HDR as an art form

Article by Jimmy McIntyre

When photography was invented artists thought that it would bring ruin to art but it is shown that photography has been an ally of art, an educator of taste more powerful than a hundred academies of Design would have been… .

“Photography and Chromo-lithography,” 1868

King’s Cross, London – photo by Jimmy McIntyre

The reaction of artists to the emergence of photography as an art form was predictable, no doubt. They felt threatened. Here was a new way of representing the world borne out of a technology that few understood, and that could ultimately threaten the livelihood of artists everywhere.

Supported by the likes of Alfred Stieglitz & Edward Steichen, the acceptance of photography as an art form was slow.

Despite the unifying belief amongst modern-day photographers that they do indeed practice an art form, an argument is constantly raging about what exactly constitutes ‘true’ photography.

The most cumbersome of these debates has centred around the use of High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. Many so-called ‘purists’ refuse to acknowledge it as a form of photography at all.  Their argument generally centres around the supposed lack of reality within HDR photos. A purist definition is that photography should be the ‘accurate representation of life’. Strangely enough these same photographers will often create black & white or sepia photographs – a reality no one has yet to experience.

HDR photographers, on the other hand, argue that HDR is not simply a tool for creating surreal photography, it is also a powerful method for building a balanced, more realistic image than any other method available.

Furthermore, HDR practitioners in general question why photography must be an accurate portrayal of real life. They don’t feel the need to bind themselves so adherently to the rules and definitions created by other people.

One word that consistently appears in the HDR vs non-HDR debate is ‘should’. Purists regularly argue what ‘should’ exist in photography, what compositional rules one ‘should’ follow, and what work-flow a true photographer ‘should’ use. HDR photographers commonly ask ‘why?’

The ‘shoulds’ of others only seek to inhibit – photo by Jimmy McIntyre

While guidance can help an individual find their true footing in a particular art from, the word ‘should’ seeks only to constrict creativity. When our imaginations begin to fire it is the word ‘should’ that dulls the flame. ‘Shoulds’ are the walls that we surround ourselves in every day of our existence. We ‘should’ go to work. We ‘should’ get a pension. We ‘should’ do our homework.

In art there can be only one ‘should’. We ‘should’ not be bound by the limitations set by others

In fact, only three things can truly inhibit a person’s artistic endeavours; lack of tools, individual skill, and imagination – not the rules of others.

Many purists proudly claim that they do not edit their work at all. They content themselves with only the hardware they have in their bag. For many HDR photographers it seems strange that hardware like fliters are entirely acceptable to purists, yet software which can often produce the same effect is beyond the realms of acceptability.

In any given field there are elitists who cling on to conventional methods of doing things. It’s difficult to know why this resistence to new technology or belief systems exists. Yet, whatever the reason, curiousity and the need for progress often prevail, changing the practice of established disciplines forever.

While purists continue to debate the use of HDR photography, HDR artists continue to take pictures, to demand more from software, to refine their understanding and practice of composition, and above all, to flex their imaginations whenever possible.

Whether or not people wish to call HDR a form of photography is irrelevant. Purists can also choose to remain ignorant of the wealth of choices HDR offers the world of photography, from surrealism to realism, but we can be certain of one thing; High Dynamic Range Photography is an art form, and arguably one of the most exciting art forms around today.

My name is Jimmy McIntyre and I’m the editor of HDR One magazine. I travel for a living, learn languages, take pictures, and generally strive to enjoy every minute of the waking day! You can visit my HDR travel blog or subscribe to my updates on facebook – Jimmy McIntyre
  • Jake

    Nicely written. I don’t take much notice of the HDR haters.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mikehardistyphotography Mike Hardisty

    There will always be those who argue against HDR in any form. Personally I ignore them. It’s my photography, my choice how I process it. If they don’t like it, fine, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Acero666 Andrew Steel

    Excellent article and oh so very true.

