HDR? Is this some new hormone replacement therapy?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Refers to 'high dynamic range'... The 'general' technique is to try and get as much information as possible in the image and equalise it... I don't know much about it myself, haven't really used it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
QUOTE(Rob C @ Nov 6 2007, 01:29 AM)
HDR? Is this some new hormone replacement therapy?
Rob C
*
I think Rob might have been having a little joke!
Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some people just don't take 'everything in moderation' to heart.
I'd better go and make the effort to look for examples that seemed to utilise the potential without the downside.
QUOTE(Rob C @ Nov 6 2007, 01:29 AM)
HDR? Is this some new hormone replacement therapy?
Rob C
*
I think Rob might have been having a little joke!
Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neil,
Here's some HDR work I've been doing that simply could not have been achieved through single exposure photography. There is no doubt that it is useful in extreme situations like this.
The first of these images is a 6 exposure HDR blend spanning 10 stops with a max exposure of 30 secs! Yet the shadows are still pitch black.
(http://www.andymcinroy.com/images/ir281.jpg)
(http://www.andymcinroy.com/images/ir283.jpg)
(http://www.andymcinroy.com/images/cathman.jpg)
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anyone tried this book on the subject?
The HDRI Handbook (http://rockynook.com/books/1-933952-05-9.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It just gives such a boring, low interest, low contrast look to me - almost a rendered quality. None of those look interesting to me, especially due to the boring composition.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't doubt for a second that this is how the scene looked to the eye. My point is, it's also boring to my eye. To me, capturing a scene like that, necessitating HDR - doesn't make for a compelling image. Without contrast - drama - it's just a snapshot to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm curious though about what you mean by low-contrast. With the exception of the last one, to my eye these all have a wide range of contrast. Some even have blowouts and pure blacks. So it makes me wonder what you mean by lack of contrast.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The part that really bugs me, and why they look rendered - is because that is NOT how the scene is perceived when you are actually there. Yes, each separate part of the scene may look like that. But that's not how our brain works. For example on the pier shot: When you are there, looking at the lights - you are not seeing the sky at anything but black. You are not seeing all the detail at your feet. You are not seeing the water as if it were afternoon.
Your iris have contracted so you can see the detail in the light area you are looking at, and that's what you get. Just the same if you were to stare at the ground, water or sky - and let your iris open up to see the detail. You aren't seeing the details around each light bulb, or on the brightly lit ground - it's washed out in your perifrial vision.
Is that an HDR Ghost standing on the rock?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=171379\")
You might like to read the full story at
http://www.andymcinroy.com/5port.htm (http://www.andymcinroy.com/5port.htm)
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
rustyjaw,
I love your images, they are fantastic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For me there are lots of really interesting sunrise/sunset images that just can't fit within the confines of a 16 bit 'box'. I'm still stumbling my way through some basic HDR techniques, using masks or Photoshop's HDR function, and I'm just starting to try out Photomatix.
I find it a bit frustrating that I can't really visualize what's going to happen with the image as I work it, at least not like I can tell ahead of time how a 'standard' capture will turn out with a bit of massaging. A few complex stitched + HDR images have turned out beautifully, while others are just dead on arrival. Sort of feels like 20 years ago when I was first shooting K64, and every yellow box was full of surprises because I had no idea what the hell I was doing.
'Course, it's probably just me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For me there are lots of really interesting sunrise/sunset images that just can't fit within the confines of a 16 bit 'box'. I'm still stumbling my way through some basic HDR techniques, using masks or Photoshop's HDR function, and I'm just starting to try out Photomatix.
I find it a bit frustrating that I can't really visualize what's going to happen with the image as I work it, at least not like I can tell ahead of time how a 'standard' capture will turn out with a bit of massaging. A few complex stitched + HDR images have turned out beautifully, while others are just dead on arrival. Sort of feels like 20 years ago when I was first shooting K64, and every yellow box was full of surprises because I had no idea what the hell I was doing.
'Course, it's probably just me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For me there are lots of really interesting sunrise/sunset images that just can't fit within the confines of a 16 bit 'box'. I'm still stumbling my way through some basic HDR techniques, using masks or Photoshop's HDR function, and I'm just starting to try out Photomatix.
I find it a bit frustrating that I can't really visualize what's going to happen with the image as I work it, at least not like I can tell ahead of time how a 'standard' capture will turn out with a bit of massaging. A few complex stitched + HDR images have turned out beautifully, while others are just dead on arrival. Sort of feels like 20 years ago when I was first shooting K64, and every yellow box was full of surprises because I had no idea what the hell I was doing.
'Course, it's probably just me.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=171653\")
Hello,
Don't know if you've come across this, but in my search for info on HDR I came across this artical where the photographer compared PS HDR(CS2), I know it's been improved in 3, and Photomantix. In addition to the comparison, he also shows how he also utilized, along with the HDR tone mapping additional PS layers and masks to get the effects that he wanted. I very good step by step comparison. Just thought I'd pass it along.
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm (http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello,
Don't know if you've come across this, but in my search for info on HDR I came across this artical where the photographer compared PS HDR(CS2), I know it's been improved in 3, and Photomantix. In addition to the comparison, he also shows how he also utilized, along with the HDR tone mapping additional PS layers and masks to get the effects that he wanted. I very good step by step comparison. Just thought I'd pass it along.
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm (http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I've seen that tutorial before.
I understand the basic principles well enough. My problem is that I'm not consistently able to "pre-visualize" what I'm going to get from a particular image before launching into the HDR process, like I can with "standard" exposures.
This is not a trivial problem; I'm using a Canon Eos-1Ds mk II, often taking multiple frames to stitch into panoramic images, and in challenging light this can mean taking three or more exposures of each frame to catch extremes of highlight and shadow. Even with a reasonably fast computer with 4 gig RAM, the processing times can get pretty tedious. And nothing is more frustrating than spending serious time on an image only to recognize at the very end it just won't work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I find using HDR can add a new perspective to a subject that's been shot to death.Nice pics, BTW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have enclosed an HDR to demonstrate my case, This shot would not have the depth on a normal single exposure.
Thanks for reading.
Andy Innes
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It *does* look processed and not natural -- I like it. Nice shot, good work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yup -- works for me too. Very nice shot.I'll second that motion!
I can think of all kinds of wonderful images that bear little resemblance to reality.. I don't really understand the fetish some folks have for photos that must adhere to the bounds of perfect 'normalcy', to be honest.
"Normal" photos are fine, of course, but to me, if an image works, it works.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have enclosed an HDR to demonstrate my case, This shot would not have the depth on a normal single exposure.
The caves are very interesting, but I am not sure why you made so many brackets,
was there really 12 stops between shadow and highlight?
Or do you find you get a smother graduation through the tonal range?
I am really interested to know if you think using five instead of three brackets has any merit. I use a Canon 5D at the moment and it has only 3 brackets with a maximum 2 stops over and under. I plan on buying the Canon Eos 1dsMk 3 which as you will know has 21Mp but will produce up to 7 auto brackets +-3ev which I thought would be more than enough, I have found the biggest problem to be Chromatic fringing after the tone mapping, if anyone has had the same problems i would be interested to hear if you have found a way around it. I use Photomatix Pro, and I suspect the Raw converter could be a lot better, and is what is causing the problem. I have tried using the Canon converter which produces a better image but is a much slower process.
Before anyone asks, I use a selection of lenses but all of them are L series Canons and they all produce chromatic problems in Photomatix Pro. have tried using chromatic correction in Canon´s digital photopro Raw converter but it made little difference.
So I guess it can only leave the tone mapping process. As the lenses produce almost No obvious chromatic problems.
Anyone got any ideas?
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try Enfuse. Its a free and pretty incredible alternative to tone mapping (I have Photomatrix Pro 3 and I am beginning to think Enfuse might be better unless you want the more extensive feature set of Photomatrix). You need Enfuse.exe and EnfuseGUI. Try it. No CA to speak of.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have found the biggest problem to be Chromatic fringing after the tone mapping, if anyone has had the same problems i would be interested to hear if you have found a way around it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi DiaAzul
Thanks for the post, I tried running HDR through CS2 but was not very happy with the results from the limited tone mapping it gives. Maybe CS3 is better.
