Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: HDR Frustration  (Read 23900 times)

craigwashburn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
HDR Frustration
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2010, 11:55:10 am »

Quote from: stamper
I have just started looking at this process. I am not convinced that I will be doing a lot of it though. This link should be very helpful to you.

http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography...-photoshop-cs5/

In particular this passage sums it all up?

Quote

If you truly want to end up with realistic looking images—and are willing to invest the time this takes—it is best to take full control of the HDR blending process using Photoshop layers, blending modes, the Gradient Tool, and the Paint Brush Tool. This Hand HDR process is explained in Creating HDR Images by Hand and Creating HDR Images by Hand. Usually, Hand HDR means avoiding automated HDR tools such as Merge to HDR Pro—although automated HDR can be used to create a background layer, or to handle difficult areas like a forest with complex lights and darks.

Unquote

In essence HDR is only part of the process and not the start and the end of it as some examples on the web would have you believing.


Very true.  Using pmatix or other tools as a one-stop-shop is bound to lead to disappointment... it's like using auto levels in photoshop and calling it a day.  If I'm merging images together, I'll set up the tone mapping to be very flat initially - the histogram is a simple curve in most cases - then use adjustment layers and your standard pshop tools to push and pull it to how I want.  This is no different than non-HDR images, except I'm taking advantage of HDR's ability to see past the camera's limitations.
Logged

BobFisher

  • Guest
HDR Frustration
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2010, 08:41:45 pm »

I'm sorry but the idea that you must use manual blending to create a realistic looking expanded drange image is completely, utterly, totally false and misleading.  

1.  Creating an expanded drange image manually is NOT creating an HDR image.  HDR has a specific meaning.  

2.  Photomatix is a very good piece of software (as are several others on the market) and anyone who says it's not possible to get a natural looking image out of PM doesn't know how to use the software.  Are there programs out there that are better at the more natural look?  Yes.  Is it impossible to do with PM?  No.

3.  As I noted previously (and as others have stated), the tonemapped LDR image is, in most cases, not the end point but rather a starting point.  If, again as I noted earlier, that tonemapped LDR image is considered as a new 'RAW' file with adjustments done from there, very good results can be achieved.

Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
HDR Frustration
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2010, 04:52:22 pm »

A lot of misinformation going around about HDR.  But Bob Fisher has got it right.

First thing is to think of yourself as collecting data, which needs to be good data, data that you know how to work with.

Shoot 14-bit RAW, and capture to 16-bit TIFs using the best capture software available using the "neutral" or "linear" gamma.  You want the most linear data you can get.  Bracket +-2EV steps.  Sometimes it is better to delay white balancing until later, but if you are shooting daylight, go ahead and white balance before capture.  Do not use the built-in RAW converters in Photomatix.  

In making an HDR file, you are creating a robust representation for your scene data that will withstand tremendous amounts of adjustment.  All of the "shadow" data here is oversampled and quantized into fractional values using floating point.  This is as robust as we can get.  In general, Photomatix uses the metadata to determine relative exposure values and perform basically a "normalize and average" function, while discarding blown pixels and shadow data below a certain (option selectable) level.

Try Photomatix for making HDR and tonemapping.  As Bob says, do not expect to get the results you are looking for out of Photomatix.  It is just the starting point.  

In doing tonemapping, play with the "strength" control for more or less natural look -- whatever your artistic vision calls for.  Again, do not strive to get a final image here.  Your aim is to get as clean a representation as you can get, a 16-bit TIF similar to vanilla capture from a single RAW.  Take that image into photoshop and sculpt it to your taste with curves, and local contrast enhancements.  This 16-bit TIF will withstand a lot of processing without falling apart.  With a little practice, you will find the right compromise and produce the output with Photomatix that is most amenable to your style of post-processing.

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2013
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
HDR Frustration
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2010, 05:48:47 pm »

Quote from: BartvanderWolf
I used SNS-HDR Pro, a relatively new tonemapping application from a very talented Polish programmer. The program IMO still needs work in several areas, but it's tonemapping capabilities are the best I've seen sofar (and I've seen many).
In this post of this thread I did a quick test of SNS-HDR vs TuFuse tone mapping capabilities:



The conclusion was that both performed quite OK, but SNS-HDR produced a too finished image for my taste, while TuFuse produced a more neutral image ready for extra processing. IMO I prefer the TuFuse version.

But something I have noticed about HDR images, is that many programs produce fairly good results when the output is observed alone. But when compared to a good manually tone mapped image (curves, layers and/or mask layers, paintbrush,...), none of the automated results can resist the comparision. Unreal lightings (only noticeable when comparing face to face), halos, etc... are very common on automated software outputs. Images obtained manually take more time but are usually better IMO.

