Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: NikoJorj on December 21, 2009, 04:35:04 pm
-
Many thanks to Alexandre to remind us that well-done tone mapping is the basis of photography, in a very clear and brilliant way! (enfin, normal, il est normalien )
-
It is helpful to be reminded from time to time that HDR is a process of compression, and not expansion! And, just as in audio, overenthusiastic tweaking of the compressor controls can result in horrible output.
I think that HDR gets the bad rep partly because it is mostly the bad examples that are so labelled. The good HDR images often don't mention it.
-
Alexandre indeed made the case beautifully for HDR done right. Nice essay!
-
Thanks indeed!
Mike.
-
I'm glad everyone seemed to enjoy it, and quite a few people said they would give HDR another chance as a consequence of reading it. So, well, you're very welcome.
-
May be I shouldn't step too far in the kitchen recipe territory, but when you say that :
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Alexandre Buisse)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (Alexandre Buisse)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]By its very nature, HDR processing will significantly increase noise, especially in the shadows[/quote]
Wouldn't you think that on the other hand, with enough overexposed captures, HDR may actually diminish noise?
I'm thinking to the way Guillermo Luijk's ZeroNoise (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17775) works, replacing noisy shadow pixels from the nominal exposure with cleaner ones from an +4EV overexposed capture.
-
nice plea indeed, but... is the typo on the front page intentional? if not, perhaps it could be fixed... please!
cheers,
pedro
-
I like well done HDR, but really don't like traditional tone mapping techniques and the artifacts they induce. To me HDR should look like well directed fill lighting. Thanks for showing some shots that looked just like that.
-
As a huge proponent of HDR as a techinique, and not as a look, I'm very happy to see this article appear on a 'serious' photography site. Well done.
However, I don't quite understand this line in the article:
By its very nature, HDR processing will significantly increase noise, especially in the shadows.
If the original exposures are properly executed, if they cover a sufficient portion of the dynamic range of the scene, then noise will not be a problem.
-
As a huge proponent of HDR as a techinique, and not as a look, I'm very happy to see this article appear on a 'serious' photography site. Well done.
However, I don't quite understand this line in the article:
If the original exposures are properly executed, if they cover a sufficient portion of the dynamic range of the scene, then noise will not be a problem.
Actually, there are many scenes where to do this would be impractical - a night sky for example, or a situation that simply is dark. I can recall a theatre I photographed that was painted entirely black and had black furniture etc.
It also depends on the tone mapping algorithm used, and the various parameters it is invoked with. Use a shadow point cutoff in your initial tone mapping, or choose something like one of the newer "fusion" algorithms that seems to handle large areas of shadow more intelligently if you're having problems with shadow noise. Or, composite in one of the exposures.
HDR (actually, we should say tonemapping...) is like an ultra-wide angle lens. Just a tool - Useful, highly effective at times. When used improperly or by a hand with, lets say, not very good taste, it can be ugly.
-
Actually, there are many scenes where to do this would be impractical - a night sky for example, or a situation that simply is dark. I can recall a theatre I photographed that was painted entirely black and had black furniture etc.
It also depends on the tone mapping algorithm used, and the various parameters it is invoked with. Use a shadow point cutoff in your initial tone mapping, or choose something like one of the newer "fusion" algorithms that seems to handle large areas of shadow more intelligently if you're having problems with shadow noise. Or, composite in one of the exposures.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying, perhaps I should have been more specific that what I took issue with was the phrase "By its very nature" - I don't believe that this is true, it happens to be true when circumstances prevent exposures that cover the dynamic range one wishes to capture (as in your first example), or if the parameters are pushed too far, etc. But none of this is inherent to HDR. If anything, HDR is a great tool for reducing noise in shadows, than would be possible with one exposure.
-
Many thanks to Alexandre to remind us that well-done tone mapping is the basis of photography, in a very clear and brilliant way! (enfin, normal, il est normalien )
Although its a nice image, but hardly needed HDR for that. I could have capture that with my Phase camera system. This is what I find funny about the Pixel counters, you always want a way to fake the system, instead of waiting for little things to happen in the shot like a cloud to move and block more of the highlights and make the shadows and highlights closer together.
By waiting for just the right circumstances you will always get a better images the correct way to capture the image.
