Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ChristopherBarrett on October 04, 2011, 01:12:24 pm
-
I hate blending HDR in post. I do. I really, really hate it. Ok? Ok. So... I've spent the better part of the morning on a quest for as much dynamic range as I can get out of a single capture. Here are my results...
Image 01 P65+ with pretty straight settings in C1 Pro (The Control Sample)
(http://christopherbarrett.net/Quest_For_DR/P65_C1P_Straight.jpg)
Image 02 P65+ with Curve set to Linear Response, HDR Sliders and Clarity at 20
(http://christopherbarrett.net/Quest_For_DR/P65_C1P.jpg)
Image 03 P65+ processed in ACR. The color science is ass but WAY more hilight info!
(http://christopherbarrett.net/Quest_For_DR/P65_ACR.jpg)
Image 04 RED Epic, pretty likely my favorite. Extended range with a natural feel.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/Quest_For_DR/Red_Epic.jpg)
When you look at the image processed in ACR, it's obvious that there is a lot more hilight info in the Raw than C1Pro will give me. What up C1 Pro? Why you holdin' out?
Doug?
-
My favorite chair :-)
-
Funny, but i find the first one the most pleasing and natural appearing, blown highlights or not. All others look muddier, with mid-tones underexposed.
-
Great test CB. I am always looking at this DR issue to see if I can improve my produce. What was the braketing for the HDR? And what program?
I agree SB, though a touch more detail in the curtains would be nice. The others' midtones could be perked up pretty simply IME. What would I do? FWIW-layer and blend the top version with the curtains form one a bit brighter than the HDRs.
-
Actually there is no bracketing. I'm trying to squeeze as much out of a single exposure as I can to avoid the whole HDR blending. So the point really isn't "which of these is initially more pleasing" but "which process is the most successful approach to expanding the dynamic range of a single capture." Any of the examples with greater curtain detail could be adjusted for more mid-tone contrast once the hilights are established.
I constantly run into situations where the client wants an interior to feel bright and airy while maintaining the view. The blown out Crate & Barrel look, while a nice esthetic, doesn't resolve the client demands.
So.... rather than sticking to my current approach of hand blending a window view into a normal exposure, I want to find the best way to capture all the DR I need in one exposure which I can easily add mid-tone contrast to later.
BTW... Tony Kuyper's Luminosity Masks (http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html) are essential (in my opinion) for this sort of fine tuned image manipulation.
Yada yada ya
-
CB,
Have you tried a multishot back? For that kind of work you show here, the MS is the way to go as you get 1-2 stops more useable DR.
-
Chris, Is the software for the Red Epic capable of processing P65 files? It did look the best to me also. Since you're not shooting anything that's moving you should try Photomatix, blending exposures using the Fusion blend mode. I find it works really well and is a great base for your final imaging. Jim
-
Thanks for your thoughts... I often place people in alternate versions of our shots, so I'm not sure about using a multishot back... I've always been intrigued by their image quality and sharpness, tho.
The Red files can be processed in their software or a number of other suites, RedCineX doesn't work with other file types.
My typical process is to use Photomatix with Exposure Fusion... I then take the resulting file and usually layer it into a normal contrast file, hand blending the trouble spots (Windows and light fixtures). This method is pretty decent, but can be time consuming and it doesn't usually leave me fully satisfied.
-
Thanks for your thoughts... I often place people in alternate versions of our shots, so I'm not sure about using a multishot back... I've always been intrigued by their image quality and sharpness, tho.
The Red files can be processed in their software or a number of other suites, RedCineX doesn't work with other file types.
My typical process is to use Photomatix with Exposure Fusion... I then take the resulting file and usually layer it into a normal contrast file, hand blending the trouble spots (Windows and light fixtures). This method is pretty decent, but can be time consuming and it doesn't usually leave me fully satisfied.
Chris, I don't know of a better workflow. We're able to produce images in lighting situations that we would have never tried in the past with better than acceptable results. The downside is that the time spent in post is at least as long as the time spent shooting (at least for me) and unfortunately, not billed at the same rate. I don't think great light will ever be topped but with the post processing available to us it's hard to take a bad shot (at least from a lighting perspective). I often compare my fused images to the bracket they came from and never do the individual captures exhibit the same dynamic range and if I try to adjust an individual capture in C1 it helps but still isn't as good. Incidentally, this is a solution that is more often used in architectural photography than other specialties. I rarely utilize this workflow with my automotive projects because I'm more often than not lighting the subject. Attached are two images that I'm happy with that didn't require a lot of post manipulation, the light was right and I was there. Jim
-
Nice Jim.
CB, I find it necessary to do an Enfuse/Lightroom blend on a room EVEN if I will be manually inserting an outside view in a window. Why? because the LF/Enfused image will give me better, believable, window frame without all the flaring from overexposure. You?
-
Hi,
That is tone mapping, the art (not science) of inserting a large square object into a smaller circular hole ;-)
I prefer the last image, processed by the RED software, BTW.
