There seems to be a lot of discussion over "HDR" (High Dynamic Range) theses days. The question is this, are most of the HDR images really HDR or are they just interesting graphics?
My understanding of HDR is the process combines images to depict the full dynamic range of a scene that the film or digital camera can't. Pretty much if you expose for the shadows you blowout the highlights or if you expose for the highlights you lose detail in the shadows. Our vision has a higher dynamic range than film so that's why sometimes when we look at a photo it disappoints since it's not depicting the scene the way we remember it.
HDR takes an image exposed for shadows, a normal exposure and one exposed for highlight, combines them and renders the full dynamic range of the scene.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2tSBf3LA18TyC0oEJwhcqtqES2Swo_7AUjjHhXU7hGzdt8Dzy4RCHA-mYPABKCdUIoP-1IjFjw8cZDR6dVjNzCI2fFIUO8Osgn9z6-fLnnr2246kxXBGBGS05I9VU7ZcFKjieyvOzfD6D/s320/The+Brian.jpg)
I've done HDR images this way and the pictures are amazing. I've tried to get the same results by saturating, adding contrast, sharpening, etc. but never got close to the same results as combining 3 or more exposures.
That said, this picture would be considered HDR by some. It started as a RAW file, manipulated in Adobe RAW, rendered, dodged and burned, blurred, etc. 20 minutes of post production and a single image file.
HDR? maybe. Can I sell these? Maybe to a limited clientele. They are interesting, I like the look but is a snapshot and 20-30 minutes of post production a photograph or graphic arts?
I'm not trying to take anything away from artists that do this type of work. Believe me when I say that I only wish I had their imagination and skill with lighting and Photoshop. Art is in the eye of the beholder and very subjective and I think this is truly art, I just wonder what Ansel Adams would say? Hey, I'm just sayin.....