I proclaimed earlier that digital photography is not a real revolution because it had not brought with it a new visual language. Even when writing that I was well aware of this exception: HDR (High Dynamic Range Imaging). Perhaps one will soon grow tired of the effect, but some of the images can look quite remarkable at times when the effect is used in moderation. Like in this example, this can work quite well for landscape/cityscape photos, esp. Tokyo (not my photo by the way, just blogged via flickr as an example of someone taking good images of Japan using that technique [although my friend Mr Higashimori is bound to object, with good reason as always]). At the moment more convincing than camera tossing or the various ways of trying to emulate a film look, but one can clearly feel half-life ticking away. When does an effect end being a pure effect and become a new language? I suppose when you are able to detect an artistic vision behind it. A lot of the digital work seems to be done for its own sake, just because we can. You run the software and you’re there. And so is everyone else.
One other thing: has anyone else noticed that there is no decent discourse about digital image making? All attempts to do so in public fora are destined for the dreaded digital vs. film debate. We realise once more that few intelligent comments are drowned in the myriad of average voices. This is the down side of the great equaliser and why I suspect that Web 2.0 is of limited interest to the minority that matters.
I actually had never heard about HDR until this post. Being only a ‘hobby’ photographer myself, I have no real philosophical stance on the whole chemical vs. digital debate- pictures either look good or bad, interesting or boring, who cares how they were taken.
I looked at camerafreak’s series and a bunch of other HDR stuff on flickr. OK, maybe flickr shuld not be considered a valid representation of what can or should be done with this technique. Be that as it may, I have to say I was pretty underwhelmed overall. In the best cases the images seem to be plucked from a futuristic, Blade Runner-esque design study (e.g. here http://static.flickr.com/68/172669704_94f5533f44.jpg?v=0), but at worst- and much more commonly- I am reminded of those garish posters of island sunsets, sports cars or exotic animals so many people (in Germany at least) had on their walls in the ’80s (like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/kros/148140214/
I agree with Dirk- to me the vast majority of these HDR images seem completely devoid of meaning or subtext. It reminds me of the early days of motion pictures, when people were so blown away by the concept of moving images, they would flock to theaters to see the most banal stuff- shots of moving trains, people walking etc. Maybe one day people will get over it and use the technique to convey some specific artisitic meaning, but right now it’s just people jerking off their expensive cameras and imaging software.
Honestly, I haven’t seen any HDR worth writing home about. Either they are badly done and/or the subject itself is as boring as watching paint dry. The details of the techniqiue may be new but multiple exposures is as a old as photography itself, and putting clouds in a blank sky has been done before too. Basically, at the moment HDR looks like a digital version of coloured postcards from around 1900. But it may mature into something beyond just technological show-off, when someone uses it as a tool to convey something new. The photograph shown has some irritating halo-like artefacts along the rooftop and the railroad bridge (?) on the right, like a sloppy darkroom work. What HDR becomes remains to be seen, and it may turn out to be great – who knows? The discourse about digital image making is probably out there, but I think one needs to look at forums about image making – not photography-related forums.