My guess is the problem gets even worse, if we want to print, as a screen can hold a contrast range of perhaps 1:500 but paper is limited to around 1:150.
Best regards
Erik
Funny, but i find the first one the most pleasing and natural appearing, blown highlights or not. All others look muddier, with mid-tones underexposed.
-
Thanks for your thoughts... I often place people in alternate versions of our shots, so I'm not sure about using a multishot back... I've always been intrigued by their image quality and sharpness, tho.
The Red files can be processed in their software or a number of other suites, RedCineX doesn't work with other file types.
My typical process is to use Photomatix with Exposure Fusion... I then take the resulting file and usually layer it into a normal contrast file, hand blending the trouble spots (Windows and light fixtures). This method is pretty decent, but can be time consuming and it doesn't usually leave me fully satisfied.
Hi Chris,
As a 4-shot and a 1-shot are the same size it is easy to shoot the interior as a multi, and as long as your camera angle doesn't change, shoot several singles of your model in place, pick the best one and drop them in quicly on a layer mask.
Best of both worlds. ;)
David
-
Funny, but i find the first one the most pleasing and natural appearing, blown highlights or not. All others look muddier, with mid-tones underexposed.
I agree. The first one is the best looking image, the last one might recover with a bit of processing. I've heard RED starts out very flat, to allow for color grading.
Edmund
-
Nice Jim.
CB, I find it necessary to do an Enfuse/Lightroom blend on a room EVEN if I will be manually inserting an outside view in a window. Why? because the LF/Enfused image will give me better, believable, window frame without all the flaring from overexposure. You?
Kirk, How do the Enfuse/Lightroom blends compare to Photomatix? Does it do a better job with handling the window detail flare? My workaround for handling that is to shoot the window area with strobe to balance the frame detail with the outside exposure which adds a fair amount of time to the shot. Jim
-
As to which version works best? Here's how I would see it: Which rendering shows the house that you would rather live in? I would definitely prefer to live in the bright, airy, first one. The 4th one isn't bad either. The 2nd & 3rd ones say to me: even though there's daylight coming in from both sides, this is such a gloomy room that the lamps have to be turned on to brighten it up!
I guess people are so irrational: they do not choose their living quarters on the basis of how well compressed the dynamic range is. :D
Ray
-
Chris I have to agree with Edmund and Ray, the first image looks like it was shot on a nice sunny day. The HDR ones look like they were shot
in London on a cloudy winter day. It is good though to see the LR's highlight recovery has been improved in recent versions
I don't think a multi shot back will be so practical for you as it'll require you to remount your lenses into electronic shutters and to drag more kit: cables, batteries, power supply etc. The file will still be smaller than what you're getting now and you won't get the same AOV what you already have
All IMO of course
yair
-
What up C1 Pro? Why you holdin' out?
It's not a question of 'holding out'. One or more channels are blown out, and the software has to guess what is a reasonable value for the blown channel based on the values of the non-blown channels. Color accuracy is the first thing sacrificed, since an inaccuracy in the guess yields inaccuracy in the color. Luminance information is somewhat easier -- just copy the structure of the unblown channels into the luminance channel. Anyway, different software programs have different methods of guessing, with varying results.
-
Digital is not too good at highlights. There's no dynamic compression like in film, if there's too much light it just clips. And for RGB sensors the channels don't clip at the same time, so you lose one channel at a time around the highlight.
If you really want to maximize the dynamic range in a shot you can use colored filters on the lens to balance the sensor's channels for a particular light setting (so they clip more or less simultaneously), and apply correction for that in post. Few software programs allow to watch the actual RAW histograms (and RAW clipping) though so it is hard to see exactly how a picture is exposed on the sensor.
Some RAW processors have advanced guessing algorithms to "restore" highlights (actually guessing the missing information). In difficult conditions when I've overexposed some I use RawTherapee which allows to switch between different algorithms, since it depends on the photo which algorithm that works the best.
Fortunately it is very common that highlights are actually white, and then highlight reconstruction algorithms can perform really well. But as said, it is in part guessed information so authenticity will suffer. Standard software with standard processing settings will play it safe and not try to extrapolate the highlights. When highlight reconstruction algorithms that tries to extract the most out of the given information gets the guessing wrong it can look really bad.
-
Actually there is no bracketing. I'm trying to squeeze as much out of a single exposure as I can to avoid the whole HDR blending. So the point really isn't "which of these is initially more pleasing" but "which process is the most successful approach to expanding the dynamic range of a single capture." Any of the examples with greater curtain detail could be adjusted for more mid-tone contrast once the hilights are established.
I constantly run into situations where the client wants an interior to feel bright and airy while maintaining the view. The blown out Crate & Barrel look, while a nice esthetic, doesn't resolve the client demands.
So.... rather than sticking to my current approach of hand blending a window view into a normal exposure, I want to find the best way to capture all the DR I need in one exposure which I can easily add mid-tone contrast to later.
BTW... Tony Kuyper's Luminosity Masks (http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html) are essential (in my opinion) for this sort of fine tuned image manipulation.
