An approach to evaluating HDR

HDR (or rather: tone-mapping) is arguably one of the techniques that stirs the most controversy. The simple truth is of course that it is just a technique that doesn't "make" a photo good or bad. But it is often misused, and overused - otherwise we wouldn't have all the discussions about it.

Point Loma Tide Pools, San Diego, CA. October 2010. (5s at ISO100, f/22, 16mm.)

The above photo is not an HDR, but it has been "tone mapped" with the Tonal Contrast filter of Nik's Color Efex suite. For the most part, I wanted to bring out more of the midtones and the fine structures in the rock.

What's so interesting is how HDR seems to "obscure" our perception. Maybe because it's still unusual to see pictures that have been processed that way. Or perhaps we've gotten so used to the limitations and flaws of photography that the "hyper-real" appearance of some HDR photos is still too unusual yet. Sometimes, it takes me a while to appreciate a good HDR photo, by trying to match what I would see with my own eyes with that what I see in the photo.

Either way... my plea is that we stop looking at the technique and effect, but simply apply our usual/normal judgement to those photos (and btw. - this goes for all other "hip" appearances like trashy/aged/retro toy camera/film look etc. too).

How? If you consider a monochrome photo as a reduction to simple tonality that enhances shapes, forms and composition, light and shadow, then HDR is the exact opposite. An enhancement of tonality that reduces/obscures everything else, no?

So whenever I see an HDR photo, I try to create an "abstract" of it in my head and ask myself: what if I was able to take away the HDR effect, it's detail, it's colors? Would it still be a good photo? Unfortunately, quite a lot of them fall apart into more or less harmless snapshots with some painterly effects then.