I have not tried DXO but I have read it has a pretty good Raw converter, I am interested in anyone who uses DXO before HDR as to wheather they have had good results. I have been told by a friend that tried it that it slowed the whole machine down to a snails pace because of its RAM consumption, So multi tasking while DXO is open is a NoNo. If anyone has experience with this I would be interested to hear it.
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi DiaAzulI was having the same problems with previous versions of DxO. However, the latest version 5.04 has just flipped over from being a good concept, poorly implemented to something which is actually usable. You can download the free trial and see how it works for you.
Thanks for the post, I tried running HDR through CS2 but was not very happy with the results from the limited tone mapping it gives. Maybe CS3 is better.
I have not tried DXO but I have read it has a pretty good Raw converter, I am interested in anyone who uses DXO before HDR as to wheather they have had good results. I have been told by a friend that tried it that it slowed the whole machine down to a snails pace because of its RAM consumption, So multi tasking while DXO is open is a NoNo. If anyone has experience with this I would be interested to hear it.
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=181047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Phil
Great demo shots, I must ask though, are these virtual HDR´s or true HDR´s
ie: taken with 1 shot and push/pulled or with three or more?
the reason I ask is, that shooting any moving object becomes problematic with true HDR
because of the ghosting problem in the photo merge.
I mainly refer to the supermarket shot where you have people walking about. I guess if you use a fast enough shutter speed coupled with a fast drive speed you can iron out most of the movement. But under supermarket lighting you will either need a high ISO setting which does not bode well with HDR because of the multipied noise problem, or you would need a flash, and it doesn´t look much like you did that here.
Do let me know,
Regards
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
HDR is just another and it can be used in many different ways. Someone recently asked me "Michael why do you do HDR photos ?" My response was " Because I can't paint with a brush." Hdr accounts for 70% of my print sales and I love what you can accomplish by using it.Michael I have to say that your photos are the best example of great HDR. I love the look and the style. Some people may not liked, I love your examples. The pseudo HDR is one RAW file saved at + stop and - one stop in Adobe RAW?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/2337559113_cd463c22ca.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2326828025_39d828fcc6.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/2281791433_ac971aea54.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2122/2173203674_0902005f12.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2227/2098965322_f36ea32058.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael I have to say that your photos are the best example of great HDR. I love the look and the style. Some people may not liked, I love your examples. The pseudo HDR is one RAW file saved at + stop and - one stop in Adobe RAW?
tHANKS,
Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
YesOoops! Michael I went to Adobe Raw but I could only save in TIFF, JPEG AND DIGITAL NEGATIVE, is there a RAW SAVING??
0, -2, +2
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182304\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ooops! Michael I went to Adobe Raw but I could only save in TIFF, JPEG AND DIGITAL NEGATIVE, is there a RAW SAVING??I use Digital Negative
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you guys, I saved them both as TIFF and Digital Negative with RAW embedded. When I processed them in Photomatix the file looked horrible, severely distorted and like solarized. When I see the file in Adobe RAW the -2 and +2 TIFF looks ok. I put them thru Adobe HDR and it said the photos don't have enough dinamic range to pull a satidfactory HDR. Should I use different settings? I will try to post a jpg of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When converting 1 photo into 3 exposures this can happen. Also I believe photomatix does a much better job and you have more control than photoshopWell jezz, I guess I am out of luck with this shot. I do have Phomatix and it looked horrible. I thought that photos with lots of shadows and hightlights would benefit from HDR. If anybody wants to play with the photo and try to tone mapped please do. Maybe I am doing something wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andreas,Thank you sir! Yes, I have read that some photographers use one shot to create a HDR, they saved in Adobe RAW at 0,-1,+1, Phillyphotographer did jst that with one of his examples and it looked really nice. I will try the original RAW in Photomatix. Yes, you unsdertood it right. Thanks for the advise. I think I need to go to Automate in Photomatix to do it.
I'm having trouble following what you are trying to do. I think what you are saying is that you have a single RAW image (the one you posted above) which you would like to tonemap. You are doing this by adjusting the exposure in Photoshop, saving out multiple versions, and then merging and tonemapping those files. Photoshop is giving you an error about 'not enough dynamic range' and photomatix just looks bad. Is that right?
I think the reason photoshop is giving you the error is that when it reads the EXIF data from the files you created, they are the same, which makes photoshop 'think' that the images cover the same dynamic range.
I'm not sure why photomatix would look bad, but have you tried just dropping the original single RAW image into photomatix to tonemap?
I don't understand the advice I often see to adjust exposure on the computer and export different versions for tonemapping. Since you cannot by definition add any new information to the image by simply making adjustments, how is this method any different than just tonemapping the original RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose it's possible that Photomatix actually treats separate images differently than a single image. But at least in theory, you should not be able to get better results by making versions of the original image. It would be a shame is the programmers of Photomatix had it behave this way, but sometimes it happens.Well, I tried the single file conversion and it loked just as bad. I am sure is the location, I shot handheld at a high ASA, I tried another photo with the same results, maybe HDR and high ASA don't mix well together?
I guess I should do a test to see if the results from one RAW are any different from a multi-version RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, after reading a bit I think I found out my problem with my Photo.
"Shooting on high ISO will increase the noise in the image. For example, using ISO100 can produce a noise image like ISO400. So if you use ISO400 it will be very noisy. Don’t even think about ISO800 or 1600 unless you are desperate and have a great noise reduction technique. I find that Noiseware doesn’t do a thing against the noise in a HDR shot, but Noise Ninja can. However using Noise Ninja will soften the image."
I shot the image handheld at 1600 ISO because they would not allowed me to use a tripod in the cavern.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not fond of the overprocessed look that HDR has been identified with, and the grocery and diner shots above move into that area from me. That aside, I think this thread has shown some of the ways that HDR can be extremely useful in rendering all the visual information of a scene that is pleasing to the eye but unavailable to the camera. I'll pitch in something: on my recent trip to Ethiopia, I took the shots for this image--I ended up using 4 exposures each 2 stops apart and combining it by hand with masks:
[attachment=5675:attachment]
Entrance, Abune Yemata Guh Church, Tigray, Ethiopia, October 2007 (http://weblog.larkvi.com/2008/02/20/entrance-abune-yemata-guh-church-tigray-ethiopia-october-2007/)
The door and the outside, especially the glare on the cliff path, were completely unavailble to one exposure, so it had to be HDR to be available at all. (I am a little unsatisfied with the way the part of the cave on the right looks, so, gentlemen, if you have any suggestions,please feel free to send them to me.) This image actually required a fun but somewhat crazy approach (http://weblog.larkvi.com/2008/02/20/the-approach-to-abune-yemata-guh-tigray-ethiopia-october-2007/) --well worth visiting if you can deal with getting there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why don't they make sensors that register say, 16 bit data instead of 255 being white? Just curious.
I didn't mean the color depth but the luminosity. Ie - the contrast has a value of 255 and - poof - it washes out and you get that nasty spike of values that can't be altered or recovered.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2402/1737405640_0eeb002b3e.jpg)
Is it me or do some of these HDR's just need a bit of adjustment in color, tone and the like, to make them look better? Most of these HDR's that I see, just seem to be begging for a bit of tweaking to make them look acceptable.
These photos don't do the prints justice !
Having viewed the images in this thread..especially the last few, I can see that "HDR" photography is about as interesting/relevant to photography as "fantastic art" is to painting/art (think Roger Dean,Boris Vallejo et. al).
That is to say..it is gimmicky, stylistic, empty in content and doesn't really hold up to much repeat viewing. Eye candy.
