Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on March 29, 2013, 11:56:03 am
-
Hi,
I seldom use HDR, as I normally don't feel the need to use HDR due to the great DR on modern sensor technology. But when I use DR I pretty much settled on using Photoshop "Merge to HDR" from inside Lightroom. I just save the HDR image and do the processing in Lightroom with the new 2012 pipeline which does a lot of tone mapping behind the scenes.
The samples here show a high contrast image processed from a single image versus HDR from five images, with Merge to HDR in Photoshop but all tome mapping done in Lightroom. Notice that the HDR image has much less shadow noise.
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik,
I believe you commented on an HDR image I posted awhile back and your comments were extremely insightful and helpful. I have read elsewhere that one of the advantages of HDR processing is the lower noise in shadows even though the DR of current sensors is so great. As this is still new to me somewhat, I have trouble avoiding the seduction of HDR's processing power, which you have successfully tamed with this image. I have HDR Effex 2 and find that it is often over the top, probably because I am not yet a sophisticated user. I have also heard that with HDR Pro in CS6 that you can work in 32 bit precision, but I can't see how that's possible if you save as a tiff and go back to LR where, I presume, your dealing with a 16 bit image. I like this topic that you've posted and would love to hear more of what you think about this. If there is another thread somewhere, I apologize and ask that you direct me there.
-
... I have also heard that with HDR Pro in CS6 that you can work in 32 bit precision, but I can't see how that's possible if you save as a tiff and go back to LR where, I presume, your dealing with a 16 bit image...
That's the beauty, in LR you can continue to work on the 32-bit TIFF.
-
That's the beauty, in LR you can continue to work on the 32-bit TIFF.
This is exciting! Can you point me to some references? Or would you just proceed knowing that the precision should be greatly improved (ie, completely transparently)? Hope this is a clear question.
-
Lightroom 4 can now read and render (process, develop) 32-bit TIFFs and DNGs. So if you have merged multiple input files into a 32-bit TIFF or DNG using Photoshop or other software, you can now tone map them using Lightroom 4.
-
... Can you point me to some references?...
If I am not mistaken, you are reading Schewe's book The Digital Negative? In which case, check page 244, Merge To HDR Pro for more details.
-
For those without Photoshop (few here, I am sure), Photomatix has 'Merge to 32 bit', which does a similar function.
John
-
If I am not mistaken, you are reading Schewe's book The Digital Negative? In which case, check page 244, Merge To HDR Pro for more details.
Haven't got to that page yet, but thanks!
-
Hi,
Any tool that works is nice!
Best regards
Erik
For those without Photoshop (few here, I am sure), Photomatix has 'Merge to 32 bit', which does a similar function.
John
-
Dave,
With LR4, Lightroom can handle 32 bit HDR images. Simultaneously the LR processing pipeline seems to have gained some ability for tone scale mapping and tone scale compression. You just merge a few images to HDR and save them as they are. They will be very bright and ugly. After saving they will show up in LR, but they will be dark and ugly. You can start from there.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I believe you commented on an HDR image I posted awhile back and your comments were extremely insightful and helpful. I have read elsewhere that one of the advantages of HDR processing is the lower noise in shadows even though the DR of current sensors is so great. As this is still new to me somewhat, I have trouble avoiding the seduction of HDR's processing power, which you have successfully tamed with this image. I have HDR Effex 2 and find that it is often over the top, probably because I am not yet a sophisticated user. I have also heard that with HDR Pro in CS6 that you can work in 32 bit precision, but I can't see how that's possible if you save as a tiff and go back to LR where, I presume, your dealing with a 16 bit image. I like this topic that you've posted and would love to hear more of what you think about this. If there is another thread somewhere, I apologize and ask that you direct me there.
-
Hi,
No hijacking! An open discussion is always good.
What I feel is that LR4 has some very good tools for "taming" high dynamic range images. LR 4 is also well integrated with PS so merging exposures in PS works quite well. I don't like tone mapping in Merge to HDR Pro, but can do it in LR4 instead, using tools I have a lot of experience with.