Your pursuit of finding everything possible to know about things you either can't control not use to your advantage is hilarious.
Why not spend more time studying better lighting, composition, picking the right depth of field, choosing the right lens for the job ect. This will help you more than wasting your time, because nothing will ever replace the proper way to shoot an image. No amount of gimmicks will help and produce great images.
So here is an image captured without HDR and shot the right way. I waited 6.2 hours for this to become just perfect with the right cliffs and trees lit up all together. Tim
-
... the correct way to capture the image ...
Sorry, but who anointed you the czar of correctness?
HDR techniques utilizing tone-mapping and multiple exposures have been around since the 1930s ... have you heard of Charles Wyckoff?
Live and let live, man ...
-
Sorry, but who anointed you the czar of correctness?
I believe he did.
-
Sorry, but who anointed you the czar of correctness?
HDR techniques utilizing tone-mapping and multiple exposures have been around since the 1930s ... have you heard of Charles Wyckoff?
Live and let live, man ...
I will still say, most images captured with HDR could have been captured with single exposure if you are willing to wait. I want to see the image printed at 50 inches. Then maybe I'll change my thoughts. We all want more dynamic range, but as the new chip coming with amazing range no one will remember HDR. Its not that it shouldn't be done. Its just that its being used as a novelty.
Its true that mapping has been around for a very long time, hell we had to use to invent the printing process you are using today and many others that I have invented.
I wasn't trying to say that I'm the czar, but time could be spent better. Isn't the goal to shoot better images the way to proceed. Learning to stitch an image like what a banquet camera sees would make a person portfolio better. Tim
-
Yes, I agree with what you are saying, perhaps I should have been more specific that what I took issue with was the phrase "By its very nature" - I don't believe that this is true, it happens to be true when circumstances prevent exposures that cover the dynamic range one wishes to capture (as in your first example), or if the parameters are pushed too far, etc. But none of this is inherent to HDR. If anything, HDR is a great tool for reducing noise in shadows, than would be possible with one exposure.
You are correct, it was bad wording on my part, and you are far from being the first to call me on it.
I agree that HDR reduces noise compared to what you would have obtained if you had stretched a single exposure into the same overall contrast values. But what I meant is that, since you are going to pull details from the shadows, unless you have an extremely wide bracket set, you are going to have more noise than your "average" photo.
-
Although its a nice image, but hardly needed HDR for that. I could have capture that with my Phase camera system.
To which image are you referring? And I always find it funny when people say things like that without having seen the original scene nor the raw files. You have no idea how much contrast the original scene had.
This is what I find funny about the Pixel counters, you always want a way to fake the system, instead of waiting for little things to happen in the shot like a cloud to move and block more of the highlights and make the shadows and highlights closer together.
Pixel counters? Where did you see any of that in the article? And how is using those techniques "faking the system"?
As for waiting for the cloud to block the sun, that can work sometimes but it isn't guaranteed at all and then light conditions will have changed. What if the scene I want to record is the one I see in front of me now? If you look at the images in the article, the sun is almost always already behind the clouds. What then, am I just supposed to wait for sunset?
By waiting for just the right circumstances you will always get a better images the correct way to capture the image.
Says you. I disagree. What if the right circumstances are now but the camera can't record it correctly (yes, even phase one backs have finite dynamic range)? No one has the pretension to know what the "correct" way to do anything is. All HDR does is offer one more tool to capture the image, nothing more.
Your pursuit of finding everything possible to know about things you either can't control not use to your advantage is hilarious.
And you message is more than a little insulting.
Why not spend more time studying better lighting, composition, picking the right depth of field, choosing the right lens for the job ect. This will help you more than wasting your time, because nothing will ever replace the proper way to shoot an image. No amount of gimmicks will help and produce great images.
All of this is completely orthogonal to the use of HDR. You can have the perfect light, composition, depth of field and lens but still not be able to capture the image in a single exposure. Which is when HDR becomes useful.
So here is an image captured without HDR and shot the right way. I waited 6.2 hours for this to become just perfect with the right cliffs and trees lit up all together. Tim
That's a nice image. But because you waited and managed to get a capture with a single exposure doesn't mean that waiting will always make someone be able to capture a scene with a single exposure. Again, what if the scene I wanted to capture was the one from 6.2 hours ago when dynamic range was too big for your sensor?