I love the "scientific" pitch put forth to all this HDR photography...how it is a more advanced approximation of how the human eye sees...What a load of bull. Anyone that can SEE can see that this is so clearly not the case. The human eye DOES see a greater dynamic range in shadow and highlight areas, but sadly...it does not 'scan' them all at once like in an HDR photo. The traditional photograph, with it's..ahem..more limited dynamic range, leads the eye of the viewer to create a visual experience that is enhanced by the composition of light. HDR does not enhance this...it actually flattens it. Thus, the compositions looks flat and the eye doesn't move...it only gets dazzled at the outset.
Though I love red wine, I am not an authority. I imagine a good wine can only be discerned by an informed pallette...not just on it's initial impression but by it's other subleties. Aftertaste, i'm sure, being an important one. HDR photos leave a rather unpleasant one...rubbish, really.
Having viewed the images in this thread..especially the last few, I can see that "HDR" photography is about as interesting/relevant to photography as "fantastic art" is to painting/art (think Roger Dean,Boris Vallejo et. al).Yes, in much the same way as photography is not relevant to art, so is HDR not relevant to photography.
It took me quite some time and lots of experimentation, but I finally found a good workflow for producing realistic looking HDR in cases where the contrast of the scene makes a single exposure impossible without some clipping. Basically, it involves keeping light smoothing to +2 and aim for pretty low contrast in photomatix, just getting those details back. The contrast is then gotten back in photoshop with curves and layer masks.
Some examples:
(http://images.aperturefirst.org/20070825192633_20070818-0001-kebnekaise_light.jpg)
(http://images.aperturefirst.org/20080312190358_20080228-sentinel.jpg)
(http://images.aperturefirst.org/20080803233538_20080802-divine.jpg)
And more (http://www.aperturefirst.org/index.php?x=browse&category=9)
Ray, I always use the auto-align feature of CS3 (or CS4, now) to align my shots properly. 99% of my HDR are 3 exposures hand-held, at +/-2ev. I think it is extremely rare that you need more than that to get the full tonal range, at least in natural scenes.
Ray, I have not used CS3 for HDR in a long time, so I can't really tell, but I remember it used to indeed produce very disappointing results. Depending on your expected use of HDR (i.e. playing with it once in a while, as opposed to using it regularly to "save the day" in too high contrast scenes), I think photomatix can be a very good investment.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2402/1737405640_0eeb002b3e.jpg)
Is it me or do some of these HDR's just need a bit of adjustment in color, tone and the like, to make them look better? Most of these HDR's that I see, just seem to be begging for a bit of tweaking to make them look acceptable.
I agree with this and i wouldn't be surprised if Adobe buys HDR Soft (photomatix).
I think you might be right. I've just tried the trial download of Photomatix and it seems to solve the problems I've frequently encountered with CS3's merge to HDR2.
Below is a pair of crops of a Himalayan peak at dawn showing the typical problems I get with CS3. This is a merging of 3 shots ranging from 0.6 secs to 1/15th (about 4 stops). The 1/15th sec shot is about 2/3rds of a stop underexposed with noisy shadows but full detail in the sky. I've tried several times to get a good merge with CS3, trying both RAW files and converted tifs, but without success.
[attachment=10246:comparison.jpg]
Photomatrix and the saturation slider are certainly a killer combination in the wrong hands!Agreed. I personally think they should be outlawed at camera clubs. Can there be ONE pic that doesn't involve HDR at a camera club? It's like a bunch of geriatrics discovered a new toy.
Having viewed the images in this thread..especially the last few, I can see that "HDR" photography is about as interesting/relevant to photography as "fantastic art" is to painting/art (think Roger Dean,Boris Vallejo et. al).A tool used in a way you dislike is not a bad tool.
That is to say..it is gimmicky, stylistic, empty in content and doesn't really hold up to much repeat viewing. Eye candy.
A tool used in a way you dislike is not a bad tool.
Would you blame a chisel for an ugly bit of carpentry?
HDR can be used in ways that you would not even realise it had even been done.
Heck, using a grad filter when shooting a landscape is effectively HDR work.
And how is say Monet better than Boris Vellejo?
And how is say Monet better than Boris Vellejo?Right on! Just don't get me started on Thomas Kinkade, OK? What images of our time will be on the walls of MOMA 100 years from now? I shudder to think.
To me, this entire discussion boils down to one thing: contrast. Unpleasing HDR work just doesn't have that "bam!" or wow-factor that so many great photos convey. By its very nature, HDR blending poses a real challenge to the post-processor by defeating this crucial element. I'm not sure that there will ever be a consistently successful automated tonemapping solution that's applicable to a wide range of HDR blending, especially if they use only gloabal adjustment methods. Local contrast manipulation, ie the dodge/burn effect, depends on artistic discretion. However, even if contrast management will always require a human hand, perhaps we as a community can strive to lay out a sort of "proceedure manual for contrast adjustment", much like the rules of composition. At least that way, beginners can get into HDR with the hope of producing something meaningful.
John
Obviously I am generalising...and it's just my opinion.Nope, nothing wrong with the tool, nothing at all. The tool creates nothing, never has done. Users, however create masterpieces and complete rubbish.
Im not talking about some subtle usage of HDR technology, but rather those images,like the ones presented here ,that define that 'HDR look'.
A tool that is used,where the only use of it is a certain outcome, and that outcome is aesthetically unpleasant..YES it's a bad tool.
Your saying Boris Vallejo is better than Monet?!?I have never liked Monet, he does nothing for me at all. Boris, I actually used to like as a teenager, but now I'm not particularly bothered, just as I wouldn't wear clothes from those days either. But he's a talented painter, as is Monet even if the subject matter is not to one's own taste. Jack Vetriano is one of the UK's most popular painters. And is hated by the critics for that very reason, he's not someone I would buy, but hey each to his own.
How is Monet better than Boris Vallejo..for real!?! Is this where we get into that stupid argument you have in your younger twenties..ie..What is art. Art is subjective...etc.
C'mon...
If you don't have shit eyes it's easy to see.Things just 'ARE' if your honest and look at them...what use is an argument.I have a point of view and it's simply not necessarily the same as yours. Hence the argument.
I mean..have a point of view. It's ok.
Right on! Just don't get me started on Thomas Kinkade, OK?What's wrong with Kinkade? I just love the subtle nuances of his ouevre! And it can't be that bad as Peter O'Toole is in a film of one of his paintings! Not sure how that works, but I sure it'll sell well in the red states. Yes it it true! (http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.promo.web.tk.PromoServlet?promoAction=chrcot)
What images of our time will be on the walls of MOMA 100 years from now? I shudder to think.Nothing from now if it's a Modern art Museum!
jjj...that first redhead shot is AWESOME!Thanks, it's all done with HDR you know!
jjj it's an excellent tool for extreme low light or darkness tooI think if HDR had been an option available to many of the "great" photographers just preceding us, *many* would have embraced its subtle use as for instance a sort of Zone System-like extension, and we would have seen a lot more classic shots as in the genre of the previous post. Many of our forefathers certainly tried to get that look.
I think if HDR had been an option available to many of the "great" photographers just preceding us, *many* would have embraced its subtle use as for instance a sort of Zone System-like extension, and we would have seen a lot more classic shots as in the genre of the previous post. Many of our forefathers certainly tried to get that look.
Nonsense...you think anyone great would do what a whole lot of others are doing?Yes, it has always been thus. It's not what you do, it's how well you do it. Or at least how well you market yourself. Just about anyone I would care to call "great" has practiced alongside scores of lesser contemporaries. Adams, Steichen, Weston, Monet, Degas, Michelangelo, etc were not the only guys on the block during their times.
You are obviously a great artist! Of course looking around my studio, it is obvious I am an even greater one!
Well, what you did wrong was probably use the PS HDR stuff. Haven't seen the CS4 version, but CS3 HDR still had a ways to go. Photomatix in "Details Enhancer" mode with "Strength" set to zero, "Micro-contrast" set to 10, "Micro-smoothing" set to 0, plus various other tasteful settings might just bring a lot of those highlights back. So would Tufuse or Enfuse, although with less effective compression.
