Well... Without a doubt it's HDR perfection.
I love the story this shoe tells.. It seen many miles :)

Thanks again for the link to Zack Arias video, that track was amazing (and the video as well, of course :) ) .

The lost and found shoe :-)

As mostly, I love the revealed details and textures while tone mapping it. The sky also looks great.
I would probably have kept the colours of the original image because I like them a lot.

Fantastic, i like your kind of tonemapping, wondefull!

Ilan: you're welcome.

Nicki: thanks.

LightningPaul: I did try a colour version, and it worked really well for the shoe (it had a great blue/black sheen), but the rest of the image just didn't look right. Well, I couldn't get it right, at least not for the mood I wanted to create :)

I like this image. The tones work very well together, and the selective sharpening adds to the depth. My one nit would be what appears to be a bit of haloing on the left side of the shoe. Otherwise very nice.

Regards,

Dave

If I could make an old shoe look this good, I'd quit my job. That shoe is so three dimensional, it seems like it's here and not there in the photo. Nice!

I can't tell you how much I love this...it is larger than life, straight out of a fairytale. The old woman in the shoe....so cool! Great job!

So that's where I left it...

Great new addition to the tutorials btw. Most of my experiments with HDR are drawn from a single frame in Photomatix Pro as I usually don't have the foresight to shoot a series - so it's very useful to read how you use the technique.

very impressive hdr..like a giant shoes...

I think it's wonderfully surreal. Gulliver's Travels. :)

Nice shot! Beautiful toning and great details!

Very cool shot. I love it. But mainly I came back here today to thank you for linking to the video yesterday.

On small step for HDR, one giant step for fascinating photography!

Great photo.

Carlos

A wonderful old shoe. I wonder who left it there. A to die for sky! Great work david.

What a great "product shot". Your HDR treatment gives such a sense of "realness" to the shoe.

I haven't had time to study the new HDR tutorial yet, but I'm curious--was your G9 on a tripod? or if not, how do you handhold the camera while changing the shutter speed?, or is a bracketed exposure?

stunning capture!

Interesting to know abou your tutorials and how a picture can improve thanks to skills and software.

This photo says me nothing. Yes, it's good exposure and post-processing but what do YOU whanna say with this? Is it good composition? Or is it just to show off the hdr you're currently working on? I'm sorry. But this is to me a really boring and meaningless shot. I don't wanna be rude but I've been following your blog for two years and lately I've not been impressed. I just shrug my shoulders and leave.

I wanna se more brave shots that has some feeling and thought behind it. Give me something that I haven't seen a thousand times in your blog!

See this a constructive criticism. I just wanted to post my honest thoughts for once. I've been feeling this for a while now.

Cheers.

Very nice HDR work here, this is a very simple yet effective photo.

Hi Dave

As you might expect Dave, I'm more inclined to align my evaluation of this image with Daniel's above. I've personally grown to dislike HDR, mainly because on the first level of signification it's the technique that grabs you not the content. I can probably apply this critique to most of your HDR images (and those that I have done) for that fact; so this comment applies to the work I have done as well (although I abandoned HDR a long time ago).

So in this case I would like to respectfully propose that the wrong processing approach has been pursued. In my opinion the image presented here does not denote that of an old abandoned shoe; nor does it imply/suggest the journey that the shoe has been on. The image merely says 'Photoshop' 'HDR' and that for me is its first level of signification; in essence, somehow I just feel that this is in direct opposition to what I should be feeling which is some kind of deeper response.

I feel that a fairly standard photographic approach would have been more appropriate for this subject. With HDR we seem to be on a quest to 'reveal all' whereas the experts have proved that the human brain becomes more visually stimulated when it has to try and complete the information itself (Gestalt, closure, figure ground etc)

It is for that reason that I'm not sure HDR will ever become mainstream within the photographic industry. It surely has its applications, but I still see its use being more within the domain of gaming and other synthetic areas of imaging.

