Tone-Mapping... what's the real deal?

[jg_coleman]

For a long time, I've been noticing something of a hypocritical trend in plenty of landscape photography. It is in reference specifically to HDR-processed photos... perhaps "tone-mapped" photos is the better, broader term.

On one hand, everyone puts down HDR images that "don't look natural". They say," Overdoing it makes for a garrish photo." They love to use the word "garrish", too, which I think is somewhat funny... as if the word "garrish" is a technical term for an over-done HDR. The idea is that exaggerated HDR images don't look all that realistic and therefore don't really qualify as very good photos.

Now, why is it that most every photo contest and photo assignment on Outdoor Photographer's website tends to feature photographs that have been so radically tone-mapped that they look like paintings, not photographs? Granted, there is room for taking a really great shot that maintains loads of detail... but many of the "top picks" that I see again and again truly look like they've been post-processed from chicken into Slim Jims. They look cool... but they don't look like they simply came off somebody's memory card and got a white balance adjustment... that's for sure!

So, my question to the forums... what's the deal, everybody? How many people out there agree with the "it looks garrish" crowd? If you agree with the "garrish" crowd, then how do you explain the blatant proliferation of images getting accolades on OP that are tweaked to have more dynamic range than the human eye???

If you're part of the group that thinks that HDR is all about pushing limits of dynamic range and that it deserves these accolades, then why do you think so many photographers still waste their breath erroneously instructing people to make "natural" looking photographs? Especially, when the heavily HDR'd photos clearly get a whole ton of attention and apparently impress many people.

I should mention that OP does a pretty thorough job of keeping exaggerated HDRs out of their mag... which I kind of agree with, personally. It's the OP website that is perpetually plastered with these paintings, err, photographs.

[Mitchell]

To all who think its not a "Real" photograph when it is an HDR image, probably just cant figure out how to do it themselves.
Sure it may not look realistic when done by some people "Including myself", but it is all a from of art, the exact same thing can be said for people who use long exposers, to create start trails, smooth water, blur motion. Even black and white photography isent "Real" for most people.

For the people that just dont like it, well then they dont like it! Alot of my images people ether like them alot, or not at all.

[gldiana]

I think that what matters most if what YOU like, not what other people think of your photo. Through the years I learned that in photography there are 5% photographers and 95% pixel peepers that you cannot please no matter what, so... take a photo, retouch or don't, tone map it or don't, the important is that you like the results.

[bob_r]

I'm not one that has found an "appreciation" for HDR or "tone-mapped" photos, but have no problem with those that enjoy them. I look on them more as art than photography and it's nice that our software can satisfy both passions.
I rarely comment on photographic images that have been changed into art, simply because I find it hard to find something to say. The original image may have been fantastic or it could have been so bad that it had to have outrageous edits to hide it's deficiencies - who knows? How does one critique a photo that is no longer a photo? Do we offer suggestions on the editing technique? I don't know, so just remain silent.

[colorjunkie]

Anyone who doesn't learn this will become obsolete. If that's not completely obvious at this point you're simply living in denial.

[Justin_Smith]

Give me an example of the kind of photos you are talking about.

[bob_r]

Give me an example of the kind of photos you are talking about.

Here's a link to one of Colorjunkie's recent images. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4902

I don't wish to imitate this style, so I guess I'm obsolete.

[Justin_Smith]

Well, I meant my question for the thread-starter... I was just trying to understand what he meant when he said that OP tends toward that kind of photography on the front page and in contests. I've seen some HDR in OP contests but not a whole lot and it isn't usually the first place.

[colorjunkie]

From mild to wild it's all good, I prefer to not spend my days hating on something I have no control over.

[colorjunkie]

From mild to wild it's all good, I prefer to not spend my days hating on something I have no control over.

Anyway, back on topic sort of, virtually all professional landscapers, documentarian's and product shooters who are selling product are doing post on their images now, it might not be true multi frame bracketed HDR sets but they're doing 'something'. There's simply too many high quality plug in's of such a high quality to not be. So yeah single frame' right out of the camera' isn't dead, just like film isn't (quite) dead yet either but when you put it up against a tweak from someone who knows what they're doing there is simply no comparison. I'm not interested in flame wars I'm interested in furthering the craft.
I'm just really enthusiastic about what this is and where it goes and I'm always happy to share what I know.

Cheers!