When you really need good looking highlights, you can also just slip in your "best highlight" image on a layer over your main image, create a contrast mask off you main image, then apply the contrast mask to the highlight layer, with a bit of Curves tuning on both highlight mask and image. Experiment also with transparency on your highlight layer.
Edit...sorry I meant "Luminosity mask" Alt+Ctrl+~. Also, you might get less highlight scruch if you keep the Photomatix histogram from reaching the darkest and brighest limits, then expand it a bit in Photostop with a Curves layer. 16 bit output leaves you plenty of headroom here.
I can get a good result using other methods, but I'm curious as to why neither CS4's 'Merge to HDR' nor Photomatix's 'Generate HDR Image' are able to do this job. The only explanation I can think of is that a good result is dependent upon a greater number of exposures than 3. I think maybe 3 overexposed, plus 3 underexposed, plus one correct exposure would be better.HDR programs get a bit muddled by too many very dark or very bright exposures. Sparse sets of brackets seem to work better in most cases. One pragmatic approach is to set the sliders to something like a typical range, then experiment with various selections from the bracket set to see what works best. In your posted image, in the dark areas I think I see the result of the software trying too hard to bring up severely underexposed bracket set members in the dark areas near the floor.
HDR programs get a bit muddled by too many very dark or very bright exposures. Sparse sets of brackets seem to work better in most cases. One pragmatic approach is to set the sliders to something like a typical range, then experiment with various selections from the bracket set to see what works best. In your posted image, in the dark areas I think I see the result of the software trying too hard to bring up severely underexposed bracket set members in the dark areas near the floor.
jjj it's an excellent tool for extreme low light or darkness tooAn obvious place to use it I'd have thought, though the shot mentioned above had no dynamic range to reduce if that's what you were refering.
However, on that occasion my 5D was on a tripod and I took 3 lots of bracketed exposures of the room.
LensFactory need not bother looking, as obviously all HDR is evil.
Evil is a word I would never use, but now that you mention it, it IS sort of like the BANALITY of evil.I linked to a specific image, who cares if the site design is less than stellar [ ], it was a link to a solar eclipse image, done using some sort of HDR?
Truly craptacular site there btw...let me go put on a later period YES album while I view. Ahhh...that's better. They could do with some dragons though...Scrap that, Rush's "Hemispheres" it is. A fitting soundtrack while I put some forks in front of my eyes and slam my face on a table.
I linked to a specific image, who cares if the site design is less than stellar [ ], it was a link to a solar eclipse image, done using some sort of HDR?
You seem obsessed with irrelevant 70s music, maybe it's because your mind is stuck so far in the past.
Still waiting for you to condemn all photographs ever taken, just because some weren't to your taste.
It is NOT 'just a tool'..it has a distinct look with distinct aesthetic qualities.Still not quite sunk in to your conciousness yet, that HDR has many different looks, some are obviously HDR, some aren't. You obviously don't like the obvious overcooked variety [not that keen myself] but like any tool it can be used in many ways, some good, some bad.
Isn't that my mind is stuck in the past...it's that most HDR imagery is aesthetically equivalent to bad 70's prog rock.But would you champion against guitars because you dislike bad 70s's prog rock? I don't like Rush either, but I don't blame their instruments for their music.
I find all the HDR photos shallow...flat...the eye goes nowhere. At least this is what i've mostly seen anyway I am generalizing sure....You sure are.
...as a good eye can be sensitive and achieve some good results...it's just that ,as a tool, the HDR process seems to not enhance this, but rather kills the compositional dynamics of tone values.You can have tonally flat images without using HDR and some people do so deliberately as they like that look or it complements the subject they are photographing.
@lensfactory: I'd be curious to know if you include the images I posted at the end of page 6 in your description. I go a long way to make them not look like "flickr" HDR.
But would you champion against guitars because you dislike bad 70s's prog rock? I don't like Rush either, but I don't blame their instruments for their music.
.
I said BAD 70's prog-rock...and yes, I DO blame the instruments.But the concept of good and bad HDR is however not possible? Why is that?
WHen they moved from the Mellotron ,Minimoog and the recording techniques of the first half of the seventies, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and used ever more sophisticated technologies that lacked that distinct warmth and tone qualities that are pleasing to my ears.Do you think tools are entities that take over the minds of their users or something?!?
Hemispheres is actually a well produced/recorded album...I should have said "Power Windows". Or most prog rock after 1974-75.
So yes the tool has a great bearing in my view.
As I'm sure there were many people who liked prog rock [what a crap name for a genre] both before and after 74-75. Just as there are many people who like HDR even the cartoony stuff.Amen.
Megabucks of story-bombs later, the pendulum is slowly swinging back (no doubt toward the next Technique craze). What works in 3D is what works in 2D: good stories, told visually and well.Absolutely. It's always the story that is important. Everything else should be subservient to telling hte story. In animation sometimes 2D will be better than 3D animation, sometimes the opposite. Same applies to films of any genre. Except maybe porn!
Notwithstanding my lifelong tech lust, the older I get the more I'm convinced that all tech is passing through on the wind. We take what tool excites us, use it awhile, then let it go and grab the next as it drifts by. Tools don't talk. High end digital backs or sheets of foil in silver fumes, it's the brain, heart and hands that tell the story.Looks are like anything else fashionable. They come and go. New tools give new looks, new fashions arise and not long after, become old fashioned and a new look will emerge or an old one exhumed.
(so far no HDR tool has effective anti-ghosting capabilities for example).
What do you mean by "anti-ghosting"?
Does HDR sound like a magic bullet for photography? It may well be... ...HDR will open upen up new subjects and a level of control that far exceeds even the techniques of Ansel Adams -- and in color."
Hey All,
My first post.
I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.
I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?
I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.
Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.
I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".
-Ed-
So this post should be entitled "Do you hate overdone tone mapping too?".
Of course, I also dislike overdone tone mapping but my definition of "overdone" might be different from that of others.
Hey All,
So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...
Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.
-Ed-
I'm a firm believer in everything in moderation. (Especially moderation.)
Hehhh.
From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
This is a very high dynamic range scene (about 12 f-stops from the ceiling to the chair shadows), it looks natural, and it was achieved just with 3 shoots of the camera and a couple of curves in Photoshop. No need for any piece of software containing the word 'HDR':Nice shot.
Nice shot.It was the same as you mention, but automated with Zero Noise. Then the resulting underexposed image had the shadows lifted and contrast enhanced using 2 curves in Photoshop.
Is that the 'old fashioned' way of masking off areas of the three images corrected to look the same?
It was the same as you mention, but automated with Zero Noise. Then the resulting underexposed image had the shadows lifted and contrast enhanced using 2 curves in Photoshop.
This was the blending scheme:
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5345/fus.jpg)
And here (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/capas.tif) is the resulting image with the 2 curves.
BR
I find your approach fscinating, but I was never able to figure out how to use your program. Heck, I can't even get your web link in your signature to work. Has Zero Noise gotten any easier to use?
Kirk,
I just barely got an image to work from Zero noise today and it was a big pain!
I almost gave up, but then finally after rereading the instructions a couple of times I was able to piece together the final workflow. I will try it on another image to see if I can come up with similar results and if I do, I will try to make out a little easier workflow tutorial than what has been seen so far.
Cheers,
*steve
Thanks I would appreciate that.
I tried my best to duplicate the fantastic results that have been shown by zero noise's author and I was able to see the benefits of the technique, but my photoshop skills just are not up to creating the final image as well as has been shown.In fact Zero Noise does not any post processing at all, it's just an optimum (in terms of noise and sharpness) RAW merger. But all the tone mapping PP work has to be done by the user or other application.
I was hoping for a little less photoshop work, but alas that does not seem to be the case here with zero noise.
Most people are a bit hamfisted with the controls
OK slightly pejorative title, but I've recently been looking around at a few other forums, especially ones for people new or newish to photography (was going to name them but am chickening out). I have to say most of the HDR shots posted on this site, whilst not always my thing, are for the most part technically competent and at the more subtle end of the genre - but really there are some seriously ugly images being produced out there!
