In processing my photos from the trip, I decided to do an experiment and to process all the images using HDR. HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range" and is a way to process digital photos so that they capture a broader range of light than is normally captured in photographs. In other words, you can get detail (and vibrant color) in both the bright and dark areas of a photo. HDR has been around for years (I'm a chronic late adopter). It requires a lot more digital processing, and I'm just learning, which is to say I'm not completely happy with all the results, but here they are.
A few photos below. To see the full set, go to my Flickr page to the Paris album:
Tom Stahl 2014 Paris HDR
To read more about HDR, the debates around it, and my opinions on it all, scroll down below the photos.
.jpg) |
| The Seine from the Eiffel Tower Second Deck |
.jpg) |
| Champ de Mars from Eiffel Tower |
.jpg) |
| Leo and the Louvre Pyramid |
.jpg) |
| Gendarme, Luxembourg Gardens |
.jpg) |
| Waiter, Boulevard Saint-Germain |
HDR was developed to overcome one of the biggest limitations in photography, which is that film or digital cameras can only capture a range of about 3-5 "stops" of light (each stop doubles the amount of light let in to the camera). In other words, the brightest area of a photo can only hold detail if it is 3 to 5 stops brighter than the darkest area. Areas brighter than that are washed out, darker areas turn black.
In contrast, the human eye can see about 11 "stops" worth of difference between the lightest and darkest areas of a scene, much more than a camera. This is one reason people are often disappointed by their photos. When you shoot a scene with both dark shadows and bright areas, typically either the shadows go black or the bright areas get washed out. Either way, the end photo tends to disappoint versus the scene you saw when you clicked the shutter.
HDR gets around that via digital processing. In short, you shoot several exposures of a scene, exposing for both the brightest and darkest areas. You then combine the pictures with computer software that "selects" the best exposure for each area of the scene. Your pictures have much greater range and they "pop"off the screen or page.
HDR is ubiquitous in published photos these days. My iPhone camera even has an HDR filter. However, it's not without controversy, especially among landscape and travel photographers. Adherents claim, correctly, that it comes closer to capturing the range of light that a human can see, and that critics don't like it because we have become conditioned to the limitations of images without HDR. There is some truth in this - many of the same criticisms of HDR were made about digital processing in general when it first became available. Yes, HDR is "manipulation" of a scene, but so are long exposures, star trails, and many other techniques used by landscape photographers.
At the same time, there is a telltale over-saturated look that many HDR photos have. It is easy to end up with bright, garish images that go way beyond the conditions of the original scene. I found it tempting to do this - it's fun and new, and it makes the photos really jump off the screen. But that over-saturated look is like eating too many donuts - the first one may taste good, but several donuts in I start to feel a little sick. In the end, the method I preferred was to create an HDR version of a scene, then "tone it down" by blending it with the original, less saturated version in the computer.
My other problem with HDR is the same problem I have with digital photography in general. Yes, if you spend the time doing HDR processing, and you use a little restraint, you get wonderful, vibrant, realistic images. However, the way you do it is by spending more time in front of the computer. I got interested in photography as a way to capture my love of traveling and the outdoors, not as a way to spend more time staring at a screen. Still figuring out how to balance that.....
.jpg){kind=link}