HDR? - what HDR? it came out of the camera just like this... I swear!  nikon D2x, 12-24mm, polariser & mountains of photoshop

I have been posting a lot of shots to my Flickr account lately and I am regularly asked whether a shot has been given the HDR treatment.

The answer is ‘no, not really’.

I say ‘not really’ because we use a variety of techniques to finish our shots here at sisson and if the truth be known, I have never even attempted to create an image using multi exposure HDR merging in photoshop.

Don't take me for some kind of flat-earth, velvia hugging, Rockwellite¹, I'm not - it's just that HDR is not my bag baby.  Why not? - I'll get to that later, but firstly let's quickly look at what we do to achieve an extended dynamic range in our shots - but be warned, there is nothing revolutionary here and most of it is decidedly old-skool.

Technique 1 – Good Light

Otago Peninsula NZ - nikon D2x, 12-24mm, polariser & nothing much else

We don't shoot in rubbish light (if we do you'll never know about it).  Great photos are the result of great light and that generally means getting up early and going to bed late. Super contrasty, midday light, in my experience is good for nothing other than taking paparazzi shots of Britney or Lindsay looking their worst.  Highlights are too hot and shadows too deep - unfortunately many people see HDR as the solution - all I see is weird, hyper-realistic, muddy shots.

Technique 2 – Singh Ray ND Grad Filters

Moke Lake, Queenstown NZ - nikon D2x, 12-24mm, polariser & singh-ray ND-2G-HS

We rely heavily on our small selection of singh-ray ND grad filters.  The 3 stop Galen Rowell hard edge variant is our most used and we will be adding 3 stop reverse ND's to the bag soon.  These are expensive filters, but without them most of our top selling shots would not exist. 

Why not just bracket exposures and drop in the skies? I leapt on this bandwagon early in my digital career and I have never been able to achieve results that I was happy to put my name on. Invariably I have spent hours fiddling around blending ridgelines into blazing sunrises only to look at it the next day and dismiss it as lacking verisimilitude. I simply buggered up too many shots trying to do it this way.

I also find that wonderful things seem to happen through a singh-ray filter.  ND denotes colour neutrality, but I detect favourable (warm) colour shifts from these filters.  Add to this, well balanced and believable contrast enhancements to clouds and skies and you have an unbeatable package.

Technique 3 – The Curves Strudel

Key Summit NZ- nikon D2x, 12-24mm, polariser & singh-ray ND-3G-HS

In-computer we use the Sarah Lee approach to curves adjustments (layer upon layer upon layer of light fluffy curves) to subtly make selective enhancements to tonality, luminosity and contrast.

We will often use a touch of shadow/highlights (usually 3-4% max) in grassed areas etc to open up the shadows for printing purposes.

Technique 4  - HDR nano

Sometimes in the field I will bracket exposures when I know that highlights (typically the brightest part of the sky at sunrise/set) are blown even using an ND grad.  We will then 'paint' this in to the TIF using a layer mask - this is the closest we come to HDR.

So why don't I like HDR?

It is probably a function of my age really - over the years I have probably viewed millions of photos, and I have grown accustomed to the aesthetic qualities inflicted by film and digital's inherent technical limitations.  Subliminally, I expect to see contrast and shadow and a limited range of mid-tones.  I find many (not all) HDR images lacking in punch and authenticity.

I am not closing the door on full HDR, as incrementally, the dynamic range of digital cameras will increase and my subliminal expectations of how a 'standard' capture appears may also evolve to the point that one day I will see HDR as 'real'

T

1. I like Ken Rockwell a lot, I visit his site pretty much daily – it’s just that I don’t agree with his stance on film (RealRAW^tm).