English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

Or is it another tea-pot disturbance???

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/03/HDR_in_photojournalism

The usual YES!!! ABSOLUTELY DEFINITIVELY NOT!

Well, I am left wondering why HDR creates such controversies all the time, other than when it is 'called HDR' and is really a distortion of natural light range.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Interesting thread. Thanks for bringing it up. My primary education is PJ so am interested how this plays out. I need to digest his one. Pass the butter!

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

I can see how people would make that conclusion about the photo being doctored. However, if the camera does the HDR process in itself because you set it to take an HDR photo, how that be considered a doctored photo?

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I have a Nikon poin & shoot. Whenever I shoot in "backlighting" mode, it automaticly uses HDR but I can't use HDR in any other mode.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

In the context of this conversation how does HDR differ from the double exposure in the world of film? Did the practice or use of double exposures conjure up the same arguments?

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

The question here seems to distinguish between recording a photographic image over the range of available light intensities via the HDR technique on one hand, and on the other suggests that HDR can also be made out to entail exaggerations and alterations, that distort elements of that range, so they become disproportionately represented in the finished image. In a shorter paraphrase using HDR technique to let the rays lie where they may, or twisting their proportions often for a result. Such a result many may find distastefully gaudy, while others might take delight in the bright colors and unusual way of seeing ordinary things.

The resulting controversy might be seen as To Mae To and To Mah To, or as something more substantial. If it is put as a difference between viewing with a narrow expectation based upon a more strictly documentary intent confining esthetic appreciation to that norm, and a wider expectation, which encompasses not only the documentary norm, but includes the esthetics of a variety of imaging styles, such as listing abstraction, non-objectivity, and other genre's, such as we have seen the art world at large, then we have a little more meat to chew.

In one case upon the esthetic sense there is imposed an additional expectation, that the image be limited to what the technical process of making an image imposes, and the other case that admits further manipulations and results are admissible and even desirable, though they depart from common appearances.

As such viewing preferences are optional we will find that, as Jonathan Swift observed in the land of Lilliputians, the difference between which end an egg is broken is worthy of deadly warfare.

Those, People! They just don't see right! Only the way I see is the right way! I may be wrong (but, I never am). My way might not be the only way, but is the best way.

Not always so rigidly seen, but often enough aproached.



Oh, well.

shadow1284 Loc: Mid-West Michigan

Well, I'm not so well versed in the english language as to put my opinions so eliquently, but, I look at photography as; not only the ability to reproduce a scene as the camera saw it, which by the way only depends on camera settings, either purposefully set, in error or by accident; but the ability to create a vision which we feel is a creation of beauty, mystery, awe, fantisy or discussion, that will be seen in the eye of some but not everyone.
When I look at a picture, someone has produced for display, I try to enjoy it in one or several of the above mentioned ways.
If I do, then I say I enjoyed it. If I don't I go on to the next, but I don't criticize the person for wanting me to enjoy it it whatever manor I choose.
That's why I take thousands of shots. I'm looking for ones I enjoy.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Seems to me we need to take the “right and wrong” out of this. Photography, like any other art form, is meant to please. If you’re please it’s is good if many are please its good. Maybe it could be compared to modern art some like it some don’t but to tag it right or wrong makes no sense. It’s just too subjective to try and label, even the “rules” we impose are subjective and do not always apply and sometimes even get in the way.

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

Ok, let's recenter this non debate, we are not talking of 'art'.

It is about the concern of news outlet, printed or otherwise, able to doctor a photo using 'newer' technology. Doctoring has taken place ever since the first photo was taken and published. Now we can change anything down to the pixel. I assume this where the pundits have problems.

Do I agree? Yes. Do I disagree, yes. Meaning that I agree there is a strong risk of modifying anything but because one can do it, does one will do it? I want to trust (somehow) that the image is published 'as is', even if 'newer' technology is used. HDR modifies only the gamut of color seen by the viewer. There is no lie implied. Can a 'lie' be added to HDR? Yes, definitively.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Well ok, a lie is a lie no matter. So in that context I agree if you're going to use the technology to lie don't use it.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Ok. Re-centering on journalistic applications. Here even simple cropping can be made to lie, and even selective picking and choosing among available photos can promote falsehoods. We don't have to alter any pixels from their fundamental possible tone ranges and colors disproportional to their fellows to create false impressions.

But, the altered pixel in this application does have one legitimate usage, where it is necessary to obliterate portions of subject matter that is confidential for one reason or another. This is properly done in an obvious way, so as to in effect say, information withheld for cause.

But, what about in photographs we take for personal use? What about removing simple things like power lines and other items held to be unsightly. We in private use also can have documentary uses for our pictures. In the ordinary course of things, it is unlikely to matter. But, it is something to keep in mind, when the possibility of a doctored photo survives and the original is lost. Who knows what future use might apply to the doctored shot, and result in difficulties as a result of the alteration?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If this were a photo of an event that was happening, or had just happened, then I think that minimal manipulation should be the rule. This was not a news photo. It was a reminder of a long-ago disaster involving a plane.

The newspaper wanted to make the photo look beautiful, so it used HDR. I think it was a mistake to explain that the photo had been manipulated because the general public gets suspicious when it hears about photos being manipulated, especially in a newspaper.

I don't think there's anything wrong with improving a newspaper photo, as long as it does not change the facts.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

I don't think any photograph can replicate what an eye on the spot sees. It approximates what the eye sees. Even HDR touted as capturing a scene just as a human eye does, does not necessarily achieve that. For one thing the human eye operates from moment to moment with different apertures as it moves over a scene with varying light levels. HDR can do better than the human eye in some circumstances, where bright light adjacent to darker areas causes the pupil to contract.

HDR photography is not quite the same as the one slice of light we ordinarily expect from a picture. It is several slices taken over a period of time. The time lapse between pictures could resulting in compressing a varying scene into a single frame. Stating forthrightly that the picture is HDR would let a viewer know that possibility exists.

Considering the traditional photography and its possibilities in the dark room, one might ask just how representative it is compared to the HDR shot. The exposure of the print medium to the negative gives the dark room operator enough room to manipulate the way the print looks to the viewer to create a number of different impressions.

Then going over to the possibilities of live TV, the once famous Nixon-Kennedy debates, where Nixon's heavy beard regardless of being freshly shaved made a sinister impression for some viewers. Did the way the camera was handled play up the contrast to enhance that effect? I can't say the opportunity was not there.

Many opportunities prevail in the journalist's domain to, if not down right lie, then at least push the edge of truth in favor of some particular purpose.

Anyway, HDR alone and handled with the same discretion that ordinary film was handled in journalism is no better or worse a reporter than ordinary photography in my opinion.