Best regards
Erik
Ok. Tried what you fellows said. Merged to HDR Pro in CS6, opened in PS and saved as a tiff according to Jeff Schewe. Then worked this 32 bit tiff entirely in LR4.3 before opening in CS6 again to add only an iris blur. I was trying to recreate an HDR Effex Pro 2. The only difference I see is a smoothness in this image, whereas the HEP2 image has more texture (or structure?) Does this make sense? I am sorry if I am hijacking this thread, but it seemed relevant.
Called this, "End of the Road."
-
What I feel is that LR4 has some very good tools for "taming" high dynamic range images. LR 4 is also well integrated with PS so merging exposures in PS works quite well. I don't like tone mapping in Merge to HDR Pro, but can do it in LR4 instead, using tools I have a lot of experience with.
Just to be clear here...the Process Version 2012 that was new in LR 4.1 and ACR 7.1 (the original 4.0 and 7.0 didn't support 32-bit TIFFs) was originally designed for HDR tone mapping. There's a story (if you want Geeky stiff) called Magic or Local Laplacian Filters? (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplacian-filters.html) that explains a bit about the processing. In fact, the challenge with PV 2012 was to make the algorithms work well with normal dynamic range images...
PV 2012 has reduced the need for full HDR image capture. A lot of range can be captured and tone mapped with a lot less than the older HDR approach of capturing 5, 7 or 9 exposures. With PV 2012, you can often do a real good job of HDR with as little as 2 or 3 exposures.
And yes, the example I showed in the boo highlights the ability to really improve the noise characterization by adding 1 or 2 additional exposures.
The real key is to plan out the exposures to make sure you maintain workable highlight detail while keeping decent detail in the shadows with reduced noise.
-
Just to be clear here...
Jeff, I can understand why the newer PV2012 can alleviate some of the need for longer series of exposures. But I am thinking why the need for "HDR" in the first place? For me, FWIW, it is to capture more of what we see with our own eyes and the human eye sees with what, maybe 20-24 EV of sensitivity, capacity, I don't know. Dynamic range? It could be more or less, but let's just take 24 EV of DR for the human eye. If the DR of my camera is 14 EV, would this imply that we could use a 3 shot series at -5,0,+5 EV to capture the full visual DR? I have read that more shots (shorter EV intervals) can reduce noise, but do you agree with this? Sorry for all the questions. Not really ;)
BTW, I finished The Digital Negative. Terrific! But I'll write you separately.
-
Lightroom 4.1+ has really added new life to HDR in my opinion. I used for a while several of the standalone HDR applications, but more often than not the result was not to my liking. LR 4.1+ changed all that. There are to my knowledge only two ways to create a 32bit TIFF and this is Photoshop CS4-6 and the Photomatix 32bit plugin for Lightroom (I was missing this mentioned in the article). In a number of cases both PS CS6 and the Photomatix plugin gives good although different results, but I see that PS CS6 has issues more often than the Photomatix plugin with blending clouds and highlights. Although I have PS CS6 I almost always use the Photomatix plugin. Notice btw. there is a bug fix for this that works with LR 4.4RC.
The article also kind of dismisses the use of any other camera than the D800(E) for more difficult lighting situations. I agree that the D800 has an advantage, but the Canons I use can do maybe 98% of all situations in landscape photography that I shoot with just a single RAW file. I have both Canons (5D mkIII and 1Ds mkIII) and a Nikon D800E. More often than not the residual situations cannot be dealt with by the D800E either but need HDR blending. Not to say the D800E isn't a fantastic camera, of course. But the resolution and DR advantages are not that ground breaking as it may look like.
-
I do a lot of architectural and real estate photography, along with my nature/landscape work. I've tried many HDR apps/workflows. The one I reach for first is LR/Enfuse (http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php). It IMHO does the best photo-realistic (read 'true to the eye') results of all of them. And it's simple to use! I don't have to sit and ponder how the heck to dial out that ewwy gooey smokey brassy mess that the typical HDR apps output. (I understand it's all "art" and some people like that look, but I don't).