Yada yada ya
Have you tried film for this particular shot? I do use a multishot back and it wouldn't work in this, (curtains always move, even if its negligible to ...some). I'm also a "DR Freak" whatever this means, I never use HDR because its unnatural in my view and I don't like the RED image because of the unnatural looks of the books, I also not consider DR as low lowlight extension, but only as highlight. IMO, the image I would prefer would be the first one, with the RED's curtain and stand beside it, I think that my Contax 645 with old Fuji 160s would achieve that, I would also try my 528c (in single shot), but only for the purpose of trying it, I wouldn't trust digital to solve this particular problem, particularly because I feel that your view on the lighting coming from the window (and hence the curtain appearance) is very important for the scene. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Digital is not too good at highlights. There's no dynamic compression like in film, if there's too much light it just clips. And for RGB sensors the channels don't clip at the same time, so you lose one channel at a time around the highlight.
If you really want to maximize the dynamic range in a shot you can use colored filters on the lens to balance the sensor's channels for a particular light setting (so they clip more or less simultaneously), and apply correction for that in post. Few software programs allow to watch the actual RAW histograms (and RAW clipping) though so it is hard to see exactly how a picture is exposed on the sensor.
Some RAW processors have advanced guessing algorithms to "restore" highlights (actually guessing the missing information). In difficult conditions when I've overexposed some I use RawTherapee which allows to switch between different algorithms, since it depends on the photo which algorithm that works the best.
Fortunately it is very common that highlights are actually white, and then highlight reconstruction algorithms can perform really well. But as said, it is in part guessed information so authenticity will suffer. Standard software with standard processing settings will play it safe and not try to extrapolate the highlights. When highlight reconstruction algorithms that tries to extract the most out of the given information gets the guessing wrong it can look really bad.
+1. I already suggested film at the same time you was quoting as well, I feel however that digital will overcome its problems (sometime in the future...) :-X and then we maybe all seek the resolution we want :-X Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S. The question is what we are gonna do with the values worth of our super duper cameras at THAT DAY.
-
Hi Doug,
Thanks for showing the different types of image processing.
I hope you don’t mind but I did a few tweaks on your ACR image just to brighten it up, I hope you don’t mind.
I’m a big fan of ACR due to a number of features so I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Regards
Simon
-
If you have a bit of patience left in you, it might be worth trying Oloneo.
http://www.oloneo.com/
I have still very limited experience, but this is the first HDR software that makes me feel it might have the potential to become usable. And like you, I hate those. :-)
Oloeno seems to still have some quality issues though (had some errors opening tiff files).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's totally what I'm saying, Simon. If you can get a single capture that has all the DR you need, then you can easily add contrast where needed to achieve the best overall feel. This approach, if achievable, makes way more sense to me than multilayered HDR processes I've been using lately.
-Chris
-
Kirk, How do the Enfuse/Lightroom blends compare to Photomatix? Does it do a better job with handling the window detail flare? My workaround for handling that is to shoot the window area with strobe to balance the frame detail with the outside exposure which adds a fair amount of time to the shot. Jim
I've done that too but I'm skipping the separate strobe shot for the window frames at this point-just using LR/Enfuse. I never liked Photomatix-could never get anything as good as yours.
-
If you have a bit of patience left in you, it might be worth trying Oloneo.
http://www.oloneo.com/
Looks interesting, but it's PC-only at this stage.
-
Hi Simon,
This is interesting, the image has acquired a "3d" feel that one only has in the best captures; the floor is gorgeous.
But something has gone subtly wrong at the same time with the color.
I'd say we are seeing your skill, the best abilities of ACR, and the problems of ACR.
Edmund
Hi Doug,
Thanks for showing the different types of image processing.
I hope you don’t mind but I did a few tweaks on your ACR image just to brighten it up, I hope you don’t mind.
I’m a big fan of ACR due to a number of features so I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Regards
Simon
-
Looks interesting, but it's PC-only at this stage.
True, my quick trials were done in a VMWare fusion 4.0 virtual machine (win7 64 bits) on top of 10.6.8.
I don't know if the problems I have seen are related to that or not.
The author promised me that a mac version is coming with a free license migration.
Cheers,
Bernars
-
I think the OP’s first image is lively; the others are flatter/duller. I would simply paint a mask for the really bright areas where more detail is desired and reduce exposure and saturation, where there is a cast (the curtain on the right is going a bit cool in a number of different directions depending on the processing).
-
I don't think a multi shot back will be so practical for you....
Because you don't sell it?
We have many customers shooting interiors with Multi Shot cameras. Favoured not only for an extension in the DR but mostly for rendition of Fabrics, textures, materials.. often very important for designers and architects alike.
For example, IKEA dropped using single shot cameras a long time ago for the room sets that they capture for those reasons.
David
-
Because you don't sell it?
We have many customers shooting interiors with Multi Shot cameras. Favoured not only for an extension in the DR but mostly for rendition of Fabrics, textures, materials.. often very important for designers and architects alike.
For example, IKEA dropped using single shot cameras a long time ago for the room sets that they capture for those reasons.