So whilst I know that it's your business to be involved in this area of imaging I do question its long term appeal. And I was reading somewhere recently that when (not if) the time arrives that CGI can match the realism of the photographic image then photographers may be redundant. Being polemical, it could be argued that the construction of HRD images by photographers might just be playing into the hands of the CGI fanatics thereby providing a platform for the demise of the photo with all its (some might say) lack of dynamic range.

But it's only my opinion, and probably not inline with the vast majority of your particular audience. However, I think it's always good to open up a debate about such issues so that we can all evaluate our own perceptions

Anyway, that's how I feel, and I might as well use Dave's platform for expressing my opinion ;-)

The image is still incredible, for what is classified as a high end compact. OK so its no Monet, but it does show the technique very well, one that can be applied to (and I quote) a "sows ear", we all take them, and sometimes its good to rescue an image.
Its exceptional when you think that whilst you shot this on a hand held G9, with a flock of children to look after, you still got a blog worthy image, where others wouldn't have bothered.
I feel its more an interpretation of whats achievable using technique, and that it should be taken on face value, as opposed to being qualifed as a classic of its time.
We all know your skills as a photographer, and that under the pressure of writing a book, time is of course tight. I'd love to see "MORE DJN" in the current set of photos, but can pretty much totally understand why, having read what you say, that a lot of what you have blogged recently has been a little less than you would maybe have liked, due to lack of time / opportunities.
I look forward to seeing / reading the fruits of your labor, and applying some of the written techniques to some of my own work in the future, but applying an amount of those techniques that I can then be happy with as a photographer.
I see HDR as just another weapon in my photographic armoury, and whilst I love straight shots off the filmplane, untouched, I'll still use the tools I have at hand to give myself an advantage over those that don't / can't apply that technique. Rightly or wrongly? who can say....
So keep em coming Dave, and when you have time, show us some more of your gritty stuff, I appreciate your work as a reference point and will continue viewing / digesting your workflow and advice. I think theres a video a few people havent see recently. ;-)

Craig @ ID7

I too appreciate Dave's work and I'm sure that he will view these comments with interest and respond with food for thought.

But surely, at some point the repetitive talk about technique, software and f stops has to take a backseat so that the images themselves can then be judged on their content: photographic images that we can compare and contrast with the outstanding work of our predecessors and our peers.

I do agree though that, this blog is firmly aimed at the amateur photography market: individuals who largely need to align themselves to discussions around technique, and not of the wider issues that photographic practice. The populist photography press provides the most evidence of this, e.g. virtually every readers photograph is juxtaposed with an explanation of shutterspeeds, ISO settings, Focal lengths to name a few. But as added value I think that Dave could make a better name for himself by positioning himself against the Kelby's of this world and more towards a more academic view of photographic practice.

But to return to my main point. This and most other HDR images (not just Dave's) seem to be imbued with what is often referred to as 'style over content'. Each time I open a webpage that has a HDR image presented for consumption my immediate reaction is H D R. In other words there is an additional layer of meaning to get through before I can evaluate the picture. This is what I struggle with as a photographic practitioner, and personally it's the last thing I would want people to think of when first encountering my work. I'd rather people not like the picture for its composition, content and overall photographic quality alone. In essence I think that we should make our images as transparent as possible.

Obviously, we could apply this argument to any manipulated image. In my own case I try to represent the passage of time through fake 'yes fake' manipulations in photoshop. But because the images fall within the established language of photography they don't seem to attract the same critism.

I interviewed Dave with regards to this last year. He suggested that it could take many years before HDR was visually accepted as part of the language of photography. In principle I agree, but on reflection I'm still not convinced that we will fully accept HDR until the obsessive association with technique is minimised. That said I find it a fascinating debate and I for one just wish that the comments here could push Dave's work into more adventurous territory rather than guiding him to make another trip to the beach to seek out another candidate for the HDR treatment

And can I leave you with my favorite quotes which might explain why I am uneasy with the current situation in photography.