Photomatrix and the saturation slider are certainly a killer combination in the wrong hands!
Neil.
Mostly hate it.
Some of the black and white stuff here is nice, though.
I also like some zone system black and white photography, which is just hdr by another name, and someone pointed me in the direction of Gregory Crewdson, who does a lot of good hdr.
And I recognize that the technique is a lot simpler than switching lights on and off and taking multiple exposures with a press shutter, as architectural photographers would have to do, so it's certainly useful. I just don't think 20 stops compress elegantly into the four-stop range you get with a printed image.
I just don't think 20 stops compress elegantly into the four-stop range you get with a printed image.
I wouldn't say I hate it. I've dabbled in HDR briefly but found it just didn't interest me. I don't even find the overly saturated colours offensive or annoying and I don't even mind that the images don't look "real". I just really dislike the metallic sheen that you get on HDR images. Taking an example by Mr. Stuck In Customs - http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2011/01/25/shakespeares-globe-theater/ - there is that very distinct metallic or grey or silver undertone throughout the image and it's not just his, it's pretty much most HDR images I've seen.
Photographic images where one want to show clouds in a bright sky and details in a dark narrow street are at best difficult to record, post-process and print though said clouds and dark details are easily perceived with our own eyes.
The range of a painter's palette is limited, too, but painters often manage to compress 20 stops in a pleasing and convincing manner. Exagerated HDR notwithstanding, photographers should learn from them!
For evident reasons black and white films and printing papers we designed to suit the four-stop range needed for a good reproduction of the human face. Period.
Color films were designed to match B&W then digital cameras to match color films and inkjets printers to match color printing papers. This makes sense.
Photographic images where one want to show clouds in a bright sky and details in a dark narrow street are at best difficult to record, post-process and print though said clouds and dark details are easily perceived with our own eyes.
The range of a painter's palette is limited, too, but painters often manage to compress 20 stops in a pleasing and convincing manner. Exagerated HDR notwithstanding, photographers should learn from them!
The range of a painter's palette is limited, too, but painters often manage to compress 20 stops in a pleasing and convincing manner. Exagerated HDR notwithstanding, photographers should learn from them!
1. HDR is not to blaim, it's the (IMO over-the-top) processing, tonemapping, that causes it.
2. Some prefer postprocessing that's over the top. These images are often lacking in other aspects (e.g. composition) as well, and the effect is an attempt to make something usable out of nothing.
3. Well executed (HDR) tonemapping is almost invisible to the viewer (like with the old master painters), it just looks natural.
many of the scenes we see on flickr or elsewhere do not contain 15 stops of dynamic range. If they don't, there is no technical reason to do an hdr shot of a car, tractor, building etc, etc if the shot is taken in broad daylight with good lighting. Now if you are doing HDR for artistic reasons then you might have a valid reason for the HDR treatment. If it's simply to "expand the dynamic range of the photo", it's pointless as you camera can already capture the entire dynamic range present in the scene. It's inefficient, a waste of processing time and storage space. (granted the processing time can be minimal, and storage has never been cheaper).
I agree with that. I invented my own definition of 'HDR image', would like to know from you all if you agree/disagree:
An image can be considered an 'HDR image' if, and only if, it accomplishes 3 conditions:
1. The scene it represents was in fact a high dynamic range scene (see about high* later)
2. We used the necessary means to capture all the scene's information, from the highlights to the deep shadows (these means can be: bracketing at different exposures, use of ND filters, having a camera with a fantastic sensor capable of recording all the DR in a single shot,...)
3. We have processed the captured information (tone mapping process) so that all of it from the highlights to the deep shadows is visible in the ouput device (print, monitor, projector,...)
* The flaw, or I'd rather say subjective point of this definition is what is a 'high dynamic range scene'?.
Getting caught up in measurbatory, technical definitions of HDR is pointless. 10 stops. 11 stops. 6.8456043756034785603485092304534702308234098 stops.
I agree conceptually, but not technically. I still say that if the luminance of the scene does not exceed your cameras dynamic range, then there is no technical reason to do HDR....
how did you make your graphs?? They are great!
Don't disagree; but purely technical reasons are the only reasons to do things.
* The flaw, or I'd rather say subjective point of this definition is what is a 'high dynamic range scene'?. My choice is to relate the decision to how difficult is to compress the scene's DR into the output devices' DR (paper: ~4 stops, monitor: ~6-7 stops) in a realistic manner that looks pleasant to the observer. Based on my experience, a escene with >8 stops of DR begins to require some processing but can still be tonemaped successfully without too much effort. >10-12 stops definitively needs a more skilled processing, and I consider it a good figure to speak about HDR imaging ...
It's also important to note, that while HDR images expand the dynamic range of the scene, don't really "expand" the dynamic range of the final image that we see. Most HRD software up-rezs the composite images to a 32 bit composite. If my calculations are correct that's 4,294,967,296 colors. This is a true expansion of the original Dynamic range. However, since our monitors and printers are generally 24 bit sRGB displays or 16 million colors, they can't display the 32 bit images, do the software DOWN-rezs them to 24 bit 16 million color images. This down rez effects both luminosity and color depth and compresses both. Both the uprez and downrez are "tone mapping".
It's not 32 bits per pixel in the ordinary sense, which would be 10 or 10 2/3 bits per channel. It's 8 bits per channel with an 8 bit scaling factor. Thus it is like a floating point number, and has much greater range than 4 billion colours.
Most HRD software up-rezs the composite images to a 32 bit composite. If my calculations are correct that's 4,294,967,296 colors.
HDR is 32 bits per channel not 32 bits per pixel (i.e., 10 and change bits per channel). And yes, it is uprezzed from the 8, 12, 14 or 16 bit original input images.The _number_ of colors that can be created using a 32-bit integer is equal to the number of colors that can be created with a 32-bit floating point number. But the distribution of those and the error is very different, floating point numbers can represent very small and very large numbers.
Andrew is right about why the need for floating point. There are just far too many possible colours to be created to keep them all in an integer space. It's got nothing to do with the dynamic range.
Well, I'm not a mathematician but I don't see how an integer based system can have as many colours as a floating point system. If even going to one decimal point, I can get 9 more levels between each integer in each channel. To me, that's more colours.Simple example, 2 bits:
Enfuse is a nice program, particularly with Tim Armes' LR front end. It's not true HDR; however. The images don't enter the 32 bit space but are retained in the native bit depth.
Enfuse is an image blending program rather than an HDR program. Because you're not going through the strong local tonemapping routines of an HDR tonemapper that's why it tends to give more natural results. It's the local contrast operators that really take you into the land of the surreal. Natural results can be obtained with actual HDR programs as well; some more effectively than others, it just takes a little more work and practice.
WRT multi-processing a single file and feeding those into Enfuse, you're not gaining anything Andrew. You're not gaining additional DRange by multi-processing the single RAW file
While I like the results that can be achieved with Enfuse, my biggest issue with it is speed. I find it brutally slow so it's not viable for a volume workflow. But it does produce really nice results.
... So HDR is not about floating point formats...
if you have a camera that can capture in a single shot 15 stops of DR, create copies of this capture at different exposures, and blend them some way to obtain an output image that can display the entire DR of the original scene into some monitor or print, then you are doing HDR.
In an integer system, I can combine R=8, G=57, B=240. That gives me a combined colour. It's sort of a neon blue. But if I can combine R=8.1, G=57, B=240, that's a different combined colour. It's very close to the previous one, but it is different.I have tried to give you examples, but I have obviously been unable to present it in such a way that we can agree. Perhaps wikipedia is better at explaining than me.
In the photographic sense bracketing is required because no capture device can represent such a broad brightness scale.When you say 'such a broad', what broadness are you talking about?