Regards
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 05:53:33 pm by Guillermo Luijk »
Logged

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
HDR Frustration
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2010, 05:52:53 pm »

Quote from: BobFisher
Sadly, you're working with your hands tied behind your back a bit with CS4.  Even the tools available in CS4 Extended aren't nearly as good as what Adobe came up with in CS5 HDR Pro.
If I am intending to upgrade to CS5, is it still worth getting Photomatrix?

HDR tends to kill contrast and modeling by making everything the same shade - which is very easy to program... does CS5 or Photomatrix leave you with editable grey scale masks that you can fine-tune and adjust?
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

BobFisher

  • Guest
HDR Frustration
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2010, 09:30:10 am »

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
If I am intending to upgrade to CS5, is it still worth getting Photomatrix?

HDR tends to kill contrast and modeling by making everything the same shade - which is very easy to program... does CS5 or Photomatrix leave you with editable grey scale masks that you can fine-tune and adjust?

Maybe, maybe not as far as the need for Photomatix and HDR Pro.  Depends on what you're looking for.  Download the trial and play with it.  See how you like it.  

You're talking about 'flat' contrast.  Yes, tonemapped HDR images can have very flat contrast.  It depends on how you apply the tonemapping.  In some cases flat contrast is the sacrifice for a more natural, realistic looking result.  You can get a very flat result or one that has more contrast.  Do either HDR Pro (CS5) or Photomatix leave you with enough information to create your masks (I think that's really the question you're asking).  Yes, they both can.  In many cases, a post-tonemap Curves or Levels adjustment in PS will bring back much of the desired contrast.  I know it's going to sound like I'm shilling but have a look at my blog.  I've got reviews of several of the HDR apps on the market with sample images - including HDR Pro and Photomatix.  The one thing you can do in HDR Pro that you can't in other applications is what can be called 'soft tonemapping'.  That is, using the 'standard' tools available in PS to work on a 32 bit image with all of the data and flexibility 32 bit gives you and ignoring the actual tonemapping functions.
Logged

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
HDR Frustration
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2010, 10:11:04 am »

Making an HDR image look 'natural' is very hard.  Many of the images that people display after using HDR processing look strange and unnatural...though sometimes intriguing.  Success means that you can't tell HDR was used.  


I think the key point that people miss about the HDR process is that the actual HDR image is worthless for any sort of display.  It needs to be mapped (as several folks have said), and that mapping is subjective business of setting the black point, white point and contrast, and necessarily clipping some information (throwing it away) for the image to look good.  The alternative is a very muddy low-contrast image that would please no one.  

The best results I have ever seen to deal with dynamic range that exceeds the camera's capabilities haven't actually gone through HDR.  They have involved manually blending light and dark regions of two images.  This image is manually blended.
Larger version available here: http://www.trailpixie.net/general/rocky_point_wat.htm


I do a lot of woodland photography and making an HDR image work with detailed leaves that may move a fraction of an inch can be very frustrating.  For this reason, manual blending may be a better solution.  Here is a reasonably successful example of a woodland HDR that used Photomatix (it's also a mosaic).  

Larger version available here: http://www.trailpixie.net/general/primeval_forest.htm


In the individual exposures, the ground is washed out in sunbeams or there is NO detail in the tree trunks.  I could have preserved more of the dark detail in the lower corners, but it didn't improve the overall composition of the image.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 10:16:52 am by fike »
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
HDR Frustration
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2010, 10:24:41 am »

Quote from: BobFisher
Maybe, maybe not as far as the need for Photomatix and HDR Pro.  Depends on what you're looking for.  Download the trial and play with it.  See how you like it.  

You're talking about 'flat' contrast.  Yes, tonemapped HDR images can have very flat contrast.  It depends on how you apply the tonemapping.  In some cases flat contrast is the sacrifice for a more natural, realistic looking result.  You can get a very flat result or one that has more contrast.  Do either HDR Pro (CS5) or Photomatix leave you with enough information to create your masks (I think that's really the question you're asking).  Yes, they both can.  In many cases, a post-tonemap Curves or Levels adjustment in PS will bring back much of the desired contrast.  I know it's going to sound like I'm shilling but have a look at my blog.  I've got reviews of several of the HDR apps on the market with sample images - including HDR Pro and Photomatix.  The one thing you can do in HDR Pro that you can't in other applications is what can be called 'soft tonemapping'.  That is, using the 'standard' tools available in PS to work on a 32 bit image with all of the data and flexibility 32 bit gives you and ignoring the actual tonemapping functions.
Thanks, Bob.
Do these programs work with Hasselblad Phocus raw files?