-
I will still say, most images captured with HDR could have been captured with single exposure if you are willing to wait.
And I will say that first, this simply isn't true, unless you are waiting for sunset, and second, that the scene will, by definition, be different. So no, except in very rare cases, you can not capture the same scene by waiting than with HDR.
I want to see the image printed at 50 inches. Then maybe I'll change my thoughts. We all want more dynamic range, but as the new chip coming with amazing range no one will remember HDR. Its not that it shouldn't be done. Its just that its being used as a novelty.
And that's exactly what I want to "fight" with this article. I would be more than happy to ditch HDR if sensors suddenly had an amazing dynamic range. But it so happens that today, I encounter many scenes with too much contrast for my DSLR to handle, so I have to find a way to capture them with the tools I have right now. And it happens to be HDR.
Its true that mapping has been around for a very long time, hell we had to use to invent the printing process you are using today and many others that I have invented.
I wasn't trying to say that I'm the czar, but time could be spent better. Isn't the goal to shoot better images the way to proceed. Learning to stitch an image like what a banquet camera sees would make a person portfolio better. Tim
I agree that there are many important things to learn before HDR, but that doesn't mean that HDR is a worthless or useless technique, like you seem to imply.
-
HDR is just another tool and just like the saturation slider, is all too frequently tastelessly abused imo, it's really no different to the velviascapes with reds that never existed and b&w where the sky is almost black. The real issue with HDR is that you have to work hard to make it look natural rather than the other way around.
Many strong photographs are strong because they are dramatic so joe bloggs tries to add drama to his with extreme contrast, over the top HDR and saturation. If that is how people want their photographs to look like than that is up to them I guess but I can't help feeling it reduces the credibility of landscape photography as a whole in the eyes of non-photogs.
I will continue to exposure blend to compensate for the limitations of my gear rather than use it for any kind if effect. I don't have much interest in HDR.
-
We all want more dynamic range, but as the new chip coming with amazing range no one will remember HDR.
Indeed newer sensors have lower noise / higher dynamic range.
However, how do you map that dynamic range available into the limited range of displays or a print? You can go blending by hand in Photoshop, or you can do some luma masking. Or you could use a traditional HDR tonemapping technique, or you could use some HDR technique that doesn't look all weird and garish.
Either way, you have to remap the tones in the image in a non-linear manner that produces results beyond the limits of a single toning curve. And at that point, HDR tonemapping is going to not just become more popular, but practically necessary or else the extra dynamic range on the sensor will be wasted.
Graeme
-
Thanks for a great article Alexandre, nicely worded and the images are just gorgeous.
I'm on the side of "HDR is a tool not a style" style depends on each photographer personality, I could oversaturate and pump local contrast in non-HDR images if I wanted that look.
HDR detractors puzzle me, how can you be so efervescent about a tool ? You may like or not the final result and you may like or not the photographer's artistic style but what he used in the middle of the road... who cares?
-
As I already told Alexandre through email, I enjoyed his article, just couldn't agree with this: "To create an HDR image, one needs a set of bracketed images (i.e. of captures of the same scene with different exposure compensations) and dedicated software".
HDR doesn't need any dedicated software, just any tool that allows local levels control is suited for HDR. Photoshop Curves or Levels Adjust + masking can do this for example.
We all want more dynamic range, but as the new chip coming with amazing range no one will remember HDR.
This is incorrect. HDR images need three circumstances: a high dynamic range scene, capturing all that high dynamic range information, and displaying (through adequate tone mapping) all the captured information in the output device. The new chip you are talking about only refers to the second stage (capture), but as long as the output devices (paper, screens, projectors,...) remain in a limited dynamic range, HDR tone mapping processes will be necessary to have HDR images.
-
So here is an image captured without HDR and shot the right way.
Ouch!
It's not so common, and even quite rare indeed, that I really do feel like the usual rant of Mike Johnston, TOP, about color (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/08/photoshop-exces.html).
Please take no offense, the link is much more sarcastic than what I mean - but I can't help thinking something like "too much for sRGB", and saw that the file may be untagged, so it may just be a simple color management glitch.