It's what happens in between that's the issue and where I think I'm not completely following your line of thinking.mmm so HDR is about what happpens in between, no matter where the information came from or goes to. Just look at these two scenarios:
H, don't disagree with the concept that the images started out in an integer space and will end up in an integer space. It's what happens in between that's the issue and where I think I'm not completely following your line of thinking.32 bits is 32 bits. If a 32-bit floating point number could represent more than 32 bits worth of information, it would be an information-theoretical break-through.
What do I mean by such a broad scale? Beyond what cameras can capture.
In both your scenario A and Scenario B there's no need for either HDR or XDR. You're not gaining anything by using either HDR software, automated blending software or manual blending with layers. It's a moot point.
Andrew, what are the advantages? Depends. Maybe there are none. Horses for courses, as they say. And if I misread your comments then I apologise.
It's not true HDR; however. The images don't enter the 32 bit space but are retained in the native bit depth.Why is HDR only true when one uses 32 bits? Is that why Enfuse isn’t HDR and what is the benefit of 32 bit, “true” HDR over what Enfuse provides? Depends on what?
Yes, what cameras can capture varys from model to model and year to year as technology improves. Where did I ever say that wasn't the case? That's why there's no hard and fast number. That's why it's not possible to say 11.4756947865740304575694 stops is the cutoff. It absolutely depends on the camera being used. If I'm using a K5 to shoot a scene that has 9 stops of brightness and someone else using, say, a Canon 10D, then I don't need to use anything other than a single shot and I don't need to do anything but edit (tonemap) a single shot but the Canon user will have to use some other methodology of capture if s/he wants to record the entire 8 stop range. One person has no need for HDR/XDR, the other person does. And let's be clear about something else as well. Even if I take a single shot, process it multiple times and use those multiple layers to help with my editing (tonemapping), it's still not either HDR or XDR because nothing beyond what the camera captured is being created. HDR/XDR are about capture and are methodologies to compensate for a capture medium that may be, in some situations, limited relative to what's being photographed. Simple. Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your algebra for a moment it would become a bit clearer. ;DSo what you are sayiing is that a bracketed sequence from a Canon 10D resulting in a 10-stops DR is HDR, while a single-shot image from a Pentax K5 having the same 10 stops of DR is not HDR?
...
So what you are sayiing is that a bracketed sequence from a Canon 10D resulting in a 10-stops DR is HDR, while a single-shot image from a Pentax K5 having the same 10 stops of DR is not HDR?
32 bits is 32 bits. If a 32-bit floating point number could represent more than 32 bits worth of information, it would be an information-theoretical break-through.In many ways, you are correct here. But the allocation of bits is different between the two coding strategies in such a way as to even out the actual numerical resolution independent of scale. You have a finer resolution on the "smaller" numbers using floating point.
In many ways, you are correct here. But the allocation of bits is different between the two coding strategies in such a way as to even out the actual numerical resolution independent of scale. You have a finer resolution on the "smaller" numbers using floating point.Sure. But a gamma-encoded integer (such as most LDR image formats) will give you something similar. Its all a matter of how the bits are to be interpreted.
So what you are sayiing is that a bracketed sequence from a Canon 10D resulting in a 10-stops DR is HDR, while a single-shot image from a Pentax K5 having the same 10 stops of DR is not HDR?
-h
That's exactly what I'm saying. If it falls within the capture range of the sensor and no other means are needed to capture the entire brightness range of the scene then it becomes 'normal' dynamic range. It's within the 'normal' range of what the sensor can capture.
So what you are sayiing is that a bracketed sequence from a Canon 10D resulting in a 10-stops DR is HDR, while a single-shot image from a Pentax K5 having the same 10 stops of DR is not HDR?
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Seems oversimplistic to me Andrew; the same as the need for floating point formats. To begin with, HDR is not a term born in the realm of photography, but of computer rendered graphics, where it makes no sense to talk about any bracketing.
The point is that the difficult part of HDR is not capturing DR (this is easily done), but mapping it onto a LDR output device.While true as well, we have to capture the data first. And we have to come up with some term to describe the capture. I feel that once someone decides they need to bracket and then map, they are implementing HDR. If they have a very wide range in a single capture, they have to probably tone map (something we have to do for most image captures no matter the range).
How else would a photographer produce HDR? The camera system in a single capture can’t. Otherwise the capture, no matter the range is non HDR (LDR?).
Suppose some day we have a capture system that in a single capture, can provide the range we can see or more. We no longer need to bracket. We can retire the term HDR. If necessarily, we can say “this capture device has X range, that capture device has Y range”.
This is a contradiction Andrew. You admitted that 'a bracketed sequence from a Canon 10D resulting in a 10-stops DR is HDR, while a single-shot image from a Pentax K5 having the same 10 stops of DR is not HDR'.
A photographer can produce HDR with a single shot, he just needs a HDR camera like the Pentax K5....
HDR stands for 'High Dynamic Range', and that's it.Yes it does. I submit however that one man’s HDR is another man’s LDR. So how do we define when to use the term? That’s the issue as I see it. A simple way is to define HDR when one has to bracket because his camera doesn’t produce the necessary range in a single capture. My definition is based on the fact that to produce the high dynamic range not possible with a single capture, a different method of capturing (bracketing) is necessary. This is simply my mindset in why I’d use the term HDR. I am open to changing my mind here. But the issue is, all the cameras are different. Who’s to say the K5 is HDR but the 5DMII isn’t? Someone has to set a value (10+ stops) is HDR? Where does this stop and start? There lies the problem. Who and how does one define a range as being HDR? Very complicated, open to too much debate.
This is exactly what I meant, we won't retire the term HDR because the DR will be as high as it is today (we just didn't need bracketing to capture it), and we will still need to use tonemapping techniques exactly the same as we do today.
By defining HDR as a process, one that requires bracketing, we don’t have to put arbitrarily set range values on anything.
If we agree that HDR can be produced with or without floating point math, then we can agree what applications handle HDR.
Basically what you are saying here is that you are defining HDR as a process where bracketing is needed, just because you cannot find a better definition for it.More for simplicity and because what group is going to define HDR otherwise? Like I said, X stops of range is HDR but Y isn’t? By using HDR as a term that defines a process, we are not stuck with fixed values as the technology improves.
In the end, Andrew it's unlikely we'll ever get that level of agreement.
Like I said, X stops of range is HDR but Y isn’t? By using HDR as a term that defines a process, we are not stuck with fixed values as the technology improves.
I’d have to ask the following:
If you shoot an image with a 5DMII, one capture, is it HDR?
If you shoot an image with the K5, one capture, is it HDR?
If one is, and one isn’t, what makes them different? For that matter, enter any camera model and again, is a single capture HDR and if so (or if not) why?In my opinion no because I consider HDR to be capturing something beyond what the sensor can capture in a single shot.
If you take one capture on any camera system and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? If so why, if not why? Or is it just tone mapping?It's just tonemapping.
If you take one raw image and render it two ways in your raw converter, but blend the two in Photoshop, is this HDR? I seem to hear many say its not (its Tone mapping. I agree).It's just tonemapping. The reason, by the definition I use, is that you're not gaining any additional dynamic range by the multiple processing. All that's being done is pushing around the range of brightness that was captured.
Again, just tonemapping for the same reason as above.
If you take one TIFF image and render it two ways in Photoshop and blend the two, is this HDR? Or is it just tone mapping (I’d say it is).
If you take one image, TIFF or raw, render it two ways and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?Again, just tonemapping for the same reason as above.
If you take multiple images that are bracketed and bring them into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?Yes. The resulting 32 bit image is an HDR image. After tonemapping and dropping the bit depth it's once again an LDR image.
Based on the type of capture device, it always is, it sometimes is, it never is?Capture device doesn't matter. If you're capturing more drange in the bracket than can be captured in a single shot, blending those images in HDR software it's HDR.
For that matter, if you just took pieces of each and manually assembled them in Photoshop (NOT Merge to HDR), is this HDR?No. This is XDR (see, I do like that term) :)
Messy isn’t it?Not so much. ;D
It absolutely depends on the camera being used...
HDR/XDR are about capture ...
