Topic: Creating High Dynamic Range Images (Read 23732 times)

flyingpanther · « **on:** August 14, 2007, 10:13:57 am »

Hello everyone,
I am new to this forum. I recently created a tutorial on how I create my high dynamic range images if anyone is interested. Here is the link: High Dynamic Range Images

Tyler

Schewe · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2007, 02:32:32 pm »

Quote

Hello everyone,
I am new to this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh huh...and it sounds presumptuous for one of your FIRST posts to be one that drivers people to YOUR web site. Ya might try to be just a little less blatant about it mate...

It's one thing to mention the tutorial in the course of a discussion about HDR, but it's pure advertising to make a post like this.

flyingpanther · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2007, 03:05:03 pm »

Quote

Uh huh...and it sounds presumptuous for one of your FIRST posts to be one that drivers people to YOUR web site. Ya might try to be just a little less blatant about it mate...

It's one thing to mention the tutorial in the course of a discussion about HDR, but it's pure advertising to make a post like this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Schewe,
I am sorry that this post rubbed you in such a negative way. My intention with this post is to share my experiences with processing HDR images. I have spent some time developing a tutorial which I feel lays out a simple approach to processing this type of image. I did this because I had a difficult time finding a good tutorial when I was learning the process myself.

Although I am new to this forum I have gleaned much help and info from this and others on the internet and I am thankful for those who have helped me along the way.

Is this not the proper place to post such a thread?

X-Re · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2007, 03:14:13 pm »

I think what Jeff is balking at is that one of your first posts on the forum has the appearance of an advertisement, not a tutorial (your sig has a pointer w/ a discount mentioned if they use your name @ the Photomatix site, so you gain financial benefit for folks buying through you, and the tutorial mentions the same thing). This isn't really the place for advertising....

This is a place for sharing techniques, and such. I think it would generate less ire if you either stated right upfront that you have an arrangement with Photomatix, and that you make money on this, etc, etc - or if you'd left the advertising out of your tutorial and your sig (or at least put the advertising at the bottom of the tutorial).

Ok, that said - you have some wonderful shots that you've shown on the forum and your website. The tutorial isn't any different than other Photomatix related material that I've read, though (including the stuff on their website). If you really wanted to add to what's out there, spending time showing examples of how the different sliders work, and such, would be a big improvement on what's already out there. Most everything says exactly what you say - "just play with them until it looks right"

flyingpanther · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2007, 03:34:20 pm »

Points taken X-Re and thank you for the suggestions.

Schewe · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2007, 07:08:55 pm »

The point I'm making is that of the 8 posts you've made, starting TODAY, the one thread you STARTED was one in which you directed people to YOUR web site which is considered poor form...this is Michael Reichmann's house...and while he doesn't post strict forum rules (yet) ya don't go on somebody else's forums attatched to their web site to drum up business for YOUR web site, ya know?

Wanna write an HDR tutorial? Ping Michael and see if he will publish it here...or at least have the good graces to mention it in the course of a thread about HDR...such as what you did in "Opinions on HDR, What do people think?". That was proper and would have been enough but then you posted: "Monocrome HDR-Rocky Mountain National Park" and followed that up with "Creating High Dynamic Range Images"...

And seem even more hellbent on self promotion with your signature:
--------------------
I created a tutorial on processing High Dynamic Range Images

http://flyingpanther.wordpress.com

All in the first day of posting at the LL...

I'm just saying....

nemophoto · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2007, 08:02:15 pm »

Jeff,

Do you really have to crap on everyone? So it's the guy's first post. So what if he's proud of it and wants to share -- it's nice work and it's nice he wants to share FOR FREE. We are all highly opinionated here -- I certainly am. But, I try not crapping on others.

Nemo

flyingpanther · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2007, 08:15:42 pm »

Quote

The point I'm making is that of the 8 posts you've made, starting TODAY, the one thread you STARTED was one in which you directed people to YOUR web site which is considered poor form...this is Michael Reichmann's house...and while he doesn't post strict forum rules (yet) ya don't go on somebody else's forums attatched to their web site to drum up business for YOUR web site, ya know?

Wanna write an HDR tutorial? Ping Michael and see if he will publish it here...or at least have the good graces to mention it in the course of a thread about HDR...such as what you did in "Opinions on HDR, What do people think?". That was proper and would have been enough but then you posted: "Monocrome HDR-Rocky Mountain National Park" and followed that up with "Creating High Dynamic Range Images"...

And seem even more hellbent on self promotion with your signature:
--------------------
I created a tutorial on processing High Dynamic Range Images

http://flyingpanther.wordpress.com

All in the first day of posting at the LL...

