[HDR-photo] Professional printing of HDR images

[Royce Howland]

Dave Feltenberger wrote:
> Anyway, the term HDR can 
> mean different things in different contexts - enforcing the proper usage 
> is a battle that can't be won, so learning the contexts it's used in is 
> probably less frustrating :-)

I wouldn't guarantee that. ;)

Serious comment -- there is nothing wrong with educating people either, 
because terminology does actually mean something, especially within a 
given domain. Helping more people to use key terms clearly makes 
communication simpler and less error-prone. It also helps a few more 
light bulbs go "click" in future situations because peoples' use of the 
language influences how they understand and think about what is going 
on. Better understanding can help them get the results they want, 
especially when an approach is immature enough (as HDR photography is) 
that you can't treat it just like a toaster oven.

I can't count how many times I've seen internet forum & blog posters 
blast away at HDR photography as an approach, because they don't like 
some tone mapped image they saw somewhere, or because "you can't print 
an HDR file anyway so why have it". By conflating HDR, tone mapping, and 
good photography into one undifferentiated stew, they draw poor 
conclusions and then recommend those conclusions to everyone else. So 
maybe educating people about proper usage is tilting at windmills, but 
if so you can call me Don. :)

Anyway, to echo the other answers to the original question -- can an 
actual HDR file (Radiance, OpenEXR, etc.) be directly printed? No.

BUT... can we print an HDR file that has been tone mapped down into a 
standard JPEG or TIFF? Absolutely. The tone mapped file is a "normal" 
image like any other. I print mine all the time with no special measures 
needed beyond the kind of color management that I would do for any 
image. They look great.

// satire alert
Less serious comments below; ignore if you're not a fan of satire. :)

This year has seen Pentax come to market with the K20D camera containing 
a menu setting for in-camera production of "HDR" images. It's basically 
a single exposure JPEG run through some kind of local contrast 
enhancement filter in the camera, to cook the image and make it look 
like "all those Flickr HDR images". Nothing to do with "high dynamic 
range" at all. Yet I have seen discussions (including one presumably 
serious camera review) where some people are broadcasting the impression 
that the K20D is doing in-camera multiple exposure blending & processing 
of some kind, because they understand that is what HDR means. Misleading 
use of terminology. We can thank Pentax marketing for that one.

Then we have recently announced Epson printers, the 7900 and 9900, with 
their new UltraChrome HDR inkset. Again, nothing to do with HDR as 
applied on this list. In fact, given the physical reality of ink on 
paper reflecting light, I'm not really sure under what useful context 
one could consider the new inkset as "high dynamic range", given any 
common understanding of what dynamic range means in imaging. But I guess 
it was easier and cooler to call it "HDR" than to call it "incrementally 
refined pigment inkset with marginally improved gamut in the reds and 
slightly greater black density" or whatever -- IRPIWMIGITRASGBD doesn't 
scan. Again, a misleading (or at least meaningless) use of terminology, 
which most people in this case fortunately will ignore. We can thank 
Epson marketing for that one.

What's next, HDR ND filters? HDR flash storage? HDR bulb blowers and 
lens caps? If we really jump on this, perhaps we can do some effective 
cross-market campaigns to extend HDR brand awareness into other 
verticals, capture customer mindshare and add more shareholder value. 
How about HDR gasoline and motor oil? HDR breakfast cereal, snack bars 
and power drinks? HDR mixed martial arts competitions? HDR cosmetics 
could be good, or maybe "HDR" is too "hard" a term for that market. I'm 
sure we can think of a few others.

Now, none of us have trademarked the term "HDR", so we don't get to 
control how people use it. And yes, HDR could mean many different things 
in many different contexts; heck, some of those meanings might even be 
legitimate! But the more the concept becomes perceived as "hot" or 
"cool" in the broader imaging industry, the more people and the more 
marketing departments will apply it to anything & everything they want. 
It may become so devoid of specific meaning as to be useless. How will 
we talk about HDR then, and market our images, books and workshops? Our 
differentiator will have become commoditized, and that's bad news for 
building shareholder value.

We'll just have to invent a new term... any nominations? I vote for 
Natural Dynamic Range -- NDR. Partly because we're trying to capture the 
range of light naturally present in the scene. And partly because we all 
know that whatever is natural is good. Whatever term we pick, let's 
immediately trademark it and then form an industry consortium to protect 
and market the brand, as well as properly control media use of the term. 
We'll have a certification arm that will provide the seal of approval on 
branded products & services, so customers can buy them with confidence 
that they are getting true dynamic range, not something fake.

Any takers? (But remember, I got dibs on "NDR"...)

// end of satire

P.S. All apologies to Dave. This is not really a serious rant, and 
certainly not aimed at him, I have been waiting to pop this out for a 
few weeks now. :) Language and high tech marketing go how they go, so 
take my soapboxing with a grain of salt. Of course NDR salt is best if 
you can get it... ;)

Royce Howland
Calgary, Alberta