Phocus is magic to the extent that you seldom need HDR (I often bracket in case I need HDR, and find that Phocus manages fine without it).
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

BobFisher

  • Guest
HDR Frustration
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2010, 11:25:45 am »

Don't know about Photomatix.  It uses dcraw as its RAW conversion engine so it would depend on whether dcraw handles your Hassy RAW files.  That said, Photomatix works better with TIFFs as the input files.  It's faster and you get a better WB.

As far as Photoshop, if ACR will handle the Hassy RAWs then HDR Pro should.

I've read that the brightness range of those Hassy RAW files is pretty spectacular.
Logged

Robert Boire

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 270
    • www.robertboire.ca
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2010, 01:05:02 pm »

As the guy that started all this, I have to say that many of the responses have lead me to a lot of reading material that I have been plowing my way through. Thanks a lot. I suppose the good news is that "HDR Frustration" is common and that getting realisitic results requires a lot of work.

Many of the responses refer to tonemapping. At the risk of appearing ignorant I have to ask the question - here goes- what is tonemapping? Is this the process that takes place when converting down from a 32bit image to a 16 bit image? If so, how is using the local adaptation curve in photoship different from the typical use of curves in photoshop?

Also, at the risk of waxing philisophical I did not quite get this comment:

 

1.  Creating an expanded drange image manually is NOT creating an HDR image.  HDR has a specific meaning. 


Don't both try to do the same thing- create an image with a wider range than thje original bracketed shots?

RFPhotography

  • Guest
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2010, 01:27:40 pm »

Yes Robert, both manual blending (even automated blending via tools like Enfuse, SNS-HDR or Photomatix Exposure Fusion) and HDR have the same end goal in mind.  The goal with both is to increase the brightness range beyond what the camera could capture in a single shot.  JP Caponigro came up with a great term for encompassing all these methods.  He refers to it as XDR - eXtended Dynamic Range. 

HDR - High Dynamic Range - or more properly HDRI where the I stands for Imagery does have a specific meaning.  HDR images are in a 32 bit floating point space.  Manual blending and automated blending methods never leave the 8 or 16 bit world.  The benefits of the 32 bit space for editing and pushing brightness values around can be invaluable.  It allows for much more precision in adjusting values.  It also allows for much more precision in contrast and colour adjustment which is where you get the whacked out hyper-real results from.

Tonemapping is the process of mapping the wide dynamic range of a 32 bit image that's, let's say, 15 stops or more into a smaller range that we can see on our monitors and print on paper.  It's in the 4 to 9 stop range roughly speaking.  Tonemapping happens in the 32 bit space.  Simply dropping an image from 32 bits to 16 (or 8) isn't tonemapping.  Most HDR applications do some form of automated tonemapping initially to give you some measure of on screen preview as a starting point.  Some will allow you to apply tonemapping operators to 8 or 16 bit images, but this isn't tonemapping in the same way as with a 32 bit image.  If you do it in Photoshop, for example, it will upconvert to 32 bit (without the benefit of a 32 bit space, think of it as converting an 8 bit image to 16 bit) apply the tonemapping then drop back down to 16 bit.  Conversely, I can open an HDR image in PS go to Image>Mode>16 bit, choose Exposure & Gamma from the tonemapping dropdown menu, click OK and my image will be converted to 16 bit with no tonemapping applied and the image will still be beyond what I can use on my monitor or in a print.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2013
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2010, 06:25:11 pm »


I wonder why tone mapping should necessarily require the use of any 32-bit floating point format. Isn't tone mapping about mapping tones? you can map tones on 16-bit integer files, and you can fit a huge DR scene onto a 16-bit integer image prior to tone mapping.

So, who/where invented/declared that tone mapping is a 32-bit floating point matter? I don't understand this definition.  ???

Regards

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2010, 08:23:16 pm »

I wonder why tone mapping should necessarily require the use of any 32-bit floating point format. Isn't tone mapping about mapping tones? you can map tones on 16-bit integer files, and you can fit a huge DR scene onto a 16-bit integer image prior to tone mapping.

So, who/where invented/declared that tone mapping is a 32-bit floating point matter? I don't understand this definition.  ???

I think it's just a convention in HDR circles to refer to 32-bit to lower-bit conversion as tonemapping - but you're right, tonemapping doesn't require 32 bits (or 16 or 8).

Not to derail the discussion, but I never really understood the "need" for 32-bit images. We can't reproduce them at the moment, and even if/when they can be reproduced at 32 bits, human eye can't possibly distinguish nearly that many colors.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8919
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2010, 03:11:17 pm »

I wonder why tone mapping should necessarily require the use of any 32-bit floating point format. Isn't tone mapping about mapping tones? you can map tones on 16-bit integer files, and you can fit a huge DR scene onto a 16-bit integer image prior to tone mapping.