[jg_coleman]

Well, I meant my question for the thread-starter... I was just trying to understand what he meant when he said that OP tends toward that kind of photography on the front page and in contests. I've seen some HDR in OP contests but not a whole lot and it isn't usually the first place.

Alright, let me clear this up. OP, as a magazine, does not tend toward unrealistic HDRs. Nor am I claiming that OP is responsible for anything having to do with my post... as I mentioned in the original post, OP doesn't put such things in their mag very often, at all. To understand what I'm talking about, browse the first two pages of 'highest rated' photos in most of the 'Assignment' categories... you'll see what I mean. If you don't, well... okay... I'm not really interested in going further with exploring calculated percentages of HDR to non-HDR shots on the OP website. Even many page headers feature quite "painting-esque" slices from photos.

My larger question, to specify, is this:

Why are individuals routinely advised by many pros, in general, not to make "painting-like" HDRs when these photographs do, in fact, gather much acclaim amongst ordinary viewers? I guess there's a sub-question here: Is a photographer to create photos that impress rutted pros who demand only realistic HDRs, or photos that impress the ordinary joe that seems quite enamored with crazy HDR? BTW... please, please, please do not post saying, " Neither, you should make photos that impress yourself" or "art isn't about impressing others". Yes, I get it... we all do... let's move past that to look at the social aspects of modern photography. Photography is about communicating in one way or another, always has been.

What I have in mind here is what seems to me like an issue of history repeating itself in a kind of backwards way. When photography originally started becoming a viable technology long ago, most painters looked at it in disgust. What an outrageous perversion of beautiful, painted representations of the world. "Don't painting have so much more human value?" they would say. Of course, a few painters whole-heartedly embraced this new photograph technology, seeing it as the direction that imagery was going. They, of course, were oftentimes cast as pariahs of the artistic community. Isn't the same sort of thing happening with HDR now, except in reverse? Now, photography finds itself coming full circle... photos reaching a stage at which they are becoming rather painting-like. What, of course, happens... radically split opinions, with the established 'status quo' insisting dominance over the new technology that "dangerously" blurs the line between two mediums.

As someone that isn't particularly fond of outrageous HDRs myself, I can sympathize with the older, "it should look real" crowd. At the same time, great photography or great painting is, more often than not, dictated by what the masses enjoy... not by what the enthusiasts or pros enjoy or approve of.

[Mitchell]

Look at a painting, just about any painting that claims to be a visual representation of the world. Does it look Real?
No, of course not. But it doesent mean its not a painting? No not at all, You still have to "Paint" making it a painting. HDR Photography is no different, It may not look real all the time just like a painting usually doesn't but you still have to make the actual photograph, Pixels arent just going to come out of nowhere. How do you define the difference between a Photograph and Digital Art? in my opinion its ethier one or the other, there's no " It been changed to much in post to be a real photograph"

If it werent a "Real" photograph then there would not be a camera involved.

[colorjunkie]

I tweak for the masses. I stopped caring what anonymous nerds, who I'll never meet, who I probably don't want to meet, and who managed to find the internet on a newsgroup think long ago.

The only two opinions that matter are mine and the clients. Period.

I've done several real world tests at my gallery shows.
I put up a middle frame from a multi frame HDR set and a tweak side by side on the wall.
Guess which ones people buy?

The essence of HDR hating inherently comes from laziness and unwillingness to change. These are the same people who said film was a fad, who said color was a fad, and who said Photoshop wasn't real photography, now they hate on HDR and seriously who cares and does it really matter what anyone thinks?
We're all just so lazy and we've been doing this this way for so long. To have to start all over and learn the tweaking process is simply too much for many people to handle.

[Justin_Smith]

Well, I meant my question for the thread-starter... I was just trying to understand what he meant when he said that OP tends toward that kind of photography on the front page and in contests. I've seen some HDR in OP contests but not a whole lot and it isn't usually the first place.

Alright, let me clear this up. OP, as a magazine, does not tend toward unrealistic HDRs. Nor am I claiming that OP is responsible for anything having to do with my post... as I mentioned in the original post, OP doesn't put such things in their mag very often, at all. To understand what I'm talking about, browse the first two pages of 'highest rated' photos in most of the 'Assignment' categories... you'll see what I mean. If you don't, well... okay... I'm not really interested in going further with exploring calculated percentages of HDR to non-HDR shots on the OP website. Even many page headers feature quite "painting-esque" slices from photos.

