Sporgon said:
Vern said:
For example our dynamic range is so much higher than a sensor that, to me, blocked shadows don't look natural. If I was standing there, I would be able to see the details. But, we aren't used to photos looking that way, so they look unnatural.
Interesting comment. Over time tastes do change - dramatically. When it comes to shadows the past centuries of great artists painted heavy shadows. Of course they could have painted ultra "HDR" should they have wished. I suppose if you go back far enough Roman wall muriels were painted pretty flat.
When it comes to most scenes as they really were in colour and contrast a faithful reproduction generally doesn't hold attention.
As an artist for almost 40 years, there are two ways that artists look at Dynamic Range (called value range in art-speak) and what the eye sees. As is often mentioned, when we look at shadows we can see details and see it is lighter than the camera reproduces. Of course, this is because our eyes can almost instantaneously adjust from looking at the lighter areas into the shadows (and vice versa). However, when we are looking at the light areas, we would not see those details in the shadows - and when we are looking into the shadows, we would not see detail in the light areas. In a sense we are not that different than the camera - except that we don't think of vision that way since our eyes adjust so quickly and automatically when we change from looking at light and dark areas.
While not a universal rule, one strategy that artists have used is to pretend that the eye is looking into
either the dark areas or the light - not both. If the painting is primarily about the light areas, then the light areas have the details and more variation in the various shades of dark and light, while the shadows are made darker and without much if any detail. If the painting is primarily in the dark, then light areas are simplified with less detail. The basic idea is that you don't see detail in both the light and shadow areas
at the same time.
In photography, of course, before HDR and the wider dynamic range that is possible when lifting shadows on the computer, you had no choice but to expose for either the light or the shadow. Now you can do both. To some, this is more "realistic" as it is more like what the eye sees when we look at both light and shadow areas. For other, it is less "realistic" as we really don't see into both the light and shadow areas at the exact same time. For me personally, I think seeing detail on both light and shadow areas is not realistic and I am not a big fan of HDR, plus I think most HDR users overdo it - making the shadow areas almost as light as the light areas. This goes against another oft-used art strategy, which is to make sure that light and shadow areas are clearly defined. This means that everything in shadow is drawn or painted darker than everything that is in the light. Again, one could argue that the eye (and brain) can clearly see the difference, so it should be represented that way.
However, I'm just an enthusiast and my perception isn't necessarily correct.
