Mastering High Dynamic Range Photography [BOOK REVIEW]
Mastering High Dynamic Range Photography
This book naturally follows on Michael Freeman’s other book on night and low light photography, but I have to admit that I approached it — and the subject of HDR — with quite a degree of apprehension. For me the whole topic of HDR and the results it produces are, in some cases, a bit of a let-down: the need for an extended dynamic range in photography is based upon the eye’s prodigious ability to see a range of brightness in a scene that no camera can capture. But isn’t that the role of the photographer? To interpret and reproduce an impression of the scene — not to record it exactly as it is?
Author Michael Freeman explains early in the book that “Scenes vary in their range of brightness and the ones that cause most trouble for photography are those in which the highlights are much brighter than those in the shadows.” To achieve this, he approaches the subject with precision and enormous technical know-how; it helps if you have a foreknowledge of light and colour theory.
Freeman also makes the point that there is no reason why future camera sensors could not capture a much wider range of brightness than they do … if so, the need for HDR would be a thing of the past.
One camera — and only one — has already arrived there: the extraordinary SpheroCamHDR panoramic camera already captures images in 32-bit resolution and with a dynamic range in excess of five orders of magnitude — or 26 f stops.
Freeman makes some controversial claims: proposing a case for RAW capture he points out that most, if not all cameras, actually capture in 12- and 14-bits: on opening in Photoshop the file then appears to be 16-bit but with no more range in the image.
He also controversially asserts that the only monitor worth its salt is the Brightside Technolgies’ LED-based display; with it, a dynamic range of 200,000:1 is possible.
Other topics covered include Gestalt and perception; how to shoot the multiple exposures need for HDR with a handheld DSLR; how to accurately align multiple images in Photoshop; too many lens manufacturers assume they will be used in low dynamic range capture, leading to flare on a final HDR result; colour management; HDR and the scanned image.
A fascinating and challenging book.
Get a copy of Mastering High Dynamic Range Photography at Amazon.
Tags: Book Review, Michael Freeman
13 Responses to “Mastering High Dynamic Range Photography [BOOK REVIEW]” - Add Yours
April 6th, 2009 at 1:03 am
I’ll need to read this one!
The first time I saw an HDR image my jaw dropped…I find the technique truly beautiful.
I began shooting true HDR images, and quickly learned that the wind could ruin some amazing compositions, due to the lag time between images…creating blur. Since that time I have shot what most call ‘fake HDR’ images, created from one single tone-mapped photo with great success. Since it is not real HDR, I coined a new phrase for my style called ‘Hyper-Realistic’.
There is a love-hate relationship when it comes to High Dynamic Range photography…I love it!
Although I enjoy more contrast in my photos than some, many say my HDR style is a little more realistic than most first-time HDR photographers.
If interested, you can view my recent HDR-style photos on my site, Dallas Photoworks.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:10 am
HDR is to shoot. There are a number of creative applications in which it can be used. HDR is slowly making its way into a number of commercial aspects of the medium. I have looked through this book a few times. I think it a great book. I agree with you when you say ” a degree of apprehension.” I have produced a few images that seem to be a bit more illustrative than photographic.
But I still think this book is amongst one of the best that I have looked at on the subject of HDR.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Thanks for pointing out this book and for your overview. I’ll definitely check it out, as I am deep into the benefits of HDR. I understand a lot of the science, but what I’ve picked up is piecemeal, so this will be wonderful.
I am confused about your belief that some of his statements are ‘controversial’, however. He does seem to base his comments on the facts around the technical performance of these products. I particularly agree with his comments about Photoshop and 12- and 14-bit versus 16- or even 24- or 32-bit workflow; I sincerely hope that now that some companies (Olympus at PMA) have announced that the “megapixel war” is over, they will begin releasing cameras that can record the world better than our eyes – in HDR and other such improvements. More bits before editing is better. Given the right camera and sensitivity, we could imagine being able to manipulate exposure even more – it’d make today’s RAW look like today’s JPG.