To speed up my post capture workflow I create stacks of each bracket set in LR. I select the stacks and send them to LR/Enfuse for processing. Then I go eat dinner. By the time I get back in my office the stacks are completed and I can do some mild post work on the 16 bit TIFF files and send the finals off to the client.
I like easy, predictable, repeatable workflows. LR/Enfuse provides that for me! Oh did I mention that LR/Enfuse is also VERY cost effective?! Timothy Armes asks for a donation upon download. He also offers up many other helpful tools on his site: http://photographers-toolbox.com/index.php (http://photographers-toolbox.com/index.php).
-
I have tried LR/Enfuse and I find that the 32bit blending in Photomatix or in PS CS6 is much better. LR/Enfuse is only 16 bit and therefore not hold so much dynamic range either.
Have you tried the 32 bit HDR blending?
-
I did, last night. It required way too much effort to dial out the ghosting and other HDR artifacts. My workflow needs to be fast, easy, predictable and repeatable. To each his/her own. If I come home with three shoots with a 24 hour turn around it needs to be time effective. "Time" is my most precious resource.
If I get home with some great brackets from a sunrise at Mt. Rainier NP (my backyard) that I can work on a lazy Saturday I might open up Nik Software's HDR EFX Pro 2. Which I do like, if I have the time.
-
Could you be more specific about what exactly you did try?
-
I did, last night. It required way too much effort to dial out the ghosting and other HDR artifacts. My workflow needs to be fast, easy, predictable and repeatable. To each his/her own. If I come home with three shoots with a 24 hour turn around it needs to be time effective. "Time" is my most precious resource.
If I get home with some great brackets from a sunrise at Mt. Rainier NP (my backyard) that I can work on a lazy Saturday I might open up Nik Software's HDR EFX Pro 2. Which I do like, if I have the time.
It has been often said that "easy" I based on what you know.
Enfuse should have the same ghosting problems as other blend methods, without the ability to correct them. Ghosting is a function of stacking and blending.
PS merge to HDR or Photomatic merge to 32 bit should be no more difficult or take any more time than Enfuse. And should produce much better results..
John
-
Hi,
Any tool that works is nice!
Best regards
Erik
How about "Enfuse" via the "EnfuseGui" package? Free.
Roy
EDITED. Posted before I saw other people had mentioned it.
-
Just a facetious comment
"I believe these cameras represent a revolution in DSLR photography, offering a dynamic range previously only available in medium format digital cameras"
Amazingly something called film does quite nicely... Kodak Portra 400
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/dynamic-range-2.jpg
Tim
-
For me, FWIW, it is to capture more of what we see with our own eyes and the human eye sees with what, maybe 20-24 EV of sensitivity, capacity, I don't know. Dynamic range? It could be more or less, but let's just take 24 EV of DR for the human eye.
Actually, assigning a dynamic range to the human eye is, well, problematic because of the adaptation the eye is capable of. What you perceive in a typical high dynamic range scene a camera has a real hard time capturing...remember, 1 stop of dynamic range is 2X the previous range...even if a human eye could only see 20 stops of range, a camera at 14 stops (on a good day with a tail wind) is way, way more than the sensor...
However...how far you want to extend the range depends on both the scene and how you want it to appear. Most HDR grunge looks are an effect, not real. Having an image with too much dynamic range will look flat in print. We generally want white whites and black blacks...how you tone the contrast is as much an artistic decision as it is a technical one.
On the other hand, if you can capture as much dynamic range as you can even using HDR and tone it correctly, it's your aesthetics then dictate the final contrast range of the print, not the dynamic range limitations of your sensor.
-
Another forgotten HDR tool...
I guess I buy some Portra film for my Pentax 67.