David
I'm sure he would get blur on the curtain in this one David, my experience says that there is no way to keep a thin curtain absolutely still. Film is my suggestion for this particular one, multishot would do if curtain was absent or if he doesn't mind some blur. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Because you don't sell it?
We have many customers shooting interiors with Multi Shot cameras. Favoured not only for an extension in the DR but mostly for rendition of Fabrics, textures, materials.. often very important for designers and architects alike.
For example, IKEA dropped using single shot cameras a long time ago for the room sets that they capture for those reasons.
David
David I'm sure you've read the whole sentence yet you chose to pick on the the first few words.
There's a world of difference between shooting a room-set that is built in a big studio and doing it on-location, with just a tripod, a couple of portable lights/ reflectors and (maybe) an assistant...
I've yet to see an MS back that is successfully and efficiently used on an ALPA, an Arca-Swiss or a Cambo with Rollei/ Schneider shutters and wide angle lenses for architecture. Copal is king there!
Yair
-
I'm sure he would get blur on the curtain in this one David, my experience says that there is no way to keep a thin curtain absolutely still. Film is my suggestion for this particular one, multishot would do if curtain was absent or if he doesn't mind some blur. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Hi Theodoros,
Normally a single "safety" shot is used for such instances.
D
-
David I'm sure you've read the whole sentence yet you chose to pick on the the first few words.
David does present as a sensitive soul.
-
If you have a bit of patience left in you, it might be worth trying Oloneo.
http://www.oloneo.com/
I have still very limited experience, but this is the first HDR software that makes me feel it might have the potential to become usable. And like you, I hate those. :-)
Oloeno seems to still have some quality issues though (had some errors opening tiff files).
Hi Bernard,
Last time I tried it, it also had issues (black rims around the window edges) with e.g. outdoor scenes seen from indoors or similar abrupt high contrast transitions.
I prefer SNS-HDR (http://www.sns-hdr.com) for its natural looking tonemapping capabilities. It's a Windows program, but I've heard somewhere that it also can run on a Mac under Parallels. It got just updated to version 1.4.0 which added adjustment mask layers.
The program also caught the attention of Christian Bloch, the author of 'The HDRI Handbook' and an acclaimed Visual Effects Artist, who wrote in a review (http://www.hdrlabs.com/news/index.php?id=8523427427292113719):
I'm just coming from a review marathon of 20 HDR programs for the upcoming book revision. Turned out that one application really stood out from the crowd. I figured it would be mean to not share this with you right away, because you can most certainly use it for some great photography in the meantime.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I did try a lot of software last summer: exposure fusion withenfuse/tufuse/photomatix as well as sns and oloneo. I think exposure fusion is the way to go, faster than hdr, no halos, you can go with 3 bracket shots or less. Sns and Oloneo can produce good results "sometimes", but they can light up part of the image that are not suposed to be that light; I mean, they are unpredictable sometimes, and you need to tweak them very much to have an acceptable result. A very important feature of this kind of processing is deghosting, specially if you are shooting landscape.
I think that the problem of dynamic range is inherently the medium. We are trying to put a high dynamic range scene in a low dynamic range medium (either paper or screen). It reminds me of the 80's videogames with 16 or 256 colors, they were trying to put a caribbean sunset as a background but, hey, it was 16 colours, how could it look even close? The solution of dynamic range problems will be of course hdr capture/output devices. That's why I agree with the opinion that the first photo looks more natural. This courtain should be bright, it cannot be a medium gray. If a film were used, would there be detail in the curtains? maybe, but if there was detail, this detail would be very compressed towards the whites, while with digital is linearly distributed, so the values go towards the midtones. We can not forget that our vision is not linear.
-
David does present as a sensitive soul.
If you're dishing out hugs...
-
If you're dishing out hugs...
Alas, we are continents apart. ;D
-
That's totally what I'm saying, Simon. If you can get a single capture that has all the DR you need, then you can easily add contrast where needed to achieve the best overall feel. ..
Then you'd need something like this IMO.
(http://blueribbondigitalmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ac-sideALEXA_mainPage_blueRibbon850x474.jpg)
I'm teasing I'm teasing.
Seriously, I don't know if a Log C profile style would be available for the Epic. Months ago I did a quite similar unwanted testing as yours and saw exactly the same between C1 and ACR actually.
(http://digitalfilms.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/blg_alexa1_8_lrg.jpg)
Ps: don't tell me you got the Epic. ;)
-
Ps: don't tell me you got the Epic. ;)
;)
-
Chris, if I may- can you tell me how does actually so-called, so much advertised "HDR recording" work? I just don't see how can a camera record each frame with two different exposures to blend them afterwards.. or is it simply pushing and pulling the same frame and blending them (thanks to good DR of the camera)?