On the other hand of controversial, however, I’m not sure that the eye can distinguish 200K:1 contrast ratio. It’s one thing to say that you need more data prior to the digital darkroom, but if you can output things better than a human can see, who cares?
So thanks for pointing out this book. I’m ordering it now!
April 6th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
HDR is lame. It’s similar to macro photography in the sense that all that is required to make ANY subject look totally awesome is the knowledge to shoot a proper macro, or in this case HDR photo of it. No actual composition or photographic talent required.
Some things look better in HDR than other but everything has a baseline level of awesome that ultimately is just trite and boring. Just like macro is in 99% of cases.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
IMO, HDR is not lame. If you want to have a beautiful HDR shot, you still do need to focus on composition, and it does take talent. You must know what makes a good HDR. It requires composing the shots so that the bright highlights and the dark shadows will look balanced.
As far as it taking talent, it definitely does. 90% of the time, a shot SOTC is not the final product in any realm of photography. Ever heard of post-production? Like a darkroom? It’s been around for ages. Just like a darkroom, a digital photographer must know how to process a photo to make a beautiful final product. Post-production is half of the game in photography.
Go take a stroll around Flickr, and you’ll find tons of not-so-great HDRs. Then go look around some more, and you’ll find some amazing shots from talented photographers.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I think HDR, as most people practice it on flickr, is surrealism. The images just look so weird and obviously fake. I think a lot of people really push the HDR past some realism limit. Of course, they’re beautiful as art, but not as documentary photography.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:14 am
I like HDR if it’s done in moderation. The cartoonish over-done images are what gives HDR a bad name. My favorite HDR technique is actually using a single RAW image. I output nine different .jpg’s from Adobe Camera Raw, one at each full stop under/over exposed and one as shot. I name them according to the exposure (+1,+2… -1, -2, etc…). I then pull up Photomatix and merge them. When determining the processing in photomatix, I just pay attention to the histogram and try to get it in the middle as much as possible. Finally, I’ll pull the processed image back into Photoshop and do some final edits.
Before HDR processing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hypnoeyez99/3185819071/sizes/l/in/set-72157612416590784/
After HDR processing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hypnoeyez99/3188911248/sizes/l/in/set-72157612416590784/
Here is my favorite shot using that technique:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I completely agree with what’s been said about the super surrealistic photos giving it a bad name. When people overdo them, they look a little too surrealistic. However, this is not was HDR was originally intended for. The whole [original] point of HDR is to is to have a high range of highlights and shadows; it’s meant to make photos look more realistic than normal photos, not less realistic.
What I’m trying to say is that HDR is an incredibly powerful photographic tool to create realistic photos. That’s the whole point. It is only the overdone ones that are questionable (in my opinion).
April 10th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I bought this book, and it is excellent. Some of the ideas and ’sciency bits’ can be quite complex, but never overly so. The only problem with it, as with any photography tutorial in print is that because of the quality of the printed image, it can be quite hard to spot the difference between some ‘before and after’ comparisons. That said It has really inspired me to try this technique for myself. ( I cant stand the overdone HDR shots either)
April 10th, 2009 at 6:01 am
HDR is like a butter knife, or a baseball bat. It’s a tool that can be used as it was intended, or “misused” to the absurd. But even in a case where it’s been used to the extreme, the image makes a statement, albeit a different one than the base image would make.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:44 am
There will always be pros and cons to any new techinque. The purists argue against, the tech savy argue for. all that aside look at it this way. If you had at your disposal any number of ND filters that could change shape to fit where you required them and put them infront of your camera you would have HDR mechanically or old school. doing it using software is not cheating any more than dodging was using paper and an enlarger. It is just using tools that are your disposal.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:25 am
I Love HDR photography but am held back by costs I do what I think is the best that my basic editor can achieve in Serif and my point and shoot while saving for a more able DSLR and Photoshop would love to know if there are any plug ins for Serif that will work
April 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Using HDR isn’t cheating, you’re right. Its just boring as hell.
Leave a Reply