| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2008 04:49:16 PM · #101 |
I don't know if this is the thread to carry on the HDR/tonemapping stuff but here goes.
It's possible that when HDR was first allowed, photogs using it weren't proficient in its application and they tended to overdo the effect. As the technique was refined, the HDR photos became more natural, therefore being less identifiable with cartoonish HDR.
It's another tool to achieve an end result--I prefer to use Grad ND filters but they don't work in some cases, making either manual blending of exposures or HDR necessary to get to the final print. I've used tonemapping alone more often than HDR+tonemapping but the results can be very good and natural. Here is one that I think is pretty true to the scene, although I can't say it is anything special. The early light was hitting the ground cover and small shrubs and this HDR attempt is pretty close to what I saw. I could have used Grad ND but I really only needed the ND portion around the sunspot area.  A Singh-ray revers ND would have been perfect.
I like to see all varieties of post-processing as it often opens my eyes to a different style or technique. I think HDR is used more in the real world than some may admit. Possibly it is still viewed as "cheating" or not true to the craft...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2008 05:21:33 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but I never remember a challenge where even 20% were HDR. |
This one was pretty bad. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 05:39:43 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I could have used Grad ND but I really only needed the ND portion around the sunspot area. |
This is exactly where I use HDR these days. A) Landscapes rarely have a nice straight line for the horizon. You have trees, or lighthouses or monoliths sticking up and getting underexposed. Even using a graduated ND suffers from this. B) The ND filter causes another piece of glass/plastic to get between you and your subject which can cause possible image degredation.
These days I'd much rather just bracket. However, I've really gotten away from Photomatix and actually have failed to even install it on the new computer since I've moved. I much prefer to manually adjust two or more exposures and pick and choose the portions I want to use.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 17:42:35. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 05:41:58 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but I never remember a challenge where even 20% were HDR. |
This one was pretty bad. |
Heh. ya, I'd say the # of HDR images in the challenge "HDR" was likely higher than 20%. ;) I'll also agree with Mark. It was pretty heavy handed back then and I don't see that too much now.
I did this one overboard on purpose to represent the excess of suburbia. It suffered in the voting and I knew it would.
 |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 05:51:22 PM · #105 |
I think the tone mapping can be pretty useful for bringing out the details in rocks and trees so I've employed Photomatix a few times recently. Then use the parts of the tonemapped image to refine the base image.
That extra pc of glass?? I guess that's why SR filters are 100-350.00. :( |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 10:47:02 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think HDR is used more in the real world than some may admit. Possibly it is still viewed as "cheating" or not true to the craft... |
In the real world like... professional use? It seems to me like any HDR program I've tried lowers the image quality and in some attempts significantly enough that it wouldn't make a very great print for professional use.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 02:34:39 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by JustinM:
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think HDR is used more in the real world than some may admit. Possibly it is still viewed as "cheating" or not true to the craft... |
In the real world like... professional use? It seems to me like any HDR program I've tried lowers the image quality and in some attempts significantly enough that it wouldn't make a very great print for professional use. |
I'm thinking of professional landscape photography; I don't know about portrait or other genres. I know grad ND filters are used extensively but it still seems like many photos have so much dynamic range. If they aren't some form of HDR, either manual or program based, I'd like to know their secret! Maybe it is skilled use of curves and levels... Of course a pro gets to plan their pictures for the best light and conditions--as opposed to a hack like me who schedules shooting around the important stuff in life! :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 07:52:46 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
If they aren't some form of HDR, either manual or program based, I'd like to know their secret! Maybe it is skilled use of curves and levels... Of course a pro gets to plan their pictures for the best light and conditions--as opposed to a hack like me who schedules shooting around the important stuff in life! :) |
Yup - get up early, stay up late. Repeat.