  • Bill C

    I’m one of those purists but
    do not dislike HDR entirely. I prefer to call it Photo editing. Hey
    Jimmy, at one time B&W photography was all we had so you shouldn’t
    be inferring to us as hypocrits. I don’t use HDR or Photoshop or
    anything el
    se but Zoombrowzer that came
    with my camera. That allows for simple editing & is great because
    editing was limited with a film camera, which is how I learned. I have
    come to a point that I don’t need or want HDR or the like. It is an Art
    form but I believe it is in a separate category from “Straight”
    Photography. I Capture Images.

    • Jimmy McIntyre

      Hi Bill! I appreciate your
      view point but will never understand it. Just because we used to use
      black and white doesn’t mean we should use it now. We once poured urine
      out on the street but now we’ve made sanitary improvements. Why live in
      the past?

      By the way, I’m not saying people shouldn’t use
      b&w. I use it. I’m saying it’s a weak argument to describe hdr as
      ‘unrealistic’ and at the same time use b&w which is clearly
      unrealistic in itself. how is that a balanced argument?

      As for
      not needing or wanting HDR, that’s fine of course. We all have our
      preferences. However, one of my main points was who cares how we define
      HDR? How many HDR photographers are arguing about names? Why is it so
      important. I prefer to pick up my camera and take pictures than to
      debate such things.

  • Bynx

    If I couldnt shoot for HDR I wouldnt shoot at all. I am greatly disappointed at what people call HDR which is in fact poorly processed tone mapping. Halos, bright yellow grass, fluorescent green trees all the signs of bad processing. Isnt there a way to distinguish between a good realistic HDR image and one that has become something else? While I like the looks of images such as your Kings Cross Station shot, I dont see much true HDR in your first edition. I hope we will see some in the future.

    • http://strange-lands.com/ Jimmy

      Hi Bynx! Thanks for coming by. You’re more tha welcome to submit some of your true HDR for the 2nd edition :)

  • Andrew Lowther

    Very well-argued Jimmy. You will find purists in many walks of life. I come from a computing background and experienced the same debate over such things as ‘C++ or Java’, ‘Windows or Unix’, ‘program editors or not’. Then, as now, I found no benefit in participating in an argument with narrow minded individuals.

    What I like about the HDR community is that generally it is accepting of all forms of photography and art. In fact, as you state, HDR itself comes in many forms, and every one of them valid IMO. If the person creating them derives some pleasure from the process and/or the result (whatever that may be) then, for me, this is all that is required.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pawel.tomaszewicz Pawel Tomaszewicz

    thruth mate. its getting better now as hdr become very popular. thanks for publication too :)

  • Dorsetdunk

    looking good Jimmy but HDR is more than just an art form

    I began to realise the potential of HDR while trying to shoot a very
    iridescent and metallic bug which always fooled the camera, using a
    single shot (pseudo HDR) I was able to produce the colours and details
    more faithfully something that I had not been able to achieve in camera
    or in normal post processing

    i see the anti HDR brigade have begun to circle, well here is my take on
    the matter i will leave it to you to argue the points on your site

    The camera always lies,

    which is a hard fact for the so called purists to swallow

    HDR was pioneered as early as the 1850s by Gustave Le Gray so its hardly a new gimmick

    it has received unfavourable feedback due to those that fool around and
    produce over processed monstrosities and the sadly misguided purists
    who’s creativity does not evolve much past pressing the shutter button

    as for editing what about all that dodging and burning that went on in
    the wet darkroom was that not due to the limitations of the camera and
    an attempt to better portray what the eyes perceive ?

    and if you did not print them your self then it was never truly your own
    work as the bloke at the print shop had a hand in the settings

    editing just did not begin when adobe gave birth to PS as many seem to
    think, and layers already existed in the darkroom long before PS

    strange how they except black and white as a medium which is obviously a
    creative process and bares no resemblance to the true scene and yet
    criticize a technique that does if used correctly

    perhaps we should be now calling HDR photographers the true purists

    Posted 3 hours ago.
    (permalink)

  • Chriss

    What is HDR? heheh JK! Nicely written Jimmy.

Learn HDR using two of the most popular HDR Courses in the world.

Take your HDR to a whole new level with our Advanced Digital Blending course

Click here to learn more...

Or, if you're not ready for that yet, our Beginner's Course will help you on your road to producing amazing HDR photography

Click here to learn more...