Dude! Scarbrd in a CNN iReport on HDR?!?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/08/2011 03:53:53 PM · #1

I talk to David a fair amount, but I stumbled across this without his help. It is a CNN article on HDR photograph with some examples. Low an behold photo 8 comes up and I instantly recognize it as David's. Way to go!

HDR Photography: Love it or hate it?

citymars

Nikon D700

03/08/2011 04:10:29 PM · #2

Nice. David is quoted as opining that when people complain about HDR, they are really complaining about when it is overdone. That makes sense, though the definition of overdone is subjective. I know of one site that said if you can tell it's HDR from the thumbnail, it's overdone!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/08/2011 04:10:54 PM · #3

That's pretty cool, but I object to their way of labeling of the "before" photo -- are they comparing the HDR result with the under-exposed original or the middle or what?

Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux M MF - Chrome

03/08/2011 05:30:21 PM · #4

Thank Doc.

actually the quote isn't exactly right, but close enough.

Here's a link to the iReport that I filed. (My first iReport).

//ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-557955

They sent me an email asking if they could do a phone interview. That's where the mangled quotes come from.

What I was trying to say is that the camera may not always be able to accurately record what you see in your mind's eye. The human eye can react very quickly, so when I looked to the sky I saw the detail in the clouds and when I looked to the stones I also saw detail there. No single exposure could capture both. And speaking to the dynamic range of film vs. digital, I also said that it was a bit different with film, in that you can always burn in an area of film with little detail. In digital, you can't burn in what isn't there. I said all that, but it didn't make the final edit.

Anyway, it's cool that they picked my shot.
There's details on the processing in the photograher's notes on the DPC entry if anyone is interested.

Message edited by author 2011-03-08 17:32:15.

signal2noise

Leica M9

03/09/2011 09:29:35 AM · #5

Nice! Congrats!!

Nikon NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S

03/09/2011 11:00:15 AM · #6

Originally posted by GeneralE:

That's pretty cool, but I object to their way of labeling of the "before" photo -- are they comparing the HDR result with the under-exposed original or the middle or what?

Can't speak for the others, but mine was the "normal" exposure. The request for the iReport said to send the HDR image and a single exposure with any processing. Of course, any RAW conversion assumes some level of processing.

Message edited by author 2011-03-09 11:00:24.

tjbel05

Nikon Z9

03/09/2011 12:50:34 PM · #7

Congrats! Great Job.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/09/2011 12:57:21 PM · #8

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I also said that it was a bit different with film, in that you can always burn in an area of film with little detail. In digital, you can't burn in what isn't there.

In film, you can burn in what isn't there? Or if it is there with film, there's no reason why it couldn't be there with digital... you just need better equipment.

03/09/2011 01:23:20 PM · #9

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
I also said that it was a bit different with film, in that you can always burn in an area of film with little detail. In digital, you can't burn in what isn't there.

In film, you can burn in what isn't there? Or if it is there with film, there's no reason why it couldn't be there with digital... you just need better equipment.

Are you saying that digital has the same dynamic range as film? I don't agree.

In my film days I had negatives, especially mendium format and 4x5, that had overexposed areas that I could burn in durning the printing process, sometimes for 30 minutes or more, that would reveal quite a bit of detail.

The same exposure on a digital file, If you have a blown out area, all the burning in the world isn't going to get you any more detail.

Hence, HDR digital imaging.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2011 01:56:05 PM · #10

That isn't quite true. RAW captures more detail than you can see without changing the exposure in ACR. BUT, I do think film may have had more stops of dynamic range than a single RAW capture on a digital sensor.

I'm sure the answer is out there though. Does anybody have it?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/09/2011 02:10:50 PM · #11

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... I do think film may have had more stops of dynamic range than a single RAW capture on a digital sensor.

I'm sure the answer is out there though. Does anybody have it?

I'm sure it will vary with the film manufacturer, emulsion speed, and developing process. There's no one answer to "film has a dynamic range of ____."

One thing for sure, no (common) film or sensor has a DR as great as the human eye.

alohadave

Pentax K-5

Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL AF

03/09/2011 02:17:42 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's not necessarily that film has more dynamic range, it's that the shoulder areas (specifically the highlight shoulder) retain detail that can be recovered where digital would blow out the same detail areas. That's why you can burn in highlights to recover details.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2011 02:44:25 PM · #13

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That isn't quite true. RAW captures more detail than you can see without changing the exposure in ACR. BUT, I do think film may have had more stops of dynamic range than a single RAW capture on a digital sensor.