That said, I just can't add much to Alexandre's answer : you may have a nice sunset pic indeed if you wait for the sunset, and if you wait for the golden bullet to arrive on the market, that won't help to take pictures in the upcoming years.
Beyond these trivial cases, discarding high dynamic scenes just because they don't fit the way we use the medium is only limiting, and in a bad way. I agree that limiting oneself may be a very productive helper for creation, but I feel that true only if it's your will that limits you, and not if the constraint is a compulsory or outer one.
-
So here is an image captured without HDR and shot the right way. I waited 6.2 hours for this to become just perfect with the right cliffs and trees lit up all together. Tim
what else did you miss while waiting an entire day for this one shot.
Of course the sun also moved quite a bit during that time. Based on the color in the trees I am guessing this was shot in October which means that the sun moved more than halfway through its arc in the sky during that time.
If that is the case and this is the light that you wanted why did you wait at all? Why not just leave and come back when the sun was where you wanted it to be?
What if you had come back and the sun was right where you wanted it to be but the dynamic range was still to high to capture with any camera, sensor, film, etc? Would you just not make the shot you want?
The way I see it HDR is just the latest in a series of tools that helps photographers create the photographs they want. Before HDR we had the Zone System, Burning and Dodging, Graded Papers, Split Grad ND Filters, and many other tricks
The only "proper" way to do anything in photography is to do it the way you want. If it works for you and you are happy with the result it was the proper way.
-
Like your sentence, you are correct on this. The problem with the internet is people take everything so harshly. That was not my intent!!! HDR will become extinct once we get these new chips. Hopefully sooner than later. Shot in Sept but thats really not the point and there was no other fall there at that time. The winter storm you see was about to destroy any chance of anyone getting any shot at all. One chance one shot.
The dynamic range was to high, but I was waiting for the beams to get better, than I had to wait for a soft cloud to block a little of the light hitting the white clouds in the sky. Yes I did do a little dodging and burning. I realize its just a tool, but would love to see a really great print from a HDR to see it in person. Having a really nice gallery, I have only seen bad ones with defects all over.
Yes I do find Mike Johnson insane at times. But maybe he's doing it for attention. I'm the first one to ever print digital photographs and when I see bad after bad. It gets old. Its not that HDR can't be done right, I just have not seen anyone do it well. I would like to see someone put the money into the software if the chip tech slows down. Alex image looks very good would like to see it in person.
I wasn't trying to offend you, just trying to make a point that most attempts shouldn't be attempted, and used to just to be used. I agree that I have more dynamic range than most camera's and ye I do also have to wait. But this will all be a thing of the past soon. Hopefully. Tim
what else did you miss while waiting an entire day for this one shot.
Of course the sun also moved quite a bit during that time. Based on the color in the trees I am guessing this was shot in October which means that the sun moved more than halfway through its arc in the sky during that time.
If that is the case and this is the light that you wanted why did you wait at all? Why not just leave and come back when the sun was where you wanted it to be?
What if you had come back and the sun was right where you wanted it to be but the dynamic range was still to high to capture with any camera, sensor, film, etc? Would you just not make the shot you want?
The way I see it HDR is just the latest in a series of tools that helps photographers create the photographs they want. Before HDR we had the Zone System, Burning and Dodging, Graded Papers, Split Grad ND Filters, and many other tricks
The only "proper" way to do anything in photography is to do it the way you want. If it works for you and you are happy with the result it was the proper way.
-
HDR will become extinct once we get these new chips. Hopefully sooner than later.
Actually, it's the opposite that is the case. Some form of tonemapping will be necessary to properly visualize the best tonal range from a high dynamic range sensor into the much lower dynaic range of a traditional display or print. It's the case now, and it's only getting more so.
If you take a bracketted exposure of a landscape, you can in reality doing no different to what a high dynamic range sensor would do, just in 3 or more frames rather than 1. Be that HDR image be from multiple frames or one, you still have the problem of mapping that nicely to a display or print. That is why a higher dynamic range sensor means more need for good HDR tonemapping, not less.
Graeme
-
Sorry, but who anointed you the czar of correctness?
HDR techniques utilizing tone-mapping and multiple exposures have been around since the 1930s ... have you heard of Charles Wyckoff?
Live and let live, man ...
