The High Price of Selling Out.

"I guess your right it is controversial. But not in the way you think. The HDR is the photo equivalent of wearing tight plaid pants, bright orange striped shirt and a pink polka-dot bozo tie.....to a funeral."

Don't think I didn't anticipate this.

The same point was made more thoroughly, if not more politely, in this article: Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn.

The argument happens every day on message boards and Flickr. It usually goes like this:

Photog: "Hey, here's an HDR photo I shot. What do you think?"
Critic 1: "It's just a gimmick!"
Critic 2: "Film photographers have been doing it for years!"
Critic 3: "It's too unrealistic!"
Critic 4: "It's too realistic!"
Critic 5: "Your mother's a whore!"

Now, I know there are some folks with serious artistic concerns about HDR photography. I can totally respect that. In fact, since their concerns are so valid, I'd like to offer a 100% refund to anyone who saw those HDR photos and was offended. Please accept my heartfelt apologies.

But allow me to retort.

In essence, this is a modernist vs. traditionalist conflict. If Ansel Adams' work is a Chopin nocturne, HDR imaging is Britney Spears singing "Oops, I did it again." And that's a poignant and long-fought battle, with only this to mar its meaning: No one cares.

Only an incredibly small percentage of our population will ever buy a photograph for its own sake. The great majority of us do not appreciate the amount of energy a photographer or artist hammers into any given piece--at least, not enough to buy it. We own the images that mean something to us, and therefore our refrigerators are covered with family photos, rather than subtle and expensive masterpieces composed by the old guard. Very few of us will ever say, "What an amazing use of the inherent vocabulary of the photographic language--I'll take it."

So the idea of HDR as a gimmick is something that will worry photographers, particularly traditional journalists and the art crowd. And they'll get on the internet and call each other names, and they'll talk about hyper-realism and wonder if Ansel is rolling in his grave. But tell me, how many of them will be strolling through the gallery this weekend?

Now, I hold the DarkTopo concept to some pretty high standards, and I have the ulcers to prove it. Don't think I'd let the fact that the audience doesn't care interfere with how much I care. So here's the thing:

I like these images. I don't live and breathe for them, as I do the DarkTopo work, but I think these are good photos that I'm proud to create.









You can think it's a gimmick all you want. I won't dispute that, but I will question why no one called me out on the gimmick of pinhole photography, or redscale? My guess: It's not a gimmick if it uses film, or produces images the general public will find blurry. Then it's art.

Let's not forget that there are still people out there who consider photography in its entirety to be a gimmick. And I value their opinion about as much as that of photo nerds on the internet.

So I feel better now that we've had our little talk. If anyone is still offended, I'm serious about that refund. Anonymous, your check is in the mail.