I'm sure the answer is out there though. Does anybody have it?

It's not necessarily that film has more dynamic range, it's that the shoulder areas (specifically the highlight shoulder) retain detail that can be recovered where digital would blow out the same detail areas. That's why you can burn in highlights to recover details.

Hmm, but my understanding is that digital is far better at highlights when compared to digital and darks. You get noise in the darks, but you get detail in the brights. So perhaps the question is how many stops above a medium gray can film and digital capture information?

Wiki is only so helpful. It says this: "The dynamic range of sensors used in digital photography is many times less than that of the human eye and generally not as wide as that of chemical photographic media." but has no source listed.

Message edited by author 2011-03-09 14:47:00.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/09/2011 02:47:18 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So perhaps the question is how many stops above a medium gray can film and digital capture information?

Why don't you take some shots of fine-lined graph paper at 1-stop incrementally increasing exposures and reveal all to the rest of us?

03/09/2011 03:43:37 PM · #15

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That isn't quite true. RAW captures more detail than you can see without changing the exposure in ACR. BUT, I do think film may have had more stops of dynamic range than a single RAW capture on a digital sensor.

I'm sure the answer is out there though. Does anybody have it?

It's not necessarily that film has more dynamic range, it's that the shoulder areas (specifically the highlight shoulder) retain detail that can be recovered where digital would blow out the same detail areas. That's why you can burn in highlights to recover details.

Hmm, but my understanding is that digital is far better at highlights when compared to digital and darks. You get noise in the darks, but you get detail in the brights. So perhaps the question is how many stops above a medium gray can film and digital capture information?

Wiki is only so helpful. It says this: "The dynamic range of sensors used in digital photography is many times less than that of the human eye and generally not as wide as that of chemical photographic media." but has no source listed.

While not in terms of dynamic range, but in the context of the Ansel Adams Zone System, I've read somewhare that Tri-X film could record from zone .5 to zone 9.5 on a scale of 0-10. 0 being the darkest and 10 being the lightest.

Good explination of the Zone System

So, this particular film has a 9 stop range.

According to a Luminous Landscapre article, the practical limit for a digital sensor is 6 stops. You have to get into the 8-bit, 16-bit, 48-bit conversation and the tonal range of capable printers to explore all the possibilities, but for final output in many forms, 6 stops is the limit.

As in Zone system, you have to take into account the exposure, the film, the processing, the darkroom, and the printing to fully realize all the capabilities, with digital imaging, you have to consider the sensor, the exposure, the post porcessing, the pixel depth, and the printing to have the same conversation.

At the end of the day, film still has the dynamic and tonal range advantage over digital.

03/09/2011 04:18:23 PM · #16

I guess in my gut I just don't suspect that is true. 3 whole stops more? Film has 8x the dynamic range of digital? It seems if that was the case we would have seen an obvious regression in quality as people jumped from film to digital. I suppose it's possible that the difference in range exists but has no practical impact. By the time you display it on a screen or on a piece of paper all the benefit is lost and you are back to similar output ranges.

03/09/2011 04:28:07 PM · #17

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are right on the usable range. 6 stops is plenty in most cases.

The original point was, if you have overexposed highlights in an image, you are more likely to recover them into something usable with film than with digital.

the whole HDR thing can be misleading. What most people are calling HDR is actually Tomemapping. HDR is using multiple exposures to compensate for the lack of tonal range, Tonemapping is the process of using the various exposures in differnt parts of the image to achieve detail in highlights and shadows as desired.

I am sure someone like

Bear_Music can explain it better.

Message edited by author 2011-03-09 16:33:03.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/09/2011 04:48:39 PM · #18

Film is all but dead, so this is like debating the merits of Betamax over DVD.

Garry

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/09/2011 04:52:36 PM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

Film is all but dead, so this is like debating the merits of Betamax over DVD.

PS...VHS was much better ;)

03/09/2011 05:13:22 PM · #20

Originally posted by scalvert:

Film is all but dead, so this is like debating the merits of Betamax over DVD.

Dead is a bit harsh, but I agree for most practical purposes digital is king.

It doesn't change the fact that film is the standard by which digital is judged. I'm not advocating using film over digital, that ship sailed for me a long time ago.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/09/2011 05:18:26 PM · #21

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Dead is a bit harsh, but I agree for most practical purposes digital is king.

Some people still swear by vinyl records.