I'm just saying....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Schewe,

To be quite honest I found this forum through a search engine and had no idea it was associated with Michael Reichmann's site. The forum header and registration page did not indicate this. I was under the impression this was a forum to share ones work and/or give and receive tips and critique. I am maybe in the wrong. In retrospect I would have taken another avenue in sharing my tutorial and my deepest appologies for any one who I have offended.

I have not posted it to drum up business for my site but simply to demonstrate or guide people through the process or at least show how the program works. That is all. I truly hope there are no hard feelings.

pfigen · « **Reply #8 on:** August 14, 2007, 08:38:45 pm »

Who cares if it's his first post or his four hundredth post. You've got to start posting somewhere and his images are really excellent and he's providing good information and not asking anything for it. I've now been exposed to software I wasn't aware of previously, and that's a great thing. People need to lighten up a bit or maybe even a lot.

Schewe · « **Reply #9 on:** August 14, 2007, 11:03:36 pm »

Quote

To be quite honest I found this forum through a search engine and had no idea it was associated with Michael Reichmann's site. The forum header and registration page did not indicate this.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would have thought that Luminous Landscape Forum > Equipment & Techniques > Digital Image Processing might have been a clue...plus the link back to [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/]The Luminous Landscape[/url] just under the Invision Powerboard logo...plus all the Site & Board Matters sub-forums like: About This Site / Discussions about the Luminous Landscape site and this Board and LL Video Journal & Download Video / Discussion on The Luminous Landscape Video Journal & Download Video

But hey, that's just me...

Gregory · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2007, 07:59:14 am »

Tyler,

nice pics!! and not just one or two. it's obvious that you've put a lot of time and effort into your photos.

and I'm very impressed with the imagekind gallery/store. I wished there were Asian varieties that I could sign up with.

regards,
Gregory

bjanes · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2007, 10:20:30 am »

Quote

Hello everyone,
I am new to this forum. I recently created a tutorial on how I create my high dynamic range images if anyone is interested.
Tyler
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tyler,

As to the propriety of your post, I will leave that question to Michael, and I think that others should consider doing the same.

That said, many of your images are striking and well worth a look. The usual criticism of HDR photography is that it can be overdone, giving the images a surrealistic appearance. That was my first impression of your seaside image. On further study, I think that the tone mapping is quite successful and gives the scene an open luminous appearance reminiscent of how the old masters handled tone. For example, here is a comparison to a Peter Paul Rubens scene with similar lighting.

I can anticipate complaints about my comparison of your work with that of an old master and I do not mean to equate the two, but merely note the similarity of the tone mapping. There are better ways to map tones than with a global S-curve as pointed out on this [a href=\"http://range.wordpress.com/2006/07/15/modern-hdr-photography-a-how-to-or-saturday-morning-relaxation/]Blog[/url] (see section "Old Solutions"). Local adaption and other measures are necessary to simulate the luminance of the original scene in the dynamic range available on the print. HDR tone mapping is in its infancy, and further advances can be expected.

Bill

paulbk · « **Reply #12 on:** August 15, 2007, 07:34:47 pm »

flyingpanther,
I agree with nemophoto, your images are stunning. Well done! Thanks for the info.

I wouldn’t worry too much about self promotion around here. It’s clearly part of the culture. Look around. Some feel it’s only for the anointed few. You see, once you’re part of the priesthood life is good. Pay no attention.

p

eleanorbrown · « **Reply #13 on:** August 15, 2007, 08:15:03 pm »

flyingpanther, your HDR images are stunning. I have often wished I knew how to make HDR images---I've tried and haven't had much success with the software (photoshop hdr feature). remapping the pixels is difficult for me to get the gist of. I found your site helpful. Eleanor

mtomalty · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2007, 01:54:54 am »

Posting protocols aside can the Merge to HDR feature in CS3 'produce' a similar type
of merged image as is referenced in flyingpanthers linked tutorial using Photomatrix.

As I have never created an HDR image I also reread an older tutotial posting by Michael
in this sites archive on Mege to HDR using CS2 before testing out both approaches this evening
and found that the resulting images were miles apart with the Photomatrix solution delivering a
much more visually pleasing result.
As stated,I have zero experience with this feature and was wondering,before blowing tons of
time digging deeper,if others have been able to create an HDR image,to their liking,using
CS3 (which i would prefer to use if possible)

Thanks
Mark

Josh-H · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2007, 03:23:57 am »

Quote

Posting protocols aside can the Merge to HDR feature in CS3 'produce' a similar type
of merged image as is referenced in flyingpanthers linked tutorial using Photomatrix.

