[HDRI] Re: NYT article

[Mark Banas (lists)]

On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Kirk Thibault wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2006, at 4:36 AM, Geraldine Joffre wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Photographers in general do not wish to produce photorealistic  
>> images.
>> Geraldine Joffre
>>
> </snip>
>
> This is a very interesting statement, especially in light of 3D  
> modelers and renderers who are trying to produce "photorealistic"  
> images by using HDR photographs as radiance maps and reflectance  
> maps.  Fascinating philosophical point of view!  I guess it comes  
> down to one's definition of what is "photorealistic".

The quoted statement makes little sense to me as well, but perhaps  
for different reasons.

"Photorealism" is a term that (I thought) means something "looks like  
a [traditional] photograph."  Of course, when anyone picks up a  
camera, they already have understood and accepted that the image it  
produces will (most likely) be a 2D, monocular view of the scene that  
is cropped by a rectangular sensor/ film plane, and subject to the  
technology of the capture method. The resulting image looks nothing  
like what a human would see at the time, but many people still enjoy  
photographs (!) because they communicate part of what was seen at the  
time by triggering the mind to have a reaction. Good photographers  
heighten the reaction to an image by choice of subject, framing,  
lighting, processing, etc. This is all a part of the subjective  
notion of "photorealism," and we see where this idea is stretched  
everyday in bleached out colors in car ads, heavily retouched fashion  
models, or even cropping a mother-in-law from a vacation photo.

What people have been trying to do since the inception of photography  
(the darkened room with a hole in one wall, or "camera obscura") is  
capture *some* of "what is seen by the eyes" at a specific time and  
place, and HDRI is trying to advance and redefine what is seen as a  
"traditional photograph" by capturing *more* of what is seen by the  
human eye (among other things). So, in my opinion, today's  
photographic HDRI (and tone-mapping) is quite "non-photorealistic."  
Isn't that the point? To reduce some of the limitations of photography?

Anyway, this is all "a storm in a teacup" to me. Every image that  
goes into or out of my computer is subject to my whims and the  
technology I have access to. I would imagine the same is true for  
most everyone else who takes photos - you post an image you  
personally think looks good. Plus, I've seen some truly awful results  
from other TMOs put into powerpoint presentations to show what is a  
"good result," but my idea of "awful" is just where the author's  
opinion departs from mine, as far as aesthetics are concerned. I  
don't see their example image or TMO as an obstacle to HDRI and  
tonemapping - next year (or next month) there will hopefully be a new  
advancement and maybe myself and many others will find a use for this  
new research as well... when it gets into our tools, that is.

-Mark