Comments on: [Hot Topic] Use Of HDR In Photojournalism: Is This Going Too Far?

By: Ron Sanchez

Ron Sanchez — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:14:00 +0000

it is amazing that their are people out there that have nothing to do than to complain about every little thing they don’t like just because they don’t have a life does not give them the right to complaint about everything, the picture is very nice, i don’t understand what someone could possibly find bad about it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:29:00 +0000

I don’t see what’s wrong with the basic concept of HDR to be used in photojournalism. If you have something interesting to photograph but the sun is behind it, with a regular exposure you’ll either be seeing just the subject or just the sky with a correct exposure. If you HDR it it then becomes possible to see the whole thing. In a strict sense, HDR just gives the possibility to have a larger dynamic range. Where it gets crappy is when people start abusing and turn it into oversaturated images with no idea what is a highlight and what is a shadow. This image, for example looks like fruit loop vomit and is much more of a photo illustration than a truth telling photo. But there are plenty of subtle HDR images around that really add to the image rather than creating the over used cheesy effect we’ve come to call HDR.

By: Garrett Graham

Garrett Graham — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:26:00 +0000

Wow hot topic! My opinion is that for historical purposes the image should only be edited lightly from the original scene. Slight adjustments to brightness, contrast and color should be sufficient. HDR has it’s place in historical photojournalism only to bring out important elements in dark areas. I think this particular shot is taken to the extreme and may not be representative of the original scene. I am not a huge fan of HDR photography, but when it is tempered and used appropriately it can make some scenes very exciting and interesting. At least they disclosed the method, but it does not excuse the extreme application.

By: Eamon Queeney

Eamon Queeney — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:44:00 +0000

As a working photojournalist, I would say the photo needs to labeled as a “photo illustration” or other equivalent term. HDR isn’t much different than using a long exposure to blur a car or runner, just another technique to create a unique image. That aside, I hate most HDR photos and think they should be kept out of the newsroom unless they are really revealing something important to the reader. Also it is usually a composite of a few images which is deceptive.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:44:00 +0000

To add to your first scenario (bracketed exposures) – what if a person had been jogging across the frame at the time of the exposures? Now when you go to edit those together you have three ‘ghosted’ joggers that need to be cloned out further violating the principles of photojournalism.

By: Anthony Kurtz

Anthony Kurtz — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:01:00 +0000

IS BLACK AND WHITE ANY MORE THE TRUTH THEN EXAGGERATED COLORS? What if they created a camera that had a greater dynamic range then our eyes…would it not be considered news-worthy?

By: Joshua-James Cunliffe

Joshua-James Cunliffe — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:56:00 +0000

When it makes the bridge look like it’s made of plutonium then yes, probably.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:04:00 +0000

I think people become confused with how photos are doctored and what photojournalism describes.

Firstly our eyes have way more dynamic range that what any camera can record. (As others have described)If a camera has equal dynamic range to our eyes, no one would complain about this photo.
However, if this photo was over pushed in terms of HDR photography that what LOOKS realistic, I would say it is unacceptable. However, if HDR was used to simply document what was seen by the photog, there shouldn’t be anything against the doctrines of photojournalism.End.

By: Mike M

Mike M — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:52:00 +0000

“Why is it referenced that the image is an HDR?”

“HDR is only a tool or technique used by the artist”

1: This is supposed to be journalism, aka, no exxagerations or “doctored” facts, whether they are in an article or an image.

2: You said “artist”. Some photojournalists are artists, but photojournalism is overwhelmingly not about creating art, but capturing events as they happen. While you may want to add your uncle ted to an image because he adds to it “artistically”, that (or HDR) belongs nowhere in a NEWS PAPER, where people come for unbiased, undoctored facts. By adding these colors which were not in the original image (Note how HDR requires multiple exposures) it is absolutely adulterated.

What’s next, some hack like you going and HDR’ing conflict photography? I don’t think so.

By: Mike M

Mike M — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:49:00 +0000

“I don’t think this photo tells any lies.”

That the sky was that blue, that the horizon was that red, all while the middle of the sky was completely white.

Sunset/rise never looks like that, and don’t you go telling me that’s the truth.