That is correct. Tonemapping just , well, (re)maps tones from one brightness level to another. It is not specifically reserved for 32-bit/channel originals.

Quote
So, who/where invented/declared that tone mapping is a 32-bit floating point matter? I don't understand this definition.  ???

Don't know either, it probably seems that way because it is often used in combination with HDRI, which renders as very low contrast images if the whole range is squeezed in without some serious tonemapping. To me, applying a curves correction is also (global) tonemapping, as is a low amount high radius USM, but that is local/adaptive.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Brad Smith

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2010, 02:11:51 pm »


I do a lot of woodland photography and making an HDR image work with detailed leaves that may move a fraction of an inch can be very frustrating.  For this reason, manual blending may be a better solution.  

May I ask how you deal with leaf motion with manual blending? Do you simply choose the image with the best overall exposure of the leaves, and then mask them out completely in the other image layers?
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2010, 03:56:59 pm »

May I ask how you deal with leaf motion with manual blending? Do you simply choose the image with the best overall exposure of the leaves, and then mask them out completely in the other image layers?

I've had good success with waving flags with low-light photography by shooting a separate frame with high-enough ISO to freeze the flag. I then paste the flag over the final blended image in post.

Similar technique might be too labor-intensive for landscapes with lots of moving detail, but might be worth testing.

RFPhotography

  • Guest
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2010, 09:11:23 pm »

Tonemapping is the process of mapping tones from a wider range into a range that's usable.  Images captured in a single shot in 8, 10, 12, 14 or 16 bit are already within that usable range.  Some of the tones may be blown out, some may be blocked up, but that's what can happen with a single shot and there's not a lot that can be done to bring those back in a single shot.  But OK, I'll grant that in an absolute technical sense tonemapping doesn't have to refer to 32 bit images.  I think it'd be the rare instance where the term was used referring to LDR imagery. 

As far as why the need for 32 bit because it can't be used, the same argument could be (and often has been) made about wider gamut colour profiles like ProPhoto.  Even a couple years ago these couldn't be reproduced.  Now, newer printers can reproduce pretty much all of the ProPhoto space.  Newer monitors can display wider colour gamuts than was possible in the past as well.  Why?  Because technology changes so why not be ready for it.
Logged

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2010, 11:22:07 pm »

Quote
Now, newer printers can reproduce pretty much all of the ProPhoto space.
No, not even close really. It's true today's inkjets can exceed Adobe RGB in certain areas (but not total volume); but that's a far cry from reproducing all of ProPhoto RGB.
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2010, 07:36:22 am »

As far as why the need for 32 bit because it can't be used, the same argument could be (and often has been) made about wider gamut colour profiles like ProPhoto.  Even a couple years ago these couldn't be reproduced.  Now, newer printers can reproduce pretty much all of the ProPhoto space.  Newer monitors can display wider colour gamuts than was possible in the past as well.  Why?  Because technology changes so why not be ready for it.

This is a common counter-argument, but I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that the human eye can distinguish anywhere near 32 bit colors, so there's really no point even if they could be reproduced.

And the other common counter-argument is about 32 bits withstanding editing better than 16 bit. This is used also in discussions of 8 bit vs 16 bit, but examples of 8 bits not being enough are rare. Therefore 16 bits should be enough for 99.99999% of editing. Note I'm not talking about stress-testing by testing color gradients, but editing real photos.

Finally, since almost no digital camera has true 16 bit color output (MFDBs included), 32 bit color is necessarily computed. While this may arguably yield accurate results when blending multiple exposures, their real-world application and usefulness is questionable.

32 bit might allow theoretically "better" color gradation, but it is overkill. I haven't seen a decent reason to produce anything in that bit depth given the extreme difficulty working with the files.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8919
Re: HDR Frustration
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2010, 07:47:02 am »

And the other common counter-argument is about 32 bits withstanding editing better than 16 bit. This is used also in discussions of 8 bit vs 16 bit, but examples of 8 bits not being enough are rare. Therefore 16 bits should be enough for 99.99999% of editing. Note I'm not talking about stress-testing by testing color gradients, but editing real photos.

But that is exactly what happens when tonemapping huge dynamic range images. They are manipulated to the extreme (in small ranges of brightness) to creata a perceptually convincing image. Most of the image tones are only subjected to small contrast enhancements, but it's those selective areas that need all the bits they can have to avoid micro posterization. Typical problem areas are bright sky areas and deep shadow areas.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up