Basically what you are saying here is that you are defining HDR as a process where bracketing is needed, just because you cannot find a better definition for it.
By using HDR as a term that defines a process, we are not stuck with fixed values as the technology improves.
If you shoot an image with a 5DMII, one capture, is it HDR?
If you shoot an image with the K5, one capture, is it HDR?
If one is, and one isn’t, what makes them different? For that matter, enter any camera model and again, is a single capture HDR and if so (or if not) why?
If you take one capture on any camera system and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? If so why, if not why? Or is it just tone mapping?
If you take one raw image and render it two ways in your raw converter, but blend the two in Photoshop, is this HDR? I seem to hear many say its not (its Tone mapping. I agree).
If you take one TIFF image and render it two ways in Photoshop and blend the two, is this HDR? Or is it just tone mapping (I’d say it is).
If you take one image, TIFF or raw, render it two ways and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?
If you take multiple images that are bracketed and bring them into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? Based on the type of capture device, it always is, it sometimes is, it never is? For that matter, if you just took pieces of each and manually assembled them in Photoshop (NOT Merge to HDR), is this HDR?
Messy isn’t it?
Fine, but if that 'process' is bracketing, HDR is destinated to a certain death as the technology improves. The better sensors are, HDR will not exist anymore. Too bad! ;D
None of these questions refer to the dynamic range of the scene, which is the DR that has to be measured, captured and tone mapped to adapt it to the output device.
I don’t see that as a problem.
Actually the questions assume (my fault) that the scene exceeds the range of each capture device. Otherwise, there is no need to bracket or call (question) whether this is HDR or not.
The assumption is the photographers has a clue about the scene gamut and the range of his capture device and then acts accordingly.
Don't you find strange that HDR disappears for digital photography, but remains for other disciplines (computer graphics, painting, the concept itself)? don't you think that is a clear evidence that a definition based on the way you captured DR one day is futile? (it's the first time I use this word in English, hope to be doing it right ;D).
According to that, if you shoot a scene with 6 stops of DR using an old compact camera that has only 4 stops of dynamic range, you are doing HDR. So 6 stops of DR is 'high'.
Its an interesting point. But again, what are the alternatives? What do the other disciplines use to define HDR from what isn’t HDR?
Tha lack of alternatives doesn't support a bad definition.
The other disciplines assume HDR is about compressing an input DR onto an output device wich much less DR capabilities. E.g. a 32-bit syntehical image over a LDR monitor, or a HDR sunset over an oil canvas.
Sorry, Peter. I'm not following what you're saying...
Maybe, Bob, the question is indeed about the attributes of a good definition.
(Scientifically) intuitively, I’m rejection your definition. It seems to me dependent on your individual experience and in particular dependent on the very current state of camera technology. Some lines above I had tried to contribute a more general definition, by describing a HDR-discriminator in post-processing, independent from how the data were collected. In your terminology, you would see it (all) as tone-mapping. But I would not exclude completely that it is just based on my experience…
I’m wondering, if there is any "definition theory"
to tackle the KPIs (key performance indicators) for the quality of a Definition.
Never came across this question.
Peter
--
Well then everything is HDR if you consider we need to compress our images to fit a print (and differently to a display). Another key word here is assume.
I admit I feel most comfortable with Andrew's definition, which seems eminently practical.
Then we can argue about which name best fits each person's personal vision of "HDR."
So I suggest consulting with the experts
32 bits is 32 bits. If a 32-bit floating point number could represent more than 32 bits worth of information, it would be an information-theoretical break-through.But the degree of precision is not the same throughout the range of quantities represented. You have to see here that the "lower" tones of an LDR capture are not of sufficient precision to support the variable blackpoint. You can't amplify 3 bit quantities and expect to see subtle tonal variations. But if you have bits allocated where you need them, as in a floating point representation, you have some resolution that is more or less good enough across the entire range of tones represented, enough to allow for a lot of subsequent processing.
-h
32 bits is 32 bits. If a 32-bit floating point number could represent more than 32 bits worth of information, it would be an information-theoretical break-through.But the degree of precision is not the same throughout the range of quantities represented. You have to see here that the "lower" tones of an LDR capture are not of sufficient precision to support the variable blackpoint. You can't amplify 3 bit quantities and expect to see subtle tonal variations. But if you have bits allocated where you need them, as in a floating point representation, you have some resolution that is more or less good enough across the entire range of tones represented, enough to allow for a lot of subsequent processing.
-h
Maybe, Bob, the question is indeed about the attributes of a good definition.
(Scientifically) intuitively, I’m rejection your definition. It seems to me dependent on your individual experience and in particular dependent on the very current state of camera technology. Some lines above I had tried to contribute a more general definition, by describing a HDR-discriminator in post-processing, independent from how the data were collected. In your terminology, you would see it (all) as tone-mapping. But I would not exclude completely that it is just based on my experience…
I’m wondering, if there is any "definition theory"
to tackle the KPIs (key performance indicators) for the quality of a Definition.
Never came across this question.
Peter
Having spent years studying semantics as a grad student, I would press a point strongly here... But nothing proposed so far in the way of the semantics of HDR has been anything but a non-starter.
If one is looking for a nominal essence here, something that might be used for a definition, I think it will be very hard, perhaps impossible, to find. Is there a single necessary set of conditions for being "HDR" or for saying that one is "doing HDR"? ...
The idea of "tonemapping" may turn out to have more theoretical significance, since as far as I can see, it just refers to the idea of mapping one set of tones onto another set of tones by whatever means. But we use this generally, and not just when "doing HDR." Sometimes we map tones having a greater dynamic range onto a set of tones having a lesser dynamic range. Sometimes not.
[...]
the clear HDR differentiator for me is: that any global tone mapping function i.e. the "tone curve" fails to provide a pleasing rendition showing all relevant details in the highlights and shadows, so that pixel-selection-based tone mapping techniques are needed.
Whether it is Blending of different camera Exposures or different exposure variants from one shot, or skillful equipment of the tone curve with a luminosity mask – it is irrelevant, in my opinion.
This appears to rule out simple "compression" techniques which do involve global tonemapping functions...
Also, the "pleasingness" condition is rather subjective here, bringing in the entirety of aesthetics in such judgments.
The attached image was merged in HDR Pro, adjusted with Exposure & Gamma, then further adjustments were made using only global tools in PS. No selections, no masking, no layering of other parts of other images. This is referred to as 'soft tonemapping'.
In any other case, global tools won't suffice the process for HDR images, and this is what Peter meant. The reason? DR gap between the input (scene) and the ouput (monitor).I think it makes sense to describe black/white clipping (what any LDR camera will do) as a special kind of global tone-mapping operator. So a scene may have its dynamic range, the final output medium may have its dynamic range, and in-between we have the choice of:
The one thing that is clear to me at this point is that several different definitions are needed to keep everybody happy (I admit I feel most comfortable with Andrew's definition, which seems eminently practical).
So I suggest consulting with the experts at Epson's Paper-Naming division to come up with appropriate names for the different varieties of "HDR." We might then have "Archival DR" (or "ADR"), "Enhanced DR (EDR)", "Super Premium DR (SPDR)", etc.
Then we can argue about which name best fits each person's personal vision of "HDR."
???
In the end, Andrew it's unlikely we'll ever get that level of agreement. Some, like me, define HDR (the process) more narrowly. And while I can accept that HDR isn't necessary to produce higher dynamic range scenes, I'm not as willing as others to use the term to describe all methods. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I prefer Caponigro's XDR terminology to describe all processes of producing higher/extended dynamic range which include software like Enfuse/Tufuse, SNS HDR (which isn't technically an HDRI software app), HDR software apps and manual blending.
I absolutely agree that tonemapping isn't an HDR-only term. Again, I've said it before and I'll say it once more, tonemapping is just a fancy word for editing ...
Agreed. If that were even close to possible, we’d also have Canon and Nikon saving DNG, we’d have a true raw histogram on the camera, people would never mix up DPI and PPI, and never confuse dynamic range an bit depth. But some can hope for such clarity some day <g>.