Best regards
Erik
Just a facetious comment
"I believe these cameras represent a revolution in DSLR photography, offering a dynamic range previously only available in medium format digital cameras"
Amazingly something called film does quite nicely... Kodak Portra 400
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/dynamic-range-2.jpg
Tim
-
PS merge to HDR or Photomatic merge to 32 bit should be no more difficult or take any more time than Enfuse. And should produce much better results..
I've spent many hours in the last few days looking at this and the results aren't as clear as you might expect.
Whilst Enfuse is no use with non-matching exposures that have ghost problems, it often delivers a better tonal end result than Photomatrix's blend to 32bit plug-in.
At the moment none of the solutions are really perfect;
I just hope that we have a good HDR function added to LR5. I'd guess that the provision to edit 32bit images in 4.1+ indicates that the next version will have a blend to 32bit option to complement it. I doubt if it will suit those who want eye searing novelty won't like it, but those us just seeking more DR from multiple exposures will be happy.
-
I've spent many hours in the last few days looking at this and the results aren't as clear as you might expect.
Whilst Enfuse is no use with non-matching exposures that have ghost problems, it often delivers a better tonal end result than Photomatrix's blend to 32bit plug-in.
Was that before or after you made tonal adjustments to the 32bit tif in Lightroom?
Also, one thing Eric Chan pointed out to me....after making global tonal adjustments, additional tonal adjustments, if required, can be made with adjustment brush or gradient.
-
Was that before or after you made tonal adjustments to the 32bit tif in Lightroom?
After, it just seems something was being lost in the highlights with the Photomatrix 32bit files that Enfuse retained.
-
But you are of course aware that the LR handling of a 16 bit file and a 32 bit file is quite different with different working of the sliders? So in order to adjust your pictures you need to adjust differently although the principal working of all sliders are the same. With 32 bit files they work over a much bigger scale like e.g. the exposure slider works over +/- 10 stops where you with 16 bit files would have +/- 5 stops. Similarly the tone mapping sliders are adjusted for the two file formats.
-
But you are of course aware....
Indeed I am.
-
Maybe you can show the differences which would make the discussion a bit more concrete.
-
Below are three 100% crops from an image set;
Original.jpg is one of three frames at -2ev, other were at 0 & +2. This what the part of the original image should look like if the HDR process were perfect.
Enfuse.jpg is an unchanged TIF generated in Enfuse from default settings. Not great, but just about acceptable in the context of the overall image.
Photomatrix.jpg is the best I can get out of the 32bit TIF generated by the Photomatrix plugin at default settings and processed by LR4.3. Pretty useless and posterised.
-
Below are three 100% crops from an image set;
Original.jpg is one of three frames at -2ev, other were at 0 & +2. This what the part of the original image should look like if the HDR process were perfect.
Enfuse.jpg is an unchanged TIF generated in Enfuse from default settings. Not great, but just about acceptable in the context of the overall image.
Photomatrix.jpg is the best I can get out of the 32bit TIF generated by the Photomatrix plugin at default settings and processed by LR4.3. Pretty useless and posterised.
I have never seen anything like that Photomatix result.
Can you make the 3 original tiff files available so some of us can try to replicate your results?
John
-
I have never seen anything like that Photomatix result
Just to be clear; This is from Photomatrix "Merge to 32-bit HDR Plug-in for Lightroom" and used LR's own tools for processing, NOT Photomatrix Pro stand alone or tone mapping plug in.
(FWIW I also got similarly unacceptable results putting the Photomatrix 32bit TIF into CS4)
The originals are too big to post, but here are the appropriate jpg crops from the original HDR set;
-
Just to be clear; This is from Photomatrix "Merge to 32-bit HDR Plug-in for Lightroom" and used LR's own tools for processing, NOT Photomatrix Pro stand alone or tone mapping plug in.
(FWIW I also got similarly unacceptable results putting the Photomatrix 32bit TIF into CS4)
The originals are too big to post, but here are the appropriate jpg crops from the original HDR set;
If you cannot upload them to a site such as 'YouSendIt', there is not much we can do.
