I’ve just paid a visit to the stunning Byzantium exhibition at the Royal Academy, where the artefacts that most captured my attention were a small ceramic bowl with a delightful smiling fish design and a silver-framed diptych from 14th-century Constantinople, consisting of two book-sized panels bearing 12 small pictures like a strip cartoon.


These pictures depict various church celebrations, and they have an indefinable quality of sharpness with muted yet vivid colours, quite unlike a painting. On closer inspection it turned out they were micro mosaics, made by assembling tiny beads – no larger than grains of coarse sand – of coloured stone, glass, copper, gold and eggshell.

These beads were assembled in a more or less linear grid, so what I was looking at was one of the earliest true digital images, with a resolution not far below that of a computer screen. The rendering engine was a human brain, a pair of sorely overtaxed human eyes and ten almost unbelievably dextrous human fingers, equipped with the finest of tweezers rather than a graphics processing chip.

Why would anyone choose such a difficult medium in preference to paintbrush and paper? One reason would have been permanence: those inorganic materials resist fading and wear and look just as good in 2009 as they did back in 13-something. Another reason would be that the very tedium and strain was viewed as spiritual exercise, a proof of devotion. But I’d like to think that elusive sharpness of the final product was a pure aesthetic reason in itself. That’s certainly the reason I find myself more and more drawn to digitally processing the photographs I take.

I’ve documented my enthusiasm for Flickr in this column before, and won’t labour it further except to say that I’m still hooked. I seem to have drifted into a subculture that believes in using all digital means available to achieve the image that most pleases us – as opposed to those who seek authenticity, who frown on even cropping a picture let alone Photoshopping it (the most extreme insist on black-and-white over colour). I bear them no ill will and might one day join their ranks, but right now I’m in love with HDR.

I’ve assembled a toolkit of software that works for me at very little cost: Photomatix Pro (the most expensive item) for creating HDR images; Neat Image for sharpening and noise filtering; Paint Shop Pro 6, which I’ve used for years in preference to Photoshop (too slow) or even subsequent versions of itself; and Picasa 3 for retouching, because I prefer its Tuning controls to anything else I’ve tried. I no longer only apply processing to rescue images that aren’t good enough: even a good photo may yield a better one with judicious cropping and subtly applied HDR.

Pictures I like but are poorly exposed can be made more arresting by turning them into “fake paintings”, using a panoply of techniques including posterisation and solarisation, over-filtering, unsharp-masking and combining different versions using layer blend modes. I’ve perfected a semi-hypnotic cycle of operations in which I combine two layers by, say, Luminance, then merge them, copy to the Clipboard, revert the file, paste as new layer, and so on, until I see something that I like. My favourite so far is a self-portrait in the style of a 1960s Mao poster, which you can see at

HDR works by combining different exposures of the same scene and using software on a PC to capture all detail from the darkest and lightest areas: it increases dynamic range so that the result can’t be reproduced on paper or screen, and must be tone-mapped back down to viewability. It’s very CPU intensive and combining five or more hi-res shots may take several minutes even on a dual-core PC. Ideally, HDR requires a digital camera with automatic bracketing to get a sequence of evenly spaced exposures.

Disclaimer: Some pages on this site may include an affiliate link. This does not effect our editorial in any way.

Todays Highlights
How to See Google Search History
how to download photos from google photos