HDR: Evolution of an Art Form
Ever since Adobe introduced Photoshop CS5 and it’s new HDR Pro/HDR Toning features, the creative community has been at odds over whether or not HDR should still be considered “real photography.” On the one hand you have the purists (mostly comprised of “old school” photographers), who say that Photography is merely an image that comes from, and nothing more. On the other hand you have the new age photogs (a group that treats photography as more of a subjective term). The purists view the use of Photoshop as not being true to the art of photography, while the new age peeps think the two walk hand-in-hand.
I don’t see things as being so “black and white.” I’d like to think that there can be a coexistence of these two philosophies. Though I do appreciate the art of getting the right shot in-camera, I’m no purist. As many of you know I live my life behind a keyboard, not a viewfinder. It’s because of this that I choose to believe that we’ve transcended the term photography in general, and moved into the age of digital artistry. Photography as we know it is an art form that has taken years to perfect, with lenses, film, exposure times, and all the other crazy stuff. What we do today simply doesn’t fall in the same category. With the advances that have been made with RAW processing and digital photo manipulation, you simply don’t have to be a great photographer to create great images.
With this in mind, let’s take another look at HDR (high dynamic range photos). We may capture these images in a “traditional” way, but the manner in which we are putting them together and manipulating the data is anything but. Whether you like the look of HDR or not is irrelevant, because it’s not going anywhere. However I think if we can move on from the “is this photography?” debate and simply say that it’s not, we’ll all be a lot happier. I realize there will be some folks (many of whom are great photographers) who will rip me and say I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that’s fine… Maybe I don’t. But I do think, as with all art forms, this is an area of constant evolution, and just like the different artistic periods throughout history, we’ll one day look back on this and appreciate it for what it was and not what it wasn’t.
How To: Make Your Own White iPhone 4 
New DVD Coming Soon! 
HDR: Evolution of an Art Form 
It’s Time to Get Healthy! 
7 Video-Centric WordPress Themes To Help You with Your Next Project 
Sorry I guess I’ll be the frist to “rip you and say you don’t know what you’re talking about.” HDR photography is just that, HDR photography. Just like digital photography is digital photography and traditional photography is traditional photography. They are all forms of photography, or writing with light (http://www.answers.com/topic/etymology-of-photography).
It’s all semantics in the end.
I guess that’s one way of looking at it. Thanks.
Justin, I agree with Rick that much of the controversy over what’s photography vs. what’s not is semantics. Photography=photography=photography. If one has captured an image with a camera, whether traditional or digital, it’s a photograph. A purist would probably want to stop there in describing the final image as a photograph. Just as a traditionalist might not consider an image created with Photoshop’s brushes a “true” painting. My opinion is that art=art=art. Our design and photography tools and concepts are changing so quickly with the computerl age that our perception and description of digitally-created images will probably be in constant flux. Does it matter what it’s called if others find an image pleasing? I’m old enough to have been in the creative field long before digital art existed. But I embrace the electronic world and the beauty that can be created on a computer. I’m open to new techniques and love what can be done with “art” digitally. As with anything that’s relatively new, HD tends to be overused right now, or used when, in my opinion, it shouldn’t be. I’ve always contended that just because you CAN do something (especially in design of any kind) doesn’t mean you SHOULD. In the progression of what we can do artistically with computers, we may have to create new words or phrases to describe a digital image. In the end, if an image is visually pleasing (and not even necessarily to everyone) it’s art. That’s good enough for me.
I wonder how many ‘purists’ printed straight from a negative without any burning/dodging etc? Very few in my opinion. Darkroom ‘trickery’ was being used over 70 years ago. HDR is just another facet of photography, you either like it or you don’t. If you don’t like it just leave it to those who do. Why argue?
On anotherr note-I enjoy you blogs very much, keep them coming Justin.
I tend to agree with Scott Bourne when it comes to “photog or not”
http://photofocus.com/2010/04/28/photography-v-reality/
“When people engage in the Canon v. Nikon, digital v. film, Photoshop v. no Photoshop, Windows v. Mac wars, I don’t feel like they’re contributing much to the world or to photography. I think the “is photography real or not” discussion falls under pretty much the same category. Instead of debating whether or not photography is real, why not do something that DOES matter? Why not make a good picture?”