Well, to be quite honest I did not see too many. There were definitely a few HDR shots in those Assignment categories, but most were not immediately recognizable as being such (and if I can't tell the difference, I don't really see why it would even matter).

Anyway, people can do whatever they want. There are a few people who use HDR very well, as well as other methods of heavy post-processing. If it looks good, it looks good, and that's all I personally care about.

[gerggl]

I have been shooting over the last 9 months primarily for the purpose of creating HDR images, with each set typically 7 different exposures. I personally tend to keep them photo-realistic, but with the occasional that gets a little pumped up in saturation. http://www.flickr.com/photos/45208663@N07

Now, as far as this thread, we are hitting on two different topics. First, we have tone-mapping in general, as it relates to being used as a post processing tool for single images or multi-images. And second, as it relates to HDR image files as a way to crunch the range of exposure into something our monitors and printers can make viewable (this is changing though), or in other words, condensing the histogram so all the light values are viewable.

Many people considering tone-mapping equivalent to making an image an HDR image. But really that is not the case. The range is not extended at all just by tonemaping a single image. This is especially prevalent with those who think they can take one image and tonemap it, or give it an "HDR treatment." Instead, people use tone-mapping techniques to give their photos an often unrealistic view that they consider to be the same as real HDR photos that are completely overcooked. They don't understand how it works, but they want to create something the same. A single photo that has been tone-mapped is NOT and HDR image.

But I don't need to explain all this to you all. If you registered to use this forum, you probably know a pretty good deal about photography.


The problem with tonemapping (aside from it being applied to different types of images) is that it is very easy to use (with Photomatix or Photoshop, etc). Thus, we get a lot of people who use it on their images to make the colors pop and stand out more. But because it is so easy to use, they jack up all the settings, and cook these images until they sometimes just look ridiculous. Of course at this point it changes from a realistic photograph to another form of photography-based art. You can get the same oversaturated and overprocessed looks without tonemapping. Photoshop has tons of different filters and settings to change. But all in all, there are cheaper programs out there, especially those that offer tonemapping, that can let a very basic user adjust their histograms until their photo glows like Chernobyl (not to mention those halos in poorly processed HDR images!), that the user can create in a very short amount of time with instant results or previews of what each change will do.

how do you explain the blatant proliferation of images getting accolades on OP that are tweaked to have more dynamic range than the human eye???

You might be wrong on this. The eye can see up to about 11EV (I might be a little off on that number). Regardless, at 11EV, an HDR photograph would have to have 5 and 6 EV on each side of the regular exposure. You'd be suprised to know that most HDR images that you see out there don't truly show more than 7EV. Most likely what you are seeing is just a poor use of tone-mapping.

I also think your (generally speaking) brain can't process all the detail in one HDR photograph. Think of the size of one photograph. Lets say 12x18. No, lets say 20x30. Now you are looking at this photograph, and you see all the detail in the shadows, and all the detail in the highlights. "How is this possible?!" you think, and you brain goes crazy. Now, think of the entire world. You are out in the woods, or hiking in a canyon. Everything you see is a million times larger than 20x30. And your eye quickly adapts to all the light changes all around you. You are seeing that HDR image on a significantly larger scale, you just don't know it. Now, take that 20x30 image, and blow it up (without losing any detail) to a size that is the same as your world; Look at that! You can see all the details as your eye would allow, but in this instance, your eye doesn't have to change for the shadows or highlights. This is where your brain is getting all fuzy, and saying, "what is going on?!" We are limited by the size of our monitors and printers. And you can't really compare a tiny photograph to real life. It kills me when people say that realistic looking HDR images look fake. But really, it is your brain playing tricks on you. Of course, all this applies to HDR images that are not overcooked from excessive tone-mapping. By "excessive" I simply mean not photo-realistic; anyone can tone-map as they wish...but that is the crux of this entire post isn't it?

Here's a link to one of Colorjunkie's recent images. http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4902

I don't wish to imitate this style, so I guess I'm obsolete.

This is not a very good example of a realistic HDR image (but it does have its artistic value). Even if this is tone-mapped, you can emulate this with any photograph using the posterize feature in Photoshop. :p Cameron

Check out some of these instead: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45208663@N07 Keep in mind, you can't substitute real life with a 4x6 or even a 20x30 print or even make a reasonable comparison.

Also, don't forget that HDR images have a HUGE range of how they are being processed. And tone-mapping has so many possibilities, its stupid to lump them all into the same category...

I hope this helps a little bit...