-
I think that the problem of dynamic range is inherently the medium. We are trying to put a high dynamic range scene in a low dynamic range medium (either paper or screen). It reminds me of the 80's videogames with 16 or 256 colors, they were trying to put a caribbean sunset as a background but, hey, it was 16 colours, how could it look even close? The solution of dynamic range problems will be of course hdr capture/output devices. That's why I agree with the opinion that the first photo looks more natural. This courtain should be bright, it cannot be a medium gray. If a film were used, would there be detail in the curtains? maybe, but if there was detail, this detail would be very compressed towards the whites, while with digital is linearly distributed, so the values go towards the midtones. We can not forget that our vision is not linear.
I like to see this as an ideal record producer should see it (dont get me started on loudness wars etc..) : you have this magnificent recording of musicians in a quiet studio at e.g. 80dB of dynamic range. You want it to shine on a radio channel with 25dB of dynamic range. So what do you do, you try to reduce the dynamic range in such a way as to compromise quality as little as possible.
Capturing the scene with a LDR camera does not avoid the problem, it simply removes options. Instead of being able to tweak curves and local/global adjustements from the raw file, one is applying a kind of LDR tonemapping in-camera (clipping highlights and adding noisefloor).
The core of the issue is: if a scene contains a lot of DR, how do we accurately (and subjectively pleasingly) recreate it on a limited DR paper/display.
-h
-
The core of the issue is: if a scene contains a lot of DR, how do we accurately (and subjectively pleasingly) recreate it on a limited DR paper/display.
By capturing it at high resolution, and subsequently by clever (perceptualy pleasing) mapping to the output DR.
Cheers,
Bart
-
By capturing it at high resolution, and subsequently by clever (perceptualy pleasing) mapping to the output DR.
Given that todays capture technologies does not allow very accurate and very large DR at the same time, we have to do compromises anyways.
Using any digital camera in single shot mode will give you a somewhat limited DR capture, but the possibility to represent colors and tonecurve pretty "accurate" within those limits since behaviour is well-defined and can be "corrected" digitally.
Using a digital camera with several exposures, you can capture a larger scene DR (limited by optics DR), but it only works well for static scenes.
My impression is that film allows one representation of large scene DR -> low print DR without hard clipping. But the user have limited freedom in choosing that transform, difficult predictability, and limited accuracy (please don't shoot me if I you disagree).
It is difficult to say that any one of these approaches is the "end-all" practical solution to the problem. Multi-shot digital clearly gives more information about (static) scenes that can in principle be used in later algorithms to simulate the other two. From a dsp perspective that is perhaps "optimal", but limiting oneself to static scenes is a pretty harsh limitation.
-h
-
Given that todays capture technologies does not allow very accurate and very large DR at the same time, we have to do compromises anyways.
Using any digital camera in single shot mode will give you a somewhat limited DR capture...
nevertheless i like cartier-bresson's unsharp pictures with white skies better than today's with D3s.
why, oh why?
-
And of course film has always had the H & D-style compression at both ends of the tonal spectrum to contain the vast dynamic range of real-world scenes to the much narrower range of printing papers, manipulated to great effect by Zone practictioners such as Ansel Adams and Fred Picker. Some digital cameras mimic a filmic slow rolloff, often selectable; others clip far more readily with more exposure. I do not expose to the right, especially with my Aptus, because mid-tones and shadows can be lifted, but I have never found the fabled latitude in highlights that is often touted.
The thing to remember is that tonal compression and even posterisation occur when a huge range is compressed non-linearly into a smaller one; we have to be clever about how we do it—I often use judicious dodging to open up a particular area and maintain/increase local contrast rather than push the whole histogram. Particularly noticeable effects can result with curves adjustments that push the curve vertically; I prefer Levels rather than Curves for this very reason.
-
Really meant horizontally there in the second para; a more vertical curve indicates very rapid tonal transition. Mea culpa—late at night.
-
And of course film has always had the H & D-style compression at both ends of the tonal spectrum to contain the vast dynamic range of real-world scenes to the much narrower range of printing papers
Trying my best to not turn this into a "my technology is better than yours" debate, but to put all capture/processing technologies into a common framework.
I tried to include that in my list as just one of several options of "mapping" the real scene intensity to paper with pros and cons. Pro being that a large range of scene intensities map to discernible media values ("High dynamic range"). Con being that the mapping is complicated and hard-to-predict/invert, meaning that for a given film/process you are sort of "locked" into one response type.
When doing exposure-synthesis (HDR), I believe that the assembled file can represent the physical scene with larger accuracy (if the scene is static), that pretty much any tonecurve look (including film) can be emulated based on physical measurements/models instead of manual trial and error. And that this non-linear tonemapping space seems to contain a few possibilities that look "better" for some people for some scenes than the characteristics typically found with film.
The thing to remember is that tonal compression and even posterisation occur when a huge range is compressed non-linearly into a smaller one; we have to be clever about how we do it—I often use judicious dodging to open up a particular area and maintain/increase local contrast rather than push the whole histogram. Particularly noticeable effects can result with curves adjustments that push the curve vertically; I prefer Levels rather than Curves for this very reason.