There is a lot of multi image blending going on (not just automated tools like HDR, but careful manual blending) particularly in architectural photography these days. I've seen plenty examples of 10+ images being blended by hand to do recent digital architectural work. Still a lot of careful setup and design going on but then also a lot of image blending.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 08:40:09 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
... it still seems like many photos have so much dynamic range. If they aren't some form of HDR, either manual or program based, I'd like to know their secret! Maybe it is skilled use of curves and levels... |
Available on Sony DSLR's...not sure about other brands.
Dynamic Range Optimization (DRO) |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 09:25:21 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think HDR is used more in the real world than some may admit. Possibly it is still viewed as "cheating" or not true to the craft... |
If it weren't being used, a LOT, why would we see so many competitors trying to bring their own version of HDR imaging to the marketplace? You BET it's being used, and ESPECIALLY professionally. As for the "cheating" aspect of it, if serious, high-end landscape/architectural photographers were inclined to call HDR cheating, then wouldn't they have have rejected Ansel Adams and his Zone System out of hand in the larger-format, film days?
Because that's exactly what thoughtful HDR imaging is; a zone system for digital photography, designed to control the dynamic range of the output.
Originally posted by JustinM:
In the real world like... professional use? It seems to me like any HDR program I've tried lowers the image quality and in some attempts significantly enough that it wouldn't make a very great print for professional use. |
This simply isn't true. Used "properly' (as intended, rather than for exaggerated effect) the quality of multiple-exposure HDR images is excellent. There's no reason for it not to be. Where you really see a drop in quality is when folks overdo the tonemapping, which can rapidly introduce artifacts, especially when applied to single-exposure (not merged) images. And worst case of all is doing quasi-HDR on single-exposure images that have a fairly extreme range, when massive graininess of the dark areas being "rescued" is inevitable, and blocking-up/graying out of the really bright areas difficult to avoid.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 09:25:51. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 11:25:20 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think HDR is used more in the real world than some may admit. Possibly it is still viewed as "cheating" or not true to the craft... |
If it weren't being used, a LOT, why would we see so many competitors trying to bring their own version of HDR imaging to the marketplace? You BET it's being used, and ESPECIALLY professionally. As for the "cheating" aspect of it, if serious, high-end landscape/architectural photographers were inclined to call HDR cheating, then wouldn't they have have rejected Ansel Adams and his Zone System out of hand in the larger-format, film days?
Because that's exactly what thoughtful HDR imaging is; a zone system for digital photography, designed to control the dynamic range of the output.
Originally posted by JustinM:
In the real world like... professional use? It seems to me like any HDR program I've tried lowers the image quality and in some attempts significantly enough that it wouldn't make a very great print for professional use. |
This simply isn't true. Used "properly' (as intended, rather than for exaggerated effect) the quality of multiple-exposure HDR images is excellent. There's no reason for it not to be. Where you really see a drop in quality is when folks overdo the tonemapping, which can rapidly introduce artifacts, especially when applied to single-exposure (not merged) images. And worst case of all is doing quasi-HDR on single-exposure images that have a fairly extreme range, when massive graininess of the dark areas being "rescued" is inevitable, and blocking-up/graying out of the really bright areas difficult to avoid.
R. |
Ok that makes sense, but I guess the quality difference I was referring to is alignment problems. For architecture and other stationary objects I agree there probably is no difference in quality if done right. I don't do a lot of HDR's but some of what I do includes trees and longer grass. When the wind kicks up I have a hard time not getting ghostly like copies of the moving branches or grass. (and even waves). When downsized for the web you don't notice it but at full size or in a large print I'd think it would be fairly obvious. This is just my experience and I'm not claiming I know it all, I probably just haven't gotten very proficient with hdr yet. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 11:43:39 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think HDR is used more in the real world than some may admit. Possibly it is still viewed as "cheating" or not true to the craft... |
If it weren't being used, a LOT, why would we see so many competitors trying to bring their own version of HDR imaging to the marketplace? You BET it's being used, and ESPECIALLY professionally. As for the "cheating" aspect of it, if serious, high-end landscape/architectural photographers were inclined to call HDR cheating, then wouldn't they have have rejected Ansel Adams and his Zone System out of hand in the larger-format, film days?