Anyways, I don't see how you can claim that global tonemapping never will suffice for HDR images. I see that local operators often will produce results that you and I and most people may judge as subjectively superior to global operators, but not that this will be the case for all scenes, all of the people and all of the time?
I am sorry, but I find this discussion quite entertaining (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack
.
To be perfectly frank, GL I really don't care whether you believe that's all I did or not or whether you believe the scene could have been properly rendered in a single shot. We don't agree. We won't agree. Likely on anything. And I'm just fine with that.
So if we use the final image as the determination, until technology changes no image would be considered HDR."If the final image contains visible details that spanned significantly more than a 100:1 (or 1000:1?) range in the original scene"?
It's a very nuanced discussion, isn't it Jack? ;D
The issue with using the final image as the determination of whether an image is HDR or not is that the final image isn't HDR either. Take a camera like the K5 or D7000 that can capture around 12 stops of brightness. Most monitors can't reproduce that nor can any printing media. So the final image, the one that appears 'proper' on screen or is printable doesn't have all the DR that the camera was able to capture. It's been edited or tonemapped down into something narrower that can be used. Think of it like a Zone System image where the exposure was increased to generate desired highlight detail. If the scene DR was, say, 8 stops and the shadow detail was lifted 2 stops, you're most likely going to have blown out highlights without adjusted development of the film. But if the film undergoes contracted development, those highlights can be brought back into range. That's one form of tonemapping. The contracted development maps highlight tones from higher to lower zones. Then, in printing, additional techniques would be used to render a pleasing print taking into account the fact that the paper couldn't reproduce all 8 stops of brightness. That's another form of tonemapping. But that final printed image doesn't contain all of the brightness range that was captured initially. So if we use the final image as the determination, until technology changes no image would be considered HDR.
focus-stacking versus HDR "tonemapping"
Jack
Where does "versus" come into the picture with these two techniques?
Where does "versus" come into the picture with these two techniques? It isn't an "either/or" ... or a competition.
That's like saying "a ladder vs a dirt bike".
Both techniques have their place ... If by technique we mean "bracketing for DR/SNR" when we say HDR ... But are tackling completely different uses cases.
BLAH BLAH
Actually, I've learned quite a bit from this thread. And the discussion has remained nicely civil.
It was a typo, dude - get over yourself. You'd argue with a doorknob ... and lose.
... And the discussion has remained nicely civil.
Looks like you jinxed it ;)Yup. Sorry about that.
Simple example, 2 bits:
int: [0 1 2 3] (available codes)
float: [-1 -0.25 0.25 1] (available codes)
What is the _number_ of shades available in each? The answer is 4, 2^2 for both. What kind of data can be stored within them? Basically any data. But floating point is a lot easier to work with for many kinds of data and operations. The distribution of available numbers and the quantization error makes a lot of sense for many tasks.
Ah, I see now what you and Hjulenissen are getting at, Eric. Thanks.I must admit that his post was a little terse for clear understanding.
I must admit that his post was a little terse for clear understanding."terse" is not in my vocabulary.
Eric
Granted that a 32 bit floating point color number has as many colours as a 32 bit integer colour number. It however has 256 times as many colours as a 24 bit colour integer (8 x 3 channels), plus more range. Our images use 24 bits (in 32 bit containers).But we're discussing image data having 3 x 32 bit floats, or 32 bits per channel, 96 bits per pixel. It represents both astronomical dynamic range and accommodates fractional results with sufficient precision.
Granted that a 32 bit floating point color number has as many colours as a 32 bit integer colour number. It however has 256 times as many colours as a 24 bit colour integer (8 x 3 channels), plus more range. Our images use 24 bits (in 32 bit containers).I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.
I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.+1.
-h
I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.
But we're discussing image data having 3 x 32 bit floats, or 32 bits per channel, 96 bits per pixel. It represents both astronomical dynamic range and accommodates fractional results with sufficient precision.
I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.
-h
The HDR format Photoshop uses is HDR Radiance, and that is 32 bits per pixel, 8 x 3 channels plus an 8 bit exponent.
OK slightly pejorative title, but I've recently been looking around at a few other forums, especially ones for people new or newish to photography (was going to name them but am chickening out). I have to say most of the HDR shots posted on this site, whilst not always my thing, are for the most part technically competent and at the more subtle end of the genre - but really there are some seriously ugly images being produced out there!
Photomatrix and the saturation slider are certainly a killer combination in the wrong hands!
Neil.
Not against HDR itself, more it's rampant abuse by amateurs, and the way it's lapped up by people who haven't had time to realise how terrible most of it looks.
Is the rampant abuse by professionals OK? ;)
Is the rampant abuse by professionals OK? ;)
It was a typo, dude - get over yourself. You'd argue with a doorknob ... and lose.;D
I see HDR as having two completely separate applications (probably many more).
1. To compensate for the limitations of current digital camera sensors by allowing the full tonal range, as interpreted by the human eye, to be more closely reproduced in an image. Done well, it should not be possible to tell that HDR has been used.
2. As an artistic tool capable of producing a wide range of "treatments" extending from the subtle to the outlandish. Used this way, HDR will be more or less obvious and whether any individual hates or loves a particular image will depend upon personal appreciation (or otherwise) of the artist's rendition.
"Are they garish?"Actually, I agree and do find most of the HDR images I have seen as being OTT. But I have to tell you, all the colours you see in the Toronto city hall are pretty much there, as well as the red aura in the sky from the lights of the downtown city core. So the scenes colours are OTT all by themselves! Here is another version where I attempted to remove the green-yellow cast created by the lights under the arches. I will try to reduce the red in the sky to what I saw.
for me yes totally OTT.
but then you can't please everyone and i expect some people will find them totally acceptable.
limited dynamic range of the output devices (print, monitor, projector) compared to real world scenes and human vision.I dont think there are any theoretical limits to how large the DR of monitors and projectors might become? With LED or another efficient source of light, the peak brightness can be very high without needing a nuclear powerplant in the room next-door. Blacks may be limited by display/screen reflectivity, wall/floor/roof reflectivity and presence of bright sources or light (such as bright image pixels).
... no amount of "Fill Light" in LR would bring back any detail in the shadows of the original image...
Not if it has been beyond the dynamic range of the sensor. The Fill and Recovery functions in Lightroom (or ACR) can only reveal what was captured by the sensor in the first place. .....New generations of digital sensors will undoubtedly have greater DR capabilities.And new generations of LR can make older RAW files look sharper [Process Version 2010] and increase Dynamic range too [Process Version 2012] when compared to images processed in older software. That's the beauty of RAW.
OK, that's fine, I certainly don't expect everyone to dig these images. I was mainly responding to the suggesting that they look like 'renderings' which I took to mean fake.
I'm curious though about what you mean by low-contrast. With the exception of the last one, to my eye these all have a wide range of contrast. Some even have blowouts and pure blacks. So it makes me wonder what you mean by lack of contrast.
I’d have to ask the following:
If you shoot an image with a 5DMII, one capture, is it HDR?
If you shoot an image with the K5, one capture, is it HDR?
If one is, and one isn’t, what makes them different? For that matter, enter any camera model and again, is a single capture HDR and if so (or if not) why?
If you take one capture on any camera system and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? If so why, if not why? Or is it just tone mapping?
If you take one raw image and render it two ways in your raw converter, but blend the two in Photoshop, is this HDR? I seem to hear many say its not (its Tone mapping. I agree).
If you take one TIFF image and render it two ways in Photoshop and blend the two, is this HDR? Or is it just tone mapping (I’d say it is).
If you take one image, TIFF or raw, render it two ways and bring it into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR?
If you take multiple images that are bracketed and bring them into what is called HDR software, is this resulting image HDR? Based on the type of capture device, it always is, it sometimes is, it never is? For that matter, if you just took pieces of each and manually assembled them in Photoshop (NOT Merge to HDR), is this HDR?
Messy isn’t it?