I dont see how posterization can result from _compressing_ the input, it should only happen when _expanding_ the input? If a narrow range of input values is spread across a large range of output values (expansion), any steps in the source will be made more visible. If a large range of input values is squeezed into a small range of output values (compression), output tonality should have ample information (within the range in question) to be smooth?
-h
-
Without going through the previous post point-by-point, I’ll offer this:
Tonal compression is [almost] always required; and it has been the case that compression of the tonal ends has been considered more desirable than in the mid-tones (though how much this stance has been influenced by the inherent sensitivity characteristics of silver halide film and papers is open to debate). I recall reading many years ago (as an amateur since the early ’60s; a student for three years in a very technical photographic course; commercial photography since the mid-’70s; and more recently a user of computers for imaging over twenty years, I do have some form) that compression of highlights and shadows is visually preferable to that of mid-tones. It’s all a compromise of course.
On posterisation, if I understand your point correctly, I was [perhaps not effectively] trying to say that compensation in one part of the tonal range can lead to problems in another area. Particularly with curves; when I taught graphics as part of a multimedia course, every year I advised students to use Levels rather than Curves in Photoshop for the reason that it is harder to cock-up Levels (and the histogram is very useful too of course).
Talk of HDR is moot if the tonal range thus produced is still wider than the media it will be delivered on. I find most so-called “HDR” to be ugly, heavy and over-saturated in darker areas. Sometimes, you need a cloudy-bright day to get a pleasing tonal range where detail and texture is maintained at the extremes. Or make a aesthetic decision to lose some detail to reinforce a mood; good example of H/L blowout here (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=356462&postcount=7305).
-
It's not surprising that several shots with different exposures mixed into an automatic processing are producing hugly results. If we don't work with zones I don't see how this merging images could give controled results.
This is something I never ended to understand in still photography, specially when digital PP is 60% of the work. Would you go into a Da Vinci suite and press the "auto-grade" button?
I'm working recently with some Alexa files and those have the widest DR I have ever seen in any digital capture device. (but I'm not pretending I've seen it all). When using with keyers in Nuke or Autodesk, you see very well with the scopes what is happening between a material from the Alexa and a material from the 5D2 for ex. When I mask and work on a certain zone, I first work on the luminance key, then and only then, on the colors. The fact is that the 5D2 abruptly degrade the possibilities of precise control over all the DR available (it's 4. 2. 0) wich result in compromises within the alpha and indeed tricky to correct the way and where you want to. Less abstractly said, it lacks transitions (and that's not specially a bad thing) but also there is not enough information recorded (it simply doesn't exist) to be able to correct exactly where you need to and keep it clean. When things are going well, the 5D2 is a brise but when things are tricky you see the limtation and specially on the DR side. On a practical side, the Alexa is much more forgiving but also gives a wider choice of grading. You hardly reach the limit while with the 5D2 you reach it very fast. A bad green screen for example is workable with the Alexa while with the Canon you can through the footage on the garbage, if you fail it, there is little to do.
The irony is that the Alexa, being a much more expensive camera totally aimed top the pro market, could be used by a non skilled operator because there is much more to do in post while the 5D2 that target the prosumer market is much more critical to get the files for a creative post. Really, the widest possible DR in capture avoid a lot of hassles and also allows much more creative decisions, IMHO.
-
The irony is that the Alexa, being a much more expensive camera totally aimed top the pro market, could be used by a non skilled operator because there is much more to do in post while the 5D2 that target the prosumer market is much more critical to get the files for a creative post. Really, the widest possible DR in capture avoid a lot of hassles and also allows much more creative decisions, IMHO.
It’s long been like this, where a more expensive piece of equipment can produce good work more easily. Thinking back to flimsy enlargers that were cheaper than high-end Dursts (for example) but used carefully with a good lens could produce good results, but always with more effort.
-
I'm working recently with some Alexa files and those have the widest DR I have ever seen in any digital capture device
I totally agree with you, last july I was shooting a making off with 1dsmarkIII, I didn't even know about Alexa back then but when I saw the preview on the screen couldn't stop myself asking about the camera. I couldn't compare on stage because I only had my camera screen preview but just seeing my clippings and histograms made me wonder about the diference. The alexa looks so good even without post production. That night when I came home I had a look on the alexa specs, they claim "14 stops for all sensitivity settings from EI 160 to EI 3200, as measured with the ARRI Dynamic Range Test Chart (DRTC)" but I would like too see numbers from independent tests.
Yesterday I read the article "3 Years Later – DSLR Video", and I adventured to try the technicolor profile on the 1dsmIII, even I rarely shoot jpeg it is amazing the amount of shadow detail it displays. The profile pushes the shadows up so the artifacts that normally appear with compression have less efect. I will definetly leave the profile in the camera for the future, even if it's made for video I can find some uses for photo for the same reasons it was created.
-
I totally agree with you, last july I was shooting a making off with 1dsmarkIII, I didn't even know about Alexa back then but when I saw the preview on the screen couldn't stop myself asking about the camera. I couldn't compare on stage because I only had my camera screen preview but just seeing my clippings and histograms made me wonder about the diference. The alexa looks so good even without post production. That night when I came home I had a look on the alexa specs, they claim "14 stops for all sensitivity settings from EI 160 to EI 3200, as measured with the ARRI Dynamic Range Test Chart (DRTC)" but I would like too see numbers from independent tests.