“The past went that-a-way. When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear view mirror. We march backwards into the future.”

(Marshall Mcluhen)

Hi did you tripod it or hand hold I ask to find out how you got the images aligned

"I try to represent the passage of time through fake 'yes fake' manipulations in photoshop. But because the images fall within the established language of photography they don't seem to attract the same criticism."

I think the issue here, or at least one of them, is that there's more than one language of photography. Sure, one the most powerful is the one you refer to, i.e. the mainstream, academic, professional tale - from daguerreotypes, through polaroids, to a whole variety of other current and 'respectable' trends - but there are also other ways to tell this tale though, and one of them is a tale told from the perspective of photography being a craft as well as an art. For example, work that attempts to emulate an older style of photography by using a variety of techniques within Photoshop, is often immediately recognisable as such, but from the perspective of 'photography as craft' this isn't an issue - it's just another part of the story - and I think it's the same with HDR photography. Yes, you can take a 'style over content' view - because it's not a mainstream technique - or you can take the view that it is what it is, and that you either like it or you don't.

And finally, in response to "In essence I think that we should make our images as transparent as possible", I disagree. If we made them as transparent as possible, how would things ever change or progress? Surely all we would end up is reiterating previous styles and techniques. I'd much rather produce work that at least attempts to tell a slightly different story, even if this does mean that some of my images end up seeming more like exercises in exploring technique than attempts to create art.

PS - I hadn't heard the quote from Mcluhen before, but it isn't a new perspective; i.e. the ancient Greeks held the view that the present recedes before us.

Dave B: hand held, while resting the camera on the sand :)

Good response Dave. I would suggest though that HDR does not speak the language of photography, but rather the language of the computer generated digital image and I believe that HDR gives away its association with the camera in favour of the computer processor. I agree that my approach to rendering photographs as aged is in principle no different, but what is clearly different is the perception of those images in peoples mind. I never get anyone ask me how I produce my images, but a lot of people attempt to derive meaning from them regardless of how they have been formed.

"I'd much rather produce work that at least attempts to tell a slightly different story, even if this does mean that some of my images end up seeming more like exercises in exploring technique than attempts to create art."

But that's the point I'm making. I just don't see that HDR is ever going to be able to tell a story, because no matter what we do with this technique its inherent CGI effect prevents you getting to the underlying issue which in this case could in fact be a really nice story. I think my argument is that it is the ridiculous inclusion of too much shadow and highlight detail across the scene that reduces an image to something resembling a bad CGI cartoon and that's not how we normally view scenes (or at least I don't)

The like or don't approach is also a fair comment but does nothing to help educate us to the future potential of the photo. I think it's fair to say that outside of architecture photography attracts a massive amount of academic interest because photographs tell us something about the world we inhabit day by day. I don't like this image, but still feel that there is some merit in debating it, not least because I might change your mind about pursuing HDR as a long term approach instead of doing some real photography. ;-) ;-);-)

So my comments are not intending to be critical of you and your images (you know I'm not like that), but rather a general observation of HDR in general expressed through the platform of a popular blog. I'm sure I'm not alone in my thoughts on this, but if I am then I stand guilty as charged: a HDR naysayer :-)

Craig - and I quote

"Its exceptional when you think that whilst you shot this on a hand held G9, with a flock of children to look after, you still got a blog worthy image"

Get a grip mate. Two words. Robert Capa

i think it's great. it inspires me. making something incredibly intriguing that, on the surface, has very little photographic merit (the "metered" image doesn't do anything for me). how can that be a bad thing?

"I never get anyone ask me how I produce my images, but a lot of people attempt to derive meaning from them regardless of how they have been formed."

In part I think that's as much to do with the way your present your work rather than anything else. Or, put another way, if I posted some of your recent work on chromasia, people would ask how it was done - because that's the way I've framed things; i.e. I talk about the craft of photography - the techniques, the processes and the stages that go into producing an image. I'm sure that if you invited that sort of discussion, you'd get the 'how did you do that' questions too.

