally shot closer and if corrections were needed, flash was used. He said he never used HDR for interior shots unless it was a very high dollar property and it was going to a magazine and chances were it would be consistent with doing an evening shoot HDR shoot with interior lighting. Most jobs of that caliber were usually staged by others prior to the shoot.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Those three images certainly tell different stories! Wow!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I think the standards for manipulation in photojournalism have become more stringent in the digital age, since it is easier. One of our greatest photojournalists, W. Eugene Smith, aggressively manipulated his photos in the darkroom, burning and dodging and selective bleaching, usually to make the main subject stand out and minimize the background, to the extent that if you did it today digitally, it would be considered unethical.

I think any manipulation which is meant to bring out detail which wouldn't be seen otherwise should be permitted. That includes HDR, or burning and dodging to bring out shadow or highlight detail which is there but beyond the capability of the camera to be seen.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Without viewing images, I would say it depends on why they were cropped. If they are used to provide only the message the photographer or editor wants you to see to support their point of view, I agree, it is dishonest but only if you are sharing the photo with the public in the hope of soliciting empathy. If it is cropped to avoid flare or meaningless details which add nothing to the story, I would be okay with it.
The answer will always be the same. He who has the gold makes the rules before applying their version of the golden rule.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

If it's possible, someone will do it, regardless of the ethics or rules. We just have to accept that we can't trust the media any longer. What you see may not be what you get!

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Isn't broadcast a series of images captured, any two of which represent two moments in time. Therefore, wouldn't an HDR from the exact same position in space, really be showing a motion picture in a single frame? - kinda like a 2 dimensional static version of the paintings on the walls and newspapers at Hogwarts. LOL

As far as journalists integrity, for you purists, they should have to publish every image they captured for a particular story, rather then pick and choose which they show, which in itself manipulates the story. But manipulation is the name of the game, why FOX and for me the BBC exist, so we can get more then the skewed, one side of the story like we did for many, many years.

The old adage holds true, don't believe any thing you hear and only half of what you see.

By the way, FN is the food network or FamilyNet and a huge tin foil hat stretch of the imagination in the US for the National Front French political movement- … F, O, X, are the 3 call letters of the number one news network in the US. I think its funny that the people who haven't spent a minute watching something, and would admit it if they could tell the truth, are the most vehemently opposed to it, spewing out the party line at every opportunity. If you could you'd sensor them and talk radio, But then these are common traits of the sheeple party.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Whether digital or film, ALL images can be manipulated.
With photojournalism, the standard should be the same as for court proceedings, but we all know that is not the case. Also, with the right viewpoints any good photographer can make original images that SOOC represent a lie/falsehood. This is especially easy with telephoto and wide-angle lenses!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

The current use of HDR by many, but not all photographers/editors, is way overdone by adding ToneMapping, excessive saturation, etc. In the original concept of HDR (high dynamic range) I would see no problems using it in the original example. However, using anything other than the multiple exposure blending to create the HDR image would definitely be a gross mis-statement of the 'actual' and realistic view and should never be allowed in photojournalism or evidence photography.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

While it is no secret that Photojournalism is SUPPOSED to be "real time" photos or should be labeled as to how the photo was generated, it is rare that it does. Taken at face value, what constitutes unadulterated photos? HDR typically is two or more photos of the same subject taken within a second or two of each other with bracketing being the only difference between the shots. Now, we all know that in a moving world, that is not realistic. But what if the subject is dark in the shadows and the surrounding brightly lit area also needs to be a part of the photo in order to show where the dark subject is located. While I understand and agree with the Washington Post's overall statement, I think that the results may just be for show. Many newspapers and media companies go through a plethora of the photographers photos to get a photo that proves what the writer is trying to prove and discard the 15 or 20 adjacent photos that disprove it. So where does photojournalism integrity come into play? Should they print the entire string of photos of the shoot to show the previous and following 10 minutes around the shot?
In tv news, how much tape is unused because it disproves the "story"? I realize this is a little exaggerated, but, having seen what goes on, in deciding a story and how it is covered, I have become a little jaded.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

If one is dealing with motion one doesn't have to shoot multiple shots to increase dynamic range in an HDR program. You can still make three (or more) shots taking your original and make a copy exposing for highlights, a copy exposing for shadows and treat as you would three separate shots in your favorite HDR program.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

[quote=hahaha]

If you read the quote carefully, NPPA's main objection is to the combining of "different moments" into a single image. The NPPA has to draw the line somewhere on this matter - be it combining images that are separated by seconds apart, hours apart or any amount of time apart.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

The problem with HDR is that if you are shooting a stagnant shot of a building on the street and all of the cars are stopped at a red light in the first shot then begin to move in the second and third shots then you are getting a (according to NPPA) a corrupted shot that doesn't show the "real" image. In the case that they stated, there was a bird or an airplane in one of the shots making the image corrupted as far as they were concerned. To me, it showed the "real" image as the background changed around it. But, they are claiming it was adulterated or contrived.
I could see their argument if the "moments were minutes or hours apart. If you take a shot of the street and they blur the license plates of cars going by, doesn't that make the shot contrived by their standard? I would think that their better option would be to put a note on the photo saying that is was a composite shot to bring out detail and that background images may have moved during the process.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

This thread and watching the Tim Cooper video at B&H motivated me to do some personal research. Apologies to HDR experts because they probably know all this.

Multiple exposure blending seems to done most often in Photoshop, Photomatix or Nik HDR Effects. I own the Nik version. I don't have access to Photoshop CC. The Tim Cooper video showed him using Photomatix.

It rained all day, so I had time to play computer. I wanted to see which tool had the most natural representation. Part of my curiosity comes from press releases several months ago that said the newest versions of both Photomatix and HDR Effects emphasized the ability to create more natural HDR images. Apparently color cooking of images is declining in favor.

Photomatix gives you free access to their software for permanent trial use that puts a logo in a few spots on the image. The also provide three sets of good three exposure images to test.

My procedure was to use the three sets and both software tools at their best "natural" settings.

I learned:
- Both had an abundance of optional presets that could cook the images with ToneMapping, excessive saturation, etc
- Both had a few choices that would eliminate, or at least nearly eliminate cooking.
- Both in their default "natural" settings produced similar products, with the Photomatix being slightly "brighter". A nudge of the exposure in HDR Effects made the two images close enough that, without note keeping, I would not be able to tell one from the other.
- The interface of HDR Effects is more similar to Lightroom and I find it easier to use.
- Although I think the simplest of the "natural" defualts in both provide minimal or no "tone mapping", I would prefer they both had one labeled "Zero".
- Both had a sliders that could be addictive.
- Similar, but not the same, visual results to the "natural" defaults can be approximated with extreme use of the Highlights and Shadows sliders in Lightroom.

If anybody asks, I can post some sample .jpgs.

Relative to the subject of this topic, I think photojournalism should find HDR acceptable. There are scenes with high brightness ranges that can't be captured any other way.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I am not so sure that HDR will compromise photojournalism. If you take three photos of the same subject, at nearly the same time, and mask them together to give greater detail to what is going on, that's not manipulating a photo to manipulate public opinion. If you "photo shop" item a and place it in photo b and physically change photo b and pass it off as happening in real time, that's something entirely different and it is not hdr photography.