HDR or Not?

(Note: Click on all images to enlarge.)

It is condemnatory that the hefty investment of my camera gear has not turned into a wise one due to severe practice shortage. Deterred by wintry blizzard earlier of the year, I am now excuse-less since the summer has been blistering hot. Encouraged also by my imminent travel to Egypt, I dusted my camera and headed to Greenwich Park earlier this week with a purpose – to shoot bracketed photos for HDR, or high dynamic range images.

HDR image is a photographic technique where three or more images taken under different exposure settings are combined to form a single picture, in a scene where the contrast is starkly different for it to be properly exposed by the camera.

However, as I was editing post-processing my photographs taken under a mildly disappointing and thus less dramatic weather, I couldn’t help but began to wonder, how much control do we have to perfecting our images before they become, erm, unrealistic?

The first of the three photos above was the ‘correctly’ exposed photo as interpreted by the camera. It is evident that the foreground (the building) in this photo was underexposed and the background (the cloudy sky) was washed-out. In order to preserve both the dramatic sky and the details of the building, a HDR solution has to be summoned.

So by combining the normally exposed photo, with one severely underexposed (for details in the sky) and another extremely overexposed (for the details in the building) photos, the following HDR image is produced and is compared to its original image on the left.

It is undoubted that the HDR image was processed compulsively. Nevertheless, very few people will deny that such an image is actually very pleasing to the eyes and even when they do, they are often amazed by the details preserved in a picture using HDR technique. However, here comes the question: When it comes to photography, are we striving to capture a photo that could genuinely represent a real scene even when the end result is slightly disappointing, or are we trying to gimmick-ly processed photos and so the details are retained?

Challenging question. But what if we tone down the processing method and produce a closer-to-life image that is capable of preserving details? (Take a look on the following photos.) Now we notice that the sky is less dramatic but the clouds are clearly distinguishable from each other as opposed to the original image. The details of the building has also become sharper. The overall tone of the image is warmer and thus eliminated the hazy feeling of the original image due to perhaps incorrect white balance setting.

Now another question: If presented only the lightly HDR image, will you suspect it is processed? And if given the last couple of images, which one would you have preferred in general?

I understand and share the same perspective as many of you, photos are best left untouched. But what if HDR image, if realistically processed – if that ever exists – could significantly enhanced the details of an image and bring it closer-to-life, which is highly impossible to be captured using a camera solely? Take a look on the following example, could you tell it is processed?