As I have never created an HDR image I also reread an older tutotial posting by Michael
in this sites archive on Mege to HDR using CS2 before testing out both approaches this evening
and found that the resulting images were miles apart with the Photomatrix solution delivering a
much more visually pleasing result.
As stated,I have zero experience with this feature and was wondering,before blowing tons of
time digging deeper,if others have been able to create an HDR image,to their liking,using
CS3 (which i would prefer to use if possible)
Thanks
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ditto the above - I would really like to see a CS3 tutorial on how to do this.

Its not worth me buying specialist software for HDR imaging - I dont do enough of it. I would like to be able to get a good result in CS3 with it when I do want to do it though.

Guillermo Luijk · « **Reply #16 on:** August 16, 2007, 05:59:58 am »

Despite the initial complaints about your first post, I think a nice discussion about HDR can take place. I am interested in high dynamic range scenes; I am not so interested in tone mapping.

I have a question to the forum: why people trend to call "HDR" (High Dynamic Range) to what actually is Tone Mapping? everytime I speak about high dynamic range captures, I cannot refer to the term "HDR" as people quickly think of Photomatix tone mapping, which usually looks unnatural to me. And when they look at my high dynamic range pictures they say: "mmm it doesn't look HDR".

High dynamic range simply means that you captured a wide luminance range of detail in your scene, where the deepest shadows are many f-stops far from the highlights. There is no need of tone mapping to be able to talk about high dynamic range at all, they are linked but different concepts. You can apply tone mapping to a low dynamic range image (for instance Photomatix allows to tone map one single RAW file, which cannot be high dynamic range for today's sensor limitations), and you can have a high dynamic range image without applying any tone maping on it.

Would you think of these pictures being "HDR"? they indeed are, both accounting nearly 13 f-stops of real dynamic range. They are not tone mapped however that's why they don't have the local microconstrast look provided by that technique.

BTW flyingpanther, in your tutorial you claim: "Remember a single camera shot can hold detail in about a 5 stop exposure range at best."
This is not true in modern cameras. A modest DSLR as the Canon 350D can, if properly used (i.e. exposing to the right), register with a good detail up to 8 f-stops.

bjanes · « **Reply #17 on:** August 16, 2007, 08:43:44 am »

Quote

Despite the initial complaints about your first post, I think a nice discussion about HDR can take place. I am interested in high dynamic range scenes; I am not so interested in tone mapping.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guillermo,

You are correct that HDR and tone-mapping are two separate issues. A HDR image is simply a direct linear mapping of the luminance of the scene. Many real world scenes contain a luminance ratio of 5 orders of magnitude, while photographic reflection prints can display only 2 orders of magnitude. Our screens can do a bit better, perhaps 3 orders of magnitude. Special HDR displays are available, but are currently quite expensive.

To make use of our HDR images, it is necessary to reduce the luminance range in the HDR image to something that can be printed, and this is where tone mapping comes in. The old masters of painting used many tricks to create the impression of a high dynamic range (see the link in my previous post), and local contrast enhancement was one of these tricks. Thus, tone mapping is often necessary in HDR imaging if you want to make a print or view the image on a normal screen.

Bill

Chris_T · « **Reply #18 on:** August 16, 2007, 09:20:55 am »

I don't object to a post referring or linking to a site or a product. (But then, I'm not a formally deputized moderator here.) However, it would be helpful if your post states that the tutorial is Photomatix specific. Your tutorial can also benefit by explaining why you choose Photomatix over many other hdr tools.

Quote

Hello everyone,
I am new to this forum. I recently created a tutorial on how I create my high dynamic range images if anyone is interested. Here is the link: High Dynamic Range Images

Tyler
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris_T · « **Reply #19 on:** August 16, 2007, 09:29:43 am »

Quote

Would you think of these pictures being "HDR"? they indeed are, both accounting nearly 13 f-stops of real dynamic range. They are not tone mapped however that's why they don't have the local microconstrast look provided by that technique.

How are the "nearly 13 f-stops of real dynamic range" in these images achieved, and from what source?

Quote

BTW flyingpanther, in your tutorial you claim: "Remember a single camera shot can hold detail in about a 5 stop exposure range at best."
This is not true in modern cameras. A modest DSLR as the Canon 350D can, if properly used (i.e. exposing to the right), register with a good detail up to 8 f-stops.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was also lead to believe that a sensor's dynamic range is similar to a slide's, i.e. about 5-stops. Can you elaborate or reference the 8-stops?

Author Topic: Creating High Dynamic Range Images (Read 23732 times)