Dynamic Range or Contrast?

[MichaelWorley]

Thom Hogan posted an interesting image with an accompanying piece on his site about using contrast [Color Efex Pro 3.0 "tonal contrast" specifically] to hold shadow and highlight detail on an image taken in bright light.

http://www.bythom.com/

A discussion of the image . . . and other things . . . has given rise to the typical dpreview-type thread. I couldn't resist joining.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=38707529

[bill t.]

Yes HDR is not the automatic solution to merely bright scenes.  But it is mildly ironic that if you are going to process "single-shots" at that level, you definitely want to bracket to be sure to have an exposure with the most favorable possible histogram fit.

My take is to always shoot HDR stacks, then later decide whether or not to actually use HDR.  Sometimes a single exposure is the best interpretation, sometimes masking in highlights or deep shadows from an appropriate exposure, sometimes Guillermoizing, sometimes exposure blending or HDR.

And basically any RAW processor with Recovery and Fill can do the same thing, although best to try ordinary contrast adjustments first.

OTOH, HDR often is a very good solution to pleasant interpretations of 10+ f-stop scenes that are simply gawdawful, hideously harsh.  I have seen quite attractive HDR results from scenes that were awful looking in reality.  The example at that URL is not such a case, although it's a nice shot.

But my rage deflectors are not charged up enough to read that thread just right now. 

[jools230575]

HDR is one of those tools to be used and understood. Personally, I feel that a photographer should have a good grounding in exposure and how that will render in the final image.

I don't use HDR with exterior shots. i prefer to use graduated filters to control the range of tonalities in my work. Here's an example of an image I did over here in France. Some people on a French forum thought it was an HDR but it is just filtration. How? 5 or 6 stops of grad for the sky. One reversed grad to lighten up the top to try and get a more natural picture. The band in the back of the image is just a layer of mist on the border of Burgundy.

Interior wise. Well, you can see my use of "HDR" in my Auxerre and Nevers Cathdral shots. Now I've found my ideal working method, I'll only take two shots instead of a range. I think it is this range of images blended that is giving the "mickey mouse" effect of HDR.

[RFPhotography]

What Thom's shot really shows is the 'headroom' shooting RAW provides.  Even when pixels appear clipped at the highlight end there is typically a stop or more of range that can be brought back.  Even in the shadows, slight lifting can be done before introducing noise.  Fill & Recovery are two options.  The Curve tool in ACR/LR is another.  The Adjustment Brush in ACR/LR is another.  Many tools to do the job.  Shadows/Highlights in PS is another, although that one can get pretty out of hand pretty quickly if care isn't taken in using it. 

[MichaelWorley]

Yes HDR is not the automatic solution to merely bright scenes.  But it is mildly ironic that if you are going to process "single-shots" at that level, you definitely want to bracket to be sure to have an exposure with the most favorable possible histogram fit.

My take is to always shoot HDR stacks, then later decide whether or not to actually use HDR.  Sometimes a single exposure is the best interpretation, sometimes masking in highlights or deep shadows from an appropriate exposure, sometimes Guillermoizing, sometimes exposure blending or HDR.

And basically any RAW processor with Recovery and Fill can do the same thing, although best to try ordinary contrast adjustments first.

OTOH, HDR often is a very good solution to pleasant interpretations of 10+ f-stop scenes that are simply gawdawful, hideously harsh.  I have seen quite attractive HDR results from scenes that were awful looking in reality.  The example at that URL is not such a case, although it's a nice shot.

But my rage deflectors are not charged up enough to read that thread just right now. 

Interesting that the first post in that thread is someone who wanted to speculate how Thom "got the shot." Somone suggested "with a camera" (which caused some irritation) and others implied bracketing. Some just wanted to say the picture wasn't very good.

The image was taken in South Africa in 2009 with a D300. Of course it had to be timed to the crashing of the surf. Doesn't preclude bracketing, which I would have done since I don't go to South Africa every week. Then, as you suggested, see if there is a single exposure to work with. There often is.

I hear you about rage deflectors.

Mike

[RFPhotography]

Well, if we want to speculate, bracketing doesn't necessarily mean that the crashing surf was captured in every shot.  He could have taken one or more 'practice' shots to hone the exposure then, with those settings locked in, waited for the appropriate moment.  There's enough other white in the roiling surf to substitute for the waves crashing on the rock.

[MichaelWorley]

Well, if we want to speculate, bracketing doesn't necessarily mean that the crashing surf was captured in every shot.  He could have taken one or more 'practice' shots to hone the exposure then, with those settings locked in, waited for the appropriate moment.  There's enough other white in the roiling surf to substitute for the waves crashing on the rock.

Sorta what I meant by

"Of course it had to be timed to the crashing of the surf. Doesn't preclude bracketing," because you can press the remote at the right time.

[BernardLanguillier]

Well... This image was simply correctly exposed for digital. With a sensor delivering the clean shadows we have come to expect from top DSLR, the rest (shadow lifting) is easy.

The key is of course to know when looking at a scene how far you can go, but that is just a modern version of the old 'know your tool' concept. Not all cameras are equal here.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hjulenissen]

What Thom's shot really shows is the 'headroom' shooting RAW provides.  Even when pixels appear clipped at the highlight end there is typically a stop or more of range that can be brought back. 
...

I think that is because:
1. Using anything but UniWB, jpeg/camera-lcd may be clipped while the raw-file is not
2. Using raw, single channel clipping can often be reasonably recovered re-using information from other (non-clipped) channels

-h