Yesterday I read the article "3 Years Later – DSLR Video", and I adventured to try the technicolor profile on the 1dsmIII, even I rarely shoot jpeg it is amazing the amount of shadow detail it displays. The profile pushes the shadows up so the artifacts that normally appear with compression have less efect. I will definetly leave the profile in the camera for the future, even if it's made for video I can find some uses for photo for the same reasons it was created.
It's true, the technicolor profile is helping a lot the 5D2. In fact they create this profile with parameters that where already used by video gurus having in mind the post prod from the begining.
About what video can bring to stills and vice-versa it is indeed the case. Still can bring to video a simplified workflow in the pipeline and video can bring to still the power of their technology, specially in PP, the LUT etc...
But already...I find (personaly) that Nuke is giving me much more power and fine tuning than Photoshop does. (I mean for still imagery also, Nuke is resolution free)
I suggest that still photographers have a look at After effect. It's way cheaper than Nuke but does the same things (the harder way as mediumcool pointed). Most of you guys already have AE installed in the Adobe's suite and probably ignored it thinking it's just for motion. Even if you do not work with motion, it could bring different perspective in your workflow for certain applications.
http://vimeo.com/12758392
This video is interesting because it shows a process in real time even with some issues so very representative IMO what you can expect.
-
As always, great work. Beautifull.
Indeed when looking at that pic, and most of the great imagery, I never found myself asking about a blowned highlight or whatever as a viewer (not the viewer of the camera, I mean, me as a spectator). If the image catches me I never notice the technique or the lack of it.
Specially noticed some young guys in Russia with cheap cameras and basic tech doing an imagery that truly is interesting and with very little technique and many optical "issues" (was not Holga but dslrs).
I wonder what in those abandonned places are so attractive. There is obviously a fine technique here and experience. In fact what I probably catch most in Keith work is that there is a quest of beauty and refinement in subjects where I mostly saw the exact opposite: as it's abandonned, let's work on the dirty side. As a painter, the color is mastered.
It makes me think why I like more a women in her 50's than a young plastic perfect and boring model. Time makes things way more attractive before it destroy them. There is a point, quite short in time, where the beauty is at its max, just before the final decadence. And a re-born through the lens of someone who is able to see it. This is indeed very similar to hunting treasure.
-
I should have clarified at the beginning... I'm not really interested in the merits of the look with the blown out window, while that can work quite well in a residential image. The fact is that its simply not an option for most of what I do. The images below are a better example of much of my commercial work. The blow to look is less appropriate for this commercial space and the view to the lake is actually a big part of the design story. I spent the better part of a day blending a 7 exposure bracket to tame the contrast. Had I submitted the unaltered image, the client would quickly have rejected it.
So... I'm just exploring better ways of achieving this end that do compress the required range of dynamic information without feeling too artificial.
Cheers,
CB
-
Chris
I've had a few discussions about this with my re-touchers as well.
Unfortunately it seems that at the moment, the layer/mask and spending quality time with your Wacom pen is the only real way to go.
I know this doesn't sound very positive, specially since it's such a time consuming process.
All the HDR softwares I've tried just don't have the sophistication needed.
The only other thing I can add is that I try to educate the clients on this style and explain the billing process!
am
-
... I take it you dropped the sea in?
It is most likely Chicago, with Lake Michigan.
-
Correct! Lake Michigan it was. Here was the process...
Shot a bracket from N to N-6 in 1 stop increments.
Processed the full bracket in PhotoMatix using Exposure Fusion.
Opened the fused HDR image and the Normal exposure in Photoshop.
Dropped the HDR image on top of the Normal image.
Used the luminosity on the base Normal image as a mask on the HDR image layer.
Hand blended from there.
Pain in the ass.
-
Chris, send me a raw file please. You know my address.
Can't say much else without the raw.
Sorry I've been absent for a while. We've been doing a New England Fall Color Workshop.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
-
I spent the better part of a day blending a 7 exposure bracket to tame the contrast. Had I submitted the unaltered image, the client would quickly have rejected it.
Have you tried exposure fusion?, 3 bracket shots should be enought and results (in my humble experience) are almost always more "natural looking" than hdr. I agree that photoshop masking is still the best.
-
Chris
I've had a few discussions about this with my re-touchers as well.
Unfortunately it seems that at the moment, the layer/mask and spending quality time with your Wacom pen is the only real way to go.
I know this doesn't sound very positive, specially since it's such a time consuming process.
All the HDR softwares I've tried just don't have the sophistication needed.
The only other thing I can add is that I try to educate the clients on this style and explain the billing process!
am
I tend to agree with this.
There is an interesting plug-in: http://vimeo.com/14746806
Again, the motion softwares have a lot to offer.
-
Correct! Lake Michigan it was. Here was the process...
