HDR

This photograph was constructed using a relatively new technology called High Dynamic Range imaging (HDR). A computer program compiles bracketed exposures of a single scene into one image with a contrast ratio of about 100 times what a normal computer screen can reproduce. The resulting file can be "tone-mapped" to a normal dynamic range (somewhat analogous to multi-band audio compression/limiting) such that much more detail is visible, and contrast can be boosted locally instead of globally. The resulting images are often quite beautiful, if a little unreal.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before this particular micro-aesthetic becomes an annoying visual cliché, like dozens of Photoshop effects already have. Can it then still be "beautiful"?

For that matter, does technological development of this kind actually spring from need --- or is it more simply novelty for novelty's sake? That is, to what extent does technological development respond to actual needs, versus creating by its onward march a felt lack that would not have been perceived otherwise? Perhaps need and development feedback positively. I am of course talking about consumer technology here, those developments which are targeted at a buying public. I suppose it could be argued that we don't need 99% of what gets developed for these markets. If technology does address needs, it almost always exceeds them too, creating a gap in which we realize that what we have must not be enough ("Ooo, I want that"). The amplification of this gap is accomplished through advertising --- forcing us to acknowledge the obsolescence of what we have, to usher in the novelty of what we do not.

Considering this particular case, I had thought about this issue as a "problem" before. But I might have accepted it as a limitation of the medium, since display media have greater limitations than the associated recording media. Now technology enables me to work around those limitations --- but what I produce in so doing is not more lifelike, it is in fact less so. As such, the new process seems less addressed toward solving an existing problem than it is toward generating a "gee-whiz" reaction. When the novelty wears off, does the technology remain worthwhile?

Which came first, the disease or the drug?