Because that's exactly what thoughtful HDR imaging is; a zone system for digital photography, designed to control the dynamic range of the output.
Originally posted by JustinM:
In the real world like... professional use? It seems to me like any HDR program I've tried lowers the image quality and in some attempts significantly enough that it wouldn't make a very great print for professional use. |
This simply isn't true. Used "properly' (as intended, rather than for exaggerated effect) the quality of multiple-exposure HDR images is excellent. There's no reason for it not to be. Where you really see a drop in quality is when folks overdo the tonemapping, which can rapidly introduce artifacts, especially when applied to single-exposure (not merged) images. And worst case of all is doing quasi-HDR on single-exposure images that have a fairly extreme range, when massive graininess of the dark areas being "rescued" is inevitable, and blocking-up/graying out of the really bright areas difficult to avoid.
R. |
I don't consider it cheating at all-- IMO, when used correctly, it brings the scene closer to reality. At least the reality that exists in my head! I continue to be amazed by work on different sites, this one included. Makes me wish i didn't have a day job... :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 02:17:56 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by JustinM:
I don't do a lot of HDR's but some of what I do includes trees and longer grass. When the wind kicks up I have a hard time not getting ghostly like copies of the moving branches or grass. (and even waves). When downsized for the web you don't notice it but at full size or in a large print I'd think it would be fairly obvious. This is just my experience and I'm not claiming I know it all, I probably just haven't gotten very proficient with hdr yet. |
You're right, this IS a problem. One way around it is to work with the original, unique images as well as the HDR merged image, and overlay the appropriate exposure on the HDR and erase everything that is not moving. Indeed, a lot of people don't use HDR programs at all, preferring to make the unique exposures and then manually blend them together in a painstaking but often-rewarding process.
This "movement problem" can be particularly frustrating with fast-moving clouds at dawn and twilight. Sometimes we just have to accept that there will be movement and go with it, if we want the local-area contrast enhancement that's inherent in HDR tone mapping. And another approach would be the manual blending of 16-bit TIFF files into a single merged TIFF file, and then exporting that to Photomatix for tone mapping, and THEN overlaying the tone mapped file on the merged TIFF file and selectively erasing (at varying opacities) specific areas of the tone mapped image to balance everything out.
There are a lot of ways to work at this.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 02:25:17 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I don't consider it cheating at all-- IMO, when used correctly, it brings the scene closer to reality. At least the reality that exists in my head! I continue to be amazed by work on different sites, this one included. Makes me wish i didn't have a day job... :) |
Absolutely. This image of mine is a case in point:
This image is pretty close to what I was "seeing" when I took the shot. The colors are amped a little, but not a huge amount, over what I was perceiving. This was an HDR image from 3 originals. This is the middle original:
Now, I can hear the shouts of "That doesn't look ANYTHING like what the camera recorded!" but that's not an accurate assumption, or in any case it doesn't take a few things into account; primarily, that when I am shooting RAW my default camera settings are "low" everything ΓΆ€” contrast, saturation, sharpness, everything. So all my images, as first displayed in the RAW converter, look very flat, soft, and washed-out color-wise. Now, I COULD set crisper parameters in-camera, and then the colors and contrast of the original (as displayed in the converter) would be much closer to what the HDR image achieves, but the thing is that the HDR merge itself adds color saturation and contrast both to the image, so I'm used to working from this flatter rendition because I know where it is going to end up.
R. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 02:50:36 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, I can hear the shouts of "That doesn't look ANYTHING like what the camera recorded!" but that's not an accurate assumption, or in any case it doesn't take a few things into account; primarily, that when I am shooting RAW my default camera settings are "low" everything ΓΆ€” contrast, saturation, sharpness, everything. So all my images, as first displayed in the RAW converter, look very flat, soft, and washed-out color-wise. Now, I COULD set crisper parameters in-camera, and then the colors and contrast of the original (as displayed in the converter) would be much closer to what the HDR image achieves, but the thing is that the HDR merge itself adds color saturation and contrast both to the image, so I'm used to working from this flatter rendition because I know where it is going to end up.
R. |
Some interesting points here Robert and it's interesting to me that you shoot RAWs set to the lowest contrast/saturation/and sharpness. Just within the last couple weeks I've been doing that same thing and it really gives you an image that is much easier to work with and tweak when you post-process.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:02:24 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, I can hear the shouts of "That doesn't look ANYTHING like what the camera recorded!" but that's not an accurate assumption, or in any case it doesn't take a few things into account; primarily, that when I am shooting RAW my default camera settings are "low" everything ΓΆ€” contrast, saturation, sharpness, everything. So all my images, as first displayed in the RAW converter, look very flat, soft, and washed-out color-wise. Now, I COULD set crisper parameters in-camera, and then the colors and contrast of the original (as displayed in the converter) would be much closer to what the HDR image achieves, but the thing is that the HDR merge itself adds color saturation and contrast both to the image, so I'm used to working from this flatter rendition because I know where it is going to end up.
R. |
I'm a little confused. I don't have my camera here so I can't see the settings, but I thought RAW was the image as captured by the sensor. No sharpening, no color adjustment, etc. If you can make those adjustments in camera, aren't you defeating the purpose of the RAW format? |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:10:45 PM · #117 |
| Robert--if you have time, i'd love to hear your synopsis of the Zone system, especially as it relates to current technologies. Even within the zone system, weren't you limited by the dynamic range of the film or transparencies? How is HDR a modern day application of the zone system? Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:19:34 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm a little confused. I don't have my camera here so I can't see the settings, but I thought RAW was the image as captured by the sensor. No sharpening, no color adjustment, etc. If you can make those adjustments in camera, aren't you defeating the purpose of the RAW format? |
Nope....at least not with Nikons.
I have my settings doinked for the end result I want.
I shoot nothing but RAW.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:25:05 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm a little confused. I don't have my camera here so I can't see the settings, but I thought RAW was the image as captured by the sensor. No sharpening, no color adjustment, etc. If you can make those adjustments in camera, aren't you defeating the purpose of the RAW format? |
Well yes and no. Yes you are right, that the camera settings have nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in the camera for the RAW capture. No, in that most of the RAW converters can be set up to use the settings that were set on the camera for the initial or default RAW conversion.
E.g., I still set white balance, even though I shoot nothing but RAW - partly because it influences the on camera thumbnails, which influence how I take the pictures, if I'm reviewing at all as I go along (most obvious would be the blue mood of tungsten outdoors.
Lightroom uses the camera white balance setting for the initial display - but you can certainly override and change any and all of the settings later without affecting the original, or paying a penalty for doing it. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:30:57 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm a little confused. I don't have my camera here so I can't see the settings, but I thought RAW was the image as captured by the sensor. No sharpening, no color adjustment, etc. If you can make those adjustments in camera, aren't you defeating the purpose of the RAW format? |
Nope....at least not with Nikons.
I have my settings doinked for the end result I want.
I shoot nothing but RAW. |
But aren't those just defaults for the RAW converter used in post processing?
I really don't see how it could be anything else. Otherwise you are losing data captured from the RAW file.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 15:31:19. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:34:11 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'm a little confused. I don't have my camera here so I can't see the settings, but I thought RAW was the image as captured by the sensor. No sharpening, no color adjustment, etc. If you can make those adjustments in camera, aren't you defeating the purpose of the RAW format? |
Well yes and no. Yes you are right, that the camera settings have nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in the camera for the RAW capture. No, in that most of the RAW converters can be set up to use the settings that were set on the camera for the initial or default RAW conversion.