"I think my argument is that it is the ridiculous inclusion of too much shadow and highlight detail across the scene that reduces an image to something resembling a bad CGI cartoon and that's not how we normally view scenes (or at least I don't)."

I still think this is a flawed argument. For example, we don't view the world in black and white, but nobody complains that black and white photographs are inherently flawed as a result, nor that removing the colour prevents you from getting to the underlying story. The point here, in my opinion at least, is that yes, there is an established language of photography - that includes black and white photography, old faded images, and a whole range of other styles and techniques - but HDR techniques, especially when then tend towards looking like CGI images, are not (yet) part of that vocabulary. As to whether they ever will be - I don't know.

And I'll get around to some 'real' photography just as soon as I get the HDR book finished :)

Brooks: it can't be a bad thing, at least not in any way that I can think of ;)

DJN...i have so much respect for what you do. I understand that people here are trying to make arguments about images that don't really represent reality, but I agree that it's a flawed argument. I know that Forrest Gump never met a president (or existed), and yet I'm moved to tears by his story (even though it doesn't exist). I think everyone should just create what they create. Please don't be (and I'm sure you're not) deterred by people who try to invalidate your images. There is a reason I've frequented your site more than any other site on the entire web for the past 3 years. You bring life to pieces that have none. You inspire inspiration in garbage. I say keep it up. If you are the reason that computers make photographers obsolete (as suggested by earlier posts) then I say that you are pretty epic...thanks Dave.

Brooks:

I'm in no way invalidating Dave's images. It's called a critique where one is allowed to express an opinion on another's work; again it's an opinion not fact. It seems that most amateur photographers can't get their heads around this idea because as soon as a comment on a blog appears to be negative someone jumps in and tries to make a personal defence of an individual rather than adding to the debate. You probably don't know that I know Dave very well: spent a fair bit of time shooting with him and in essence love his work albeit I just happen to not find his or any other's HDR work particulary appealing.

I still think this is a flawed argument. For example, we don't view the world in black and white, but nobody complains that black and white photographs are inherently flawed as a result, nor that removing the colour prevents you from getting to the underlying story.

Have you looked at Gestalt yet David: this might help you understand my argument. Particulary the area known as closure.

'You bring life to pieces that have none. You inspire inspiration in garbage.'

An old shoe is dead, it's life is over - it sits on a beach isolated from it's owner - the beach is dirty and full of crap - even the sky is dark and moody. It probably stinks. It looks like a cheap shoe.

I would ask again - should this image be rendered as shiny bright object - surely the technique should be at least congruent with the subject. If this were a precious stone on a clean sunny beach then I could at least relate the technique to it's subject.

I guess you could argue that the unique viewpoint makes the shot interesting and yes it does in part. But some could say that it looks like a giants shoe (except that it doesn't quite work in that way for me because it doesn't look like one )

But again, I'm only offering an opinion and one that anyone can add to or reject. Please though, don't see this as a personal attack on Davids image or blog. I find that by talking about images we might change our minds about the work we all create. And by that I include myself: someone might say something that makes me appreciate HDR images myself.

John

I know that Forrest Gump never met a president (or existed), and yet I'm moved to tears by his story (even though it doesn't exist).

Brooks:
I hear what you are trying to say, but let's remember that Forest Gump is part of a cinematic narrative: the two mediums are completely different visual experience so much so that film (as we still call it) has its own language and discursive practice. What we have here is a two dimensional static image that has been represented in a particular style: HDR. There is no audible narrative present and my point is that the process of HDR its 'firstness' is that of technique over image content.

Now I can appreciate technique as much as the next person and I work on mine all the time - but I have always understood that in examples of excellence technique is overpowered by substance. So whilst we are using the vehicle of analogy to express our ideas, it's like giving Robert Capa an award for being able to select the right shutterspeed of aperture instead of for the actual image itself. Okay, that's an extreme viewpoint, but valid nonetheless. And again, what I'm saying is that HDR and it's cartoonish looking results always seem to get in the way of what could be a great image.