Attached are 3 shots 2 stop intervals....as you can see, absolutely no reason to have bracketed this...but similar to your shots.
The last image (.....-2 -3) is a quick merge top 32bit and less than 10 seconds of LR processing.
BTW...Do you have "Scale pixel values to fixed range" checked. Helps you get in the range much faster.
-
there is not much we can do.
I'm not asking for help, just expressing an opinion.
absolutely no reason to have bracketed this...but similar to your shots.
Odd thing to say given you've only seen a very small crop of my original.
BTW...Do you have "Scale pixel values to fixed range" checked. Helps you get in the range much faster.
Yes.
-
I'm not asking for help, just expressing an opinion.Odd thing to say given you've only seen a very small crop of my original.Yes.
OK...your opinion is that you like Enfuse better....and provide no basis for anyone to comment.
If you didn't want help or assistance, there was no reason to post any example....a simple opinion would have been sufficient.
I was commenting on what you showed, which is all I could base it on.
Since you are unwilling to show any more, I am going to caulk it up to "pilot error" and move on.
-
OK...your opinion is that you like Enfuse better
No, please read what I've written, not what you think I've meant.
there was no reason to post any example....a simple opinion would have been sufficient.
Hans asked for examples to justify what I'd written and I've provided them.
Since you are unwilling to show any more, I am going to caulk it up to "pilot error" and move on.
Having tried all the combinations of settings that might improve things, not that are very many, I can't see where 'pilot error' would cause this sort of issue.
-
Below are three 100% crops from an image set;
Original.jpg is one of three frames at -2ev, other were at 0 & +2. This what the part of the original image should look like if the HDR process were perfect.
Enfuse.jpg is an unchanged TIF generated in Enfuse from default settings. Not great, but just about acceptable in the context of the overall image.
Photomatrix.jpg is the best I can get out of the 32bit TIF generated by the Photomatrix plugin at default settings and processed by LR4.3. Pretty useless and posterised.
It's hard to comment on this, but I have never seen anything like this from the Photomatix 32bit plugin for Lightroom after tone mapping in Lightroom. Did you have similar results from using Photoshop? If you tried, of course.
-
Did you have similar results from using Photoshop?
Yes, very similar.
It's curious certainly. Maybe it's a peculiarity of these particular files as it gets similar results from both packages, or maybe both LR & PS have an issue with the 32bit TIFFs produced ?
However it remains that Enfuse ended up with a better end result in this attempt at going via a true HDR solution for taming the original DR.
Ironically having now spent more time with this particular set of files and taken more time working on them, it's possible to get a better overall result within LR4.3 with just the 0ev image and some serious editing using local adjustments than with any of the HDR solutions.
I do have some extreme DR cases in my library where it requires a proper HDR approach to taming DR, but pv2012 tames the vast majority of previous rejects.
Looking again at HDR options has made me better aware of the huge capabilities of PV2012 and that shooting bracketed sets is probably unnecessary in many(most) cases, or at least it may be better to shoot at +/- 1ev to hit a more optimal exposure to work with, rather than =/-2 to provide an HDR set.
Not everyone's situations will match mine, but I've learnt something from this examination of what I've shot in the past and how it's been processed that I can take forward to future shoots.
-
PV2012 is a huge improvement over PV2010 and I also find that I can get almost all the difficult lighting situations covered in one RAW file using PV2012. I'm looking forward to a LR version with better taming of the halos that come from use of the clarity and highlights sliders in particular. Especially around really dark almost black subjects halos will show up. I have checked more of my HDR blends using LR/Enfuse and in many cases it does a good job.
-
On the other hand, if you can capture as much dynamic range as you can even using HDR and tone it correctly, it's your aesthetics then dictate the final contrast range of the print, not the dynamic range limitations of your sensor.
Thanks, Jeff. The logic of this is clear. I can quit worrying about it and concentrate on esthetics. Whew!