Shot a bracket from N to N-6 in 1 stop increments.
Processed the full bracket in PhotoMatix using Exposure Fusion.
Opened the fused HDR image and the Normal exposure in Photoshop.
Dropped the HDR image on top of the Normal image.
Used the luminosity on the base Normal image as a mask on the HDR image layer.
Hand blended from there.
Pain in the ass.
Chris, It is a pain in the ass but without lighting the scene you can produce an image that was not possible before the various softwares became available. It's my workflow also, I explain to my clients that it produces an image as your eyes would perceive the subject and that the time spent refining it compares to the process of making a fine print. Currently, I've found no alternative. The time spent creating these final images is at least equal to the time spent taking them, in some cases, greater, but they are pretty damn good images. Here's one from the other night. Jim
-
Correct! Lake Michigan it was. Here was the process...
Shot a bracket from N to N-6 in 1 stop increments.
Processed the full bracket in PhotoMatix using Exposure Fusion.
Opened the fused HDR image and the Normal exposure in Photoshop.
Dropped the HDR image on top of the Normal image.
Used the luminosity on the base Normal image as a mask on the HDR image layer.
Hand blended from there.
Pain in the ass.
Wait....what about lights? Are you firing strobes and/or using continuous lighting in each bracket? Or (in this specific instance) are you lighting the foreground, and then working the brackets to achieve good values for the conference room & window only?
-
Scott, there is almost always a fair amount of lighting as well. I mix strobes and hot lights quite a bit... using the strobe for big soft fill and my Dedos to pick up small areas. Then I'm often turning the strobe off for the bracket to ensure that nothing is reflecting in the windows as they gain tone.
Doug, I'm off to Québec in the morning. I'll get you a raw when I return.
Thanks!
CB
-
Correct! Lake Michigan it was. Here was the process...
Shot a bracket from N to N-6 in 1 stop increments.
Processed the full bracket in PhotoMatix using Exposure Fusion.
Opened the fused HDR image and the Normal exposure in Photoshop.
Dropped the HDR image on top of the Normal image.
Used the luminosity on the base Normal image as a mask on the HDR image layer.
Hand blended from there.
Pain in the ass.
That turned out really well. Your effort was worth it!
PS - is that a row of cabbages on the LHS? I can't keep up with the latest fashions in corporate decor...or maybe it's catering, not decor! :D
-
Have you tried exposure fusion?, 3 bracket shots should be enought and results (in my humble experience) are almost always more "natural looking" than hdr. I agree that photoshop masking is still the best.
Pantoned, James and Chris are referring to the exposure fusion process, using the Photomatix option for this. Also, the term HDR gets used to mean various things by different people. Some people include exposure fusion within the definition. Some people use the term HDR strictly to refer to processes such as Photomatix's HDR/tonemapping option. Others include Photoshop layering and compositing for contrast reduction within the definition. In the broadest sense, could even include the Zone System. Gets rather confusing sometimes.
-
Pantoned, James and Chris are referring to the exposure fusion process, using the Photomatix option for this. Also, the term HDR gets used to mean various things by different people. Some people include exposure fusion within the definition. Some people use the term HDR strictly to refer to processes such as Photomatix's HDR/tonemapping option. Others include Photoshop layering and compositing for contrast reduction within the definition. In the broadest sense, could even include the Zone System. Gets rather confusing sometimes.
Sorry, I missed some in-between posts. I just wanted to suggest that -unlike hdr- with exposure fusion 3 shots can produce better results than 6, but maybe it has been my biased personal experience. I remeber gulliermo luijk saying something like this some time ago when he was developing his zero noise soft.
It would be interesting to see what is people experience regarding number of shots using exposure fusion. I know it is a very scene-specific subject but there is always room to learn from other people experiences. At least (for me) i'm far more interested in talking about post production workflows than the never ending camera storie
Arnau.
-
Shot a bracket from N to N-6 in 1 stop increments.
Greetings Chris, when you say you shoot N to N-6, do you mean ND Graduated Filters ? Sorry for this question,
but Im really new to this and would like to learn....
Luke
-
Greetings Chris, when you say you shoot N to N-6, do you mean ND Graduated Filters ? Sorry for this question,
but Im really new to this and would like to learn....
Luke
No, Chris meant that he varied the exposure in successive frames, by shortening the shutter speed, from the "Normal" (N, the "recommended" metered speed for the overall scene), to 1 stop less, 2 stops less, ...down to 6 stops less (N-6).
The "N+/-X" terminology comes from deliberate under/over-exposure of film and compensating under/over-development - especially large format sheet film shooters using the zone system.
Ray
-
No, Chris meant that he varied the exposure in successive frames, by shortening the shutter speed, from the "Normal" (N, the "recommended" metered speed for the overall scene), to 1 stop less, 2 stops less, ...down to 6 stops less (N-6).
The "N+/-X" terminology comes from deliberate under/over-exposure of film and compensating under/over-development - especially large format sheet film shooters using the zone system.
Ray
thx a lot ray for clearing this up