I know this sounds polemical, but we can't deny that we are persuaded by images every day of the week. In fact Myth plays a huge part in the decisions we take to buy almost everything. The myth of HDR is that by taking a bracketed sequence of shots and then letting a computer blend them together you will create images that speak. Yes HDR produces an impactive shot with almost any subject, but in my opinion impactive for the wrong reasons.

But the exploration of technique is what I do admire about David and at some point in the future it will be interesting to here his reflection on what he is working on at the moment.

Thanks All

John: I wouldn't presume to question your preferences and opinions, but your are getting quite close to expressing aspects of both as statements of fact ;)

I've moved to comment on this one, which is something considering that I've followed this blog since before you dropped that point-and-shoot and had to get a real camera. When I first viewed this photo in Bloglines, I thought to myself "finally, an HDR that gets it right.." (and saying this will evidently get me labeled as an amateur, based on other comments, however I accept that with a smile)

Generally speaking, I agree with John that most HDR images don't "speak" to me, not to mention the cartoonish effect that gets in the way of any emotion that you could possibly obtain from the scene. But this one works for me and it doesn't matter who made the photo, I'd like it just as much if it was on John's site.

I am not qualified to shout out about Capa, Gesthalt, or even Forrest Gump. But I can say that this is an emotional photograph for me, but following the definition of art itself I understand that it wouldn't be for everyone.

Nor should it.

Mark

Mark: well put, I was beginning to think that there wasn't a middle ground on this topic ;)

I'm not a big fan of recontructed images, but I have to admire the composition of this one. The "shoe" point of view is fenomenal.

Despite all of the hullablaoo, I wouldn't have noticed this was HDR without reading the picture info. . .which in my opinion is the ultimate success.

an interesting but tiresome debate. i think as photographers we tend to forget that we aren't the audience. in a social space like this one, there may be lots of readers who are, and as david pointed out, he's made it an educational venue, so naturally there will be lots of interest in technique, but the lumberjacks see only the trees while the wider audience is enjoying the forest.

the fact that i open photoshop or lightroom every day results in my seeing that aspect of every photo i look at if it's at all apparent. i can't help it. it's as natural as a chef being unable to eat at someone else's restaurant without dissecting the recipes.

i have to remind myself sometimes to just enjoy the food.

wp.

Sorry Dave, I felt compelled to /add/ to the discussion.

I'm not really sure what the point of repeating the same opinion over and over again is meant to achieve. Everyone has their own opinion, which is what makes life so diverse. Personally, I don't like the majority of HDR images, but sometimes, the technique and photo combine to produce a piece of work that I think is incredible.

Personally, I don't appreciate (or /get/) many examples of modern art. Rather than dwelling on it, I state my opinion, move on and leave the people who do like it to enjoy it.

Rich: I agree, on both counts; i.e. There's no point in going over the same ground again and again, and a lot of HDR images - my own included - don't work. I'm persevering with the technique though because I do think it has the potential to make an important contribution.

Fantastic processing! Fantastic shoe! :)

I have the impression the most people don't know what is behind HDR. They don't know it's real power. A few thoughts of me mostly for the readers of your site.

When taking a picture you can capture the whole dynamic range or you can't because it's too high. In the latter case you end up with blown out high lights and/or blocked shadows using film or standard digital cameras.
A HDR image can contain the full dynamic range of light. Currently, to represent it on our screens or on print we have to tone map. This can be done by tone compression (= global adaptation) or by enhancing local contrast and details (= local adaptation)
HDR tone mapping. While tone mapping you have endless possibilities. Some make realistic looking choices other more artistic. This fully depends on the author. You like it or dislike it.

