The Evils of HDR

Shadows are part of photography, yes even deep shadows

One of my favorite B + W photographs of Great Sands National Park. Fair-weather photographers were nowhere to be found by the time this scene appeared.

This newsletter is sure to make enemies, but my musket is loaded, so bring it on!

Basically, I dislike HDR. I believe that the advent of HDR has ruined more fine art prints than any other techno-factor. I'm not saying that all uses of HDR are bad, but the untamed use of it has resulted in an epidemic of really bad prints.

When HDR first appeared for digital cameras, folks experimented with it (myself included). Some went too far with truly comical results. A few years in, most photographers realized the unnatural look of HDR diminished the quality of their images and the subsequent print.

Now HDR did, and still does, serve a purpose. I began my career in film photography. The bain of our existence, at least for those of us on a make-or-break assignment, was a scene that had wickedly wide dynamic range. I'm thinking of a brightly lit sky over an appealing mountain range, a leopard on a shaded branch of an acacia tree on the Serengeti plain, or a bison in snow. We would face the Draconian choice of a blown out sky or an animal with no detail on its body.

HDR can alleviate some of those conditions. By taking a multitude of images, some for the highlights and some for the shadows, then blending them, one can get a light balanced image. I like to think of that as blending potatoes, carrots, peas, and fish into a puree. That's called baby food, but no discerning adult would want that for dinner.

The issue, for me (as an artist and print competition judge), is that much of HDR imagery today just looks unnatural. By pulling up shadows so much that you can see every bit of hidden detail, the artist trashes all the drama from the scene. The contrast and interplay of light and dark enhances drama and makes the image come alive. Today's sensors are amazing. Dynamic ranges up to 15 or 16 stops are common, so the need for HDR is lessened.

Yes, there are times that I will take an HDR approach to an image. In those cases I take only two captures. One for the highlights and one for the overall scene. That allows me to tweak the image ever so slightly to tone down the highlights. However, I often don't worry about blown highights in scenes that call for it. I'm thinking of a bright sun or a wintery scene. Having your highlights hit 252 or even 255 on your histogram can still result in a prize winner.

As an example, consider the lead image. I was at Great Sands National Park in Colorado. There were 30+ photographers at that viewpoint. A storm suddenly approached us and every single photograher vacated due to the wind and blowing sand. I stayed, mainly because some of my best images are taken in adverse conditions.

But, I faced a difficult choice. Do I expose for the light or the shadows? Do I HDR the image and tame both, pulling my histogram away from the walls?

I realized that the story I wanted to tell was the storm itself, rising over the mountains and descending on the viewer. The last gasp of light filtered through the clouds. In that moment I knew the light would make the picture, the shadows be damned!

I wanted the hazy, sand-obscured light coming up behind the mountain, emphasizing the approaching storm. I wanted the light on the dunes. What else really. mattered? Does the fact that there is no detail in the mid-ground mountains really make a difference? If I had raised the shadows in them, would that help the story or serve as an unwanted distraction?

That is the take away that I'd like you to consider. HDR can be a great tool, especially in some genres, like architectural photography. But please don't use it as a panacea for all wide dynamic range images. Decide what your story is, then apply HDR judiciously, if at all.