[HDRI] Re: NYT article

[Mark Banas (lists)]

On Aug 10, 2006, at 7:07 AM, E. Reinhard wrote:

> As a result, the Flickr community is starting to equate HDR
> with non-photorealistic rendering, which in my view is very
> undesirable. The NYC article is not helping in that respect
> either, as it does not present a balanced view of the state
> of the art in HDR.

Hi Erik,

You already know my opinion of Flickr and the over-Photomatixed  
results, but I see this article and the exposure and popularity of  
this "effect" on Flickr as both an expected and not entirely negative  
thing. The basics are that in the greater world of photo hobbyists  
(which Flickr represents) no one knows *what* HDR is, aside from the  
fact the letters mean "High Dynamic Range" and that Adobe put it in  
Photoshop CS2 and some other companies sell software to do something  
similar. Keep in mind these same people also have *no idea* what all  
can be done with HDR.

I would guess that the vast majority of photographers (pro, hobbyist,  
and "holiday snappers") only know what Adobe said in their marketing  
of this "new feature in CS2," or what the adventurous ones read on  
Luminouslandscape.com, and that is roughly that "HDR images can  
contain a greater range of tones and colors than other computer  
images, but it cannot be displayed on your monitor or manipulated  
much at this time." And most likely these same folks have *not* been  
struggling with the lack of range in "regular" photography - pros  
carefully choose their lighting conditions, and hobbyists frequently  
just don't notice. So the idea that HDR capture and processing are  
useful for extending the visual range of an image ends up getting  
lost when these same consumers see "well-tonemapped" results that  
look not too different from the original(s) or not too different from  
other photos they've seen. It is a lot of work to get what most  
people (I've talked to anyway) see as a very small visual difference.

Plus, in a content-competitive social community like Flickr (or even  
the NYTimes) you have to do something dramatically different to stand  
out. Pushing all the sliders in Photomatix "to 11" to get a wild,  
painterly and oversaturated compression of dynamic range is certainly  
different, and when people ask "how'd you do that" they can say "with  
that cool new HDR thing."  If all Photomatix output looked just like  
Photoshop's tonemapping, or just like a nice, well-exposed photo,  
very few would ask "how'd you do that" and HDR very well might not be  
mentioned in the New York Times at all. Again, I strongly believe  
that this is because the subtleties in a resulting "photographic"  
tonemapped image (as well as the greater impact on image-making and  
photography) is not as immediately noticeable to most people.

Finally, I think this "Flickr abuse" is somewhat typical of what  
happens when a "new" technology is first put into the hands of the  
mass-market;  people naturally try to push all the buttons and see  
what lights up, and in the end they decide what they like and what  
becomes popular for a time. I've watched this same process repeatedly  
over 20 years of "3D images" being publicized, and even now I don't  
think that a shiny car in a white void is any better than a chrome  
sphere on tiles, and "3D" is just beginning to be used judiciously.  
Of course I don't think what's on Flickr "is HDR" by any stretch of  
the imagination, but it *is* the most visually distinct result of an  
HDR process that people can access today. The true aesthetics of the  
process and technology are some time from shaking themselves out (and  
the use of HDR in video games is just another example of this).

The only suggestion to alleviate your particular frustration with  
Flickr and Photomatix would be to write to the makers of Photomatix  
(and Photoshop, et al) and ask them to include some of the existing  
different tonemapping methods in their next release. Then at least  
your tools would also be in the hands of the people on Flickr.

-Mark

BTW, you might obviously note that my opinions are those of an image- 
creator interested in the application of HDRI, not a researcher  
committed to its technical development and understanding. I feel the  
same need to vent when something I've created is grossly misused or  
misunderstood.