I saw a show at the Harry Ransom Center a year or two ago that had a print from the mid-1800's by a photographer whose name I forget. It was a scene of a room lit by window light that was composited from several exposures he made over the course of a day. He had exposures for the window, for the shadow areas... he also made exposures at different focus points to extend his depth of field beyond the limitations of the lenses of the day. Then he combined these together with all hand made tools in his darkroom over the course of a week to produce one print.
-
Would have liked to have seen that since I'm a history nut on processes. Would love to see anyone of you guys with a good print to come to the gallery. Nobody hates waiting more than I do for the shot to happen. If you guys are so much into this what a good software or are you doing by hand in the computer. Tim
I saw a show at the Harry Ransom Center a year or two ago that had a print from the mid-1800's by a photographer whose name I forget. It was a scene of a room lit by window light that was composited from several exposures he made over the course of a day. He had exposures for the window, for the shadow areas... he also made exposures at different focus points to extend his depth of field beyond the limitations of the lenses of the day. Then he combined these together with all hand made tools in his darkroom over the course of a week to produce one print.
-
The dynamic range was to high, but I was waiting for the beams to get better, than I had to wait for a soft cloud to block a little of the light hitting the white clouds in the sky. Yes I did do a little dodging and burning. I realize its just a tool, but would love to see a really great print from a HDR to see it in person. Having a really nice gallery, I have only seen bad ones with defects all over.
HDR has been used for decades in one form or another through dodging and burning, and then composite masking in photoshop and altering levels, and now through tonemapping. The current computerized form of it was developed in the mid-80s for improving the quality of 3D computer graphics. Only lately has the computing power been available to the general public to see widespread usage (or abusage). Note that none of these techniques are replacements for the others - different uses for different situations.
Tonemapping done poorly, or simply with bad taste, results in that "bad ones with defects all over" you're talking about. You've just seen amateurish usage of what is a complex tool. There are plenty of professionals out there who use the tool in a more subtle way to achieve their desired ends.
-
If you have seen some good software what is it. By the way to set the record straight Alex's use on that images as said before was the proper type of image to use it on. Most are trying to use HDR on images that are far from what the eye sees and therefore looks fake. Thanks Craig, Tim
HDR has been used for decades in one form or another through dodging and burning, and then composite masking in photoshop and altering levels, and now through tonemapping. The current computerized form of it was developed in the mid-80s for improving the quality of 3D computer graphics. Only lately has the computing power been available to the general public to see widespread usage (or abusage). Note that none of these techniques are replacements for the others - different uses for different situations.
Tonemapping done poorly, or simply with bad taste, results in that "bad ones with defects all over" you're talking about. You've just seen amateurish usage of what is a complex tool. There are plenty of professionals out there who use the tool in a more subtle way to achieve their desired ends.
-
So here is an image captured without HDR and shot the right way. I waited 6.2 hours for this to become just perfect with the right cliffs and trees lit up all together. Tim
[/quote]
Re the image posted in post #12 by Tim. If I had seen it without the explanation I would have sworn it was an over done HDR. IMO the colours are over saturated. Tim you are posting images that look very similar to what you are criticizing? At the end of the day does it really matter how you shot them? You will be judged by how they look to other people?
-
This is a sample HDR image from a 12-stops dynamic range real scene. One shot for the interior produces the outside window to blow, and a shot preserving the outside views produces too much noise in the interior. By shooting twice 4EV apart we get both the outside and inside information.
Once the information was captured and blended (there is a great tutorial by Joan Trujillo explaining how to achieve this here: Yet another method to reduce noise with two exposures (http://jtrujillo.net/qpix/)), by using a masked lifting curve (the mask was obtained automatically from the scene's luminance in 1 minute) we can display detail in the shadows without blowing away the window. The result is reallistic and natural and no extra software needed, just Photoshop curves and the mask:
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1186/51449316.jpg)___(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2703/34124268.gif)
Many people obtaining natural HDR images with methods similar to this, are actually not aware that they are doing genuine HDR. On the other side many people using Photomatix and etc... over low dynamic scenes obtaining terrific unreallistic images (99% of 'My first HDR' posts in the forums fall in this category) are actually not doing anything that can be called HDR because dynamic range is playing absolutely no role in their images.
HDR is becoming very paradoxical when applied to digital photography.