E.g., I still set white balance, even though I shoot nothing but RAW - partly because it influences the on camera thumbnails, which influence how I take the pictures, if I'm reviewing at all as I go along (most obvious would be the blue mood of tungsten outdoors.
Lightroom uses the camera white balance setting for the initial display - but you can certainly override and change any and all of the settings later without affecting the original, or paying a penalty for doing it. |
Sorry, had the comment box up for while. I didn't see your post before my last post.
So, this bit about adjusting the RAW in camera to flatter, less contrasty is just for the camera display? It really does not effect the RAW at all.
Bear - is this the way you understand it, or I'm I still missing something? |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 03:50:08 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
So, this bit about adjusting the RAW in camera to flatter, less contrasty is just for the camera display? It really does not effect the RAW at all. |
Well it affects the settings that are saved along side the RAW file and it affects the default conversion applied to the RAW file.
It doesn't change the underlying image captured by the camera - that's all saved at a point before in camera processing is applied. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 04:28:44 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by violinist123:
I never understood how HDR/tone-mapping is in any way increasing the dynamic range of an image. |
That's what it is. That's what it does. Essentially, High Dynamic Range techniques are developed to compensate for the camera's limitations in capturing, in one instant, areas of a scene that greatly differ in terms of brightness.
Originally posted by violinist123:
Your camera has a limited dynamic range as does your output device, both of which fall far short of the human eye. |
I'm not sure the camera falls so very far short of the human eye. I'm not sure it doesn't either, but I think what you're saying is that it falls a fair way short of human perception. Of that I am sure. Human perception does not rely on one instant of exposure to a scene. It's all very complex, but we (and by this I mean our conscious perceptions) never receive unedited information directly from our eyes. What happens when we look out of a castle window at the view, for example, is that we scan the room and the window frame, with our irises adjusting according to the availability of light, and we scan what is visible through the window, making further adjustments for differences in light between the ground and sky etc. All of the received information is available to our perception and what we then 'see' is the edited highlights, as it were. We do have a whole lot of cognitive control as well, so that as we concentrate on the view outside we subliminate and ignore the curtains and the window ledge etc. The remembered scene, though, may very well approach the sort of result that HDR or similar techniques are aiming for. It's a strained comparison, because eyes aren't cameras and memories aren't prints, but even so.
Originally posted by violinist123:
Simply mapping a cartoonish palette of colors throughout the image doesn't change this. The only benefit it offers in my opinion is another special effect to increase the eye-candy factor of an image, if such candy happens to be to the viewer's taste. |
That pretty crassly begs the question of HDR "Simply mapping a cartoonish palette of colors throughout the image" which is a little harsh. It does often come over that way, though, so your opinion is fully understandable. As to the benefit it offers, that is no less than an opportunity to bring the photographic image closer to human perception.
It don't come easy, and it's not always a pretty sight when it fails, but there, there. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 04:35:22 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
... it still seems like many photos have so much dynamic range. If they aren't some form of HDR, either manual or program based, I'd like to know their secret! Maybe it is skilled use of curves and levels... |
I can guarantee that none of my shots -- overprocessed or otherwise -- use HDR/Tone-mapping ... though given my scores maybe they should. :-)
I am lazy -- about the only adjustments I use are Curves, Channel Mixer, and Duotone. If it's an Advanced Editing challenge, the use of curves with carefully drawn masks can achieve a lot.
Resized Original:  Entry:  Hah! -- I fibbed -- I also used Selective Color on this particular shot ...
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 16:40:00. |
|
|
|
11/17/2008 04:42:00 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by raish:
I'm not sure the camera falls so very far short of the human eye. I'm not sure it doesn't either, but I think what you're saying is that it falls a fair way short of human perception. |
I think most digital cameras have a dynamic range of 7 stops or less ... I think the human eye is capable of something more like 12-16 stops.
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 16:42:22. |
|