The local tone mapping techniques are not new at all. They are already applied for several hundred years. When a painter makes for instance of portrait of a king in his big garden during a very sunny at noon, he must map the scene with very high contrasts, so he must represent it on a medium of less than six stops. And of course some paintings are more realistic looking while others are very artistic. Again, a matter of taste, though we call them great masters of art.

HDR will become mainstream. Now we have the HD television (High Definition), sooner or later we end up with HDR televisions. They already exist but way too expensive. Of most of my images I keep a .HDR (or .EXR) copy to view them on such TV one day. This will be lots of fun.

In the future, we will also probably laugh with cameras like my Nikon D200 because of its very limited dynamic range :-)

Those who wants to learn the true potential powers of HDR or who wants to criticize even more how much HDR sucks, please read the HDRI Handbook (see: www.hdrlabs.com) , it might open your eyes.

i think i missed out on the majority of the discussion. but, hey, far be it from me to miss an opportunity to wax eloquent on the nature of being. or, the nature of being a photograph, rather. ;)

I think...

its foolish to discount a technique because its product doesn't appeal to you. so divers is the nature of art, that, a technique may not meet the needs of the thing you are trying to say, but such also is the nature of man and ideas that, what you are trying to say may not be what i am trying to say.

HDR is a technology, and it produces a unique kind of image. there is a lot room for variation within the field. some imagery produced is so hyper realistic that its almost a commentary on the process itself. and gosh, what technique hasn't had an artist who painted a commentary on the art field itself. ;) some imagery is so subtly done that its difficult to notice it was hdr. that too has a place. a lot falls in the middle, each piece says something to the author, and likely to many in his audience.

personally, there are days when realism isn't what i'm looking for. there are days when what i want is a kind of fantasy. there are days when i want to see dramatic skies, rich colors, unrealistic scenery. because, there are days when the mundanity of life, or the starkness of life, or the realness of life is either boring, or depressing.

also, there are times when i need more dynamic range to reflect what was real.

arguments against technology are largely pointless. it is rarely, if ever, about the tools. argue that the photograph doesn't speak to you. or argue that the photograph does speak to you, but you find its message not effective or not meaningful. but realize that you're set of experiences and personality doesn't represent all experiences or personalities.

thats enough pontificating. probably, dave is the only one who'll read this. ;) but gosh, it was so much fun to write. ;)
----

hey dave!

----

personally, laying aside the technique used, this image didn't speak to me much. which, isn't to say that its a bad image, i just didn't find it personally meaningful. ;) i was too busy being enthralled with my latest HDR. *GRIN* its not much like this image. and i'm sometimes too self involved to step outside my emotional state and delve into something else.

----

on the image itself, the shoe reminded me of my childhood. i had shoes just like that one. never did like the cheap look. i think, somewhere along the way, i began associating that kind of shoe with fast food jobs and a kind of poverty. and since that kind of poverty is vaguely uncomfortable to me, i skipped over the image because it brought up uncomfortable feelings.

the oily sheen adds to that feeling. The title, "my son john" felt incongruent to the emotions the image conjured up. In some ways, the image is a study in contradictions. The title strikes a nostalgic tone (thats something i bring to the photo) but the toning and sky is all dark and dramatic. it feels like something bad is about to happen, a sense of foreboding.

there is a bit of the apocalyptic about it. a worn shoe, on a beach, dark threatening skies hanging above. and the sense of a lost little boy somewhere. kinda creepy.

cheers!

Jason: I'm sure I won't be the only to read your comment, and I'm sure I won't be the only on to enjoy it :)

My goodness, what a heated debate. I don't care about all this HDR stuff (whatever that is) - I just want my shoe back!

Perhaps I am making a stretch here but I feel you could equate this whole debate to the impressionist movement.

I don't know about everyone else but haystacks aren't telling me too many stories on their own.

I don't love HDR myself but I don't see how the technique in itself could invalidate any artwork or subject.

Your work is really amazing, I like a lot coming here from time to time to see so much wonderful pictures... :))