DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Experimenting with Tone Mapping
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 101, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/20/2006 03:27:38 PM · #26
Originally posted by patrinus:

I have not finished reading the documentation on HDR, but I would like to know if HDR is possible using a single RAW processed in 3 different Exposure Values or if you really need the 3 different in-camera exposures.

I don't know what would happen inf Photomatix got 3 jpegs from the single RAW, I imagine that you could get higher DR but not as high as 3 different exposures, right?


It definitely works with 3 versions of the same RAW exposure, processed for shadows/midtones/highlights. That's specifically what I'm working on, because 3 in-camera exposures isn't legal for DPC. The documentation actually mentions using differently-processed takes from the same RAW exposure. I have one entered in Sept Free Study now that's exceptionally nice, FAR better than I was able to generate in PS with contrast masking and also much better than straight "averaging" with photomatix.

R.

BTW, for this you should process from RAW to Tiff, not jpg...

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 15:28:17.
09/20/2006 04:05:39 PM · #27
I've never been able to get Photoshop to accept multiple conversions of the RAW file for merge to HDR... are you supposed to do it manually and just mask off the places you want the other exposures to show?
09/20/2006 04:08:11 PM · #28
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


It definitely works with 3 versions of the same RAW exposure, processed for shadows/midtones/highlights. That's specifically what I'm working on, because 3 in-camera exposures isn't legal for DPC.


How is that HDR though? You are still working within the limits of the dynamic range of the camera and just cleaning up what it gave you to work with..?
09/20/2006 04:16:36 PM · #29
Any black/white examples for PhotomatixPro? Looking at Bear's example and others, I think I like the results somewhat but it's hard to gauge with the colors being so intense. This program may be of some interest to me for black/white work of existing photos since multiple raw file HDR would be out of the question.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 16:18:23.
09/20/2006 05:12:51 PM · #30
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

As stated at the beginning, THIS particular example of tone mapping is off-the-charts weird. I am experimenting with it as an effect, and pushed it to its extremes in this case..

OK, OK - you're off the hook this time.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And yeah, Brad, I paid 99 bux for it :-) Remember, I don't HAVE CS2, and can't run it until I upgrade my computer operating system...

Dat's cuz' you've been buyin up all the good glass over there, flying around the country, and probably spending far too much at the grocery store.
It's OK to upgrade you know.
Windows 3.11 has kind of run it's course, that is unless you really like writing batch files.
:)
09/20/2006 05:52:19 PM · #31
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I have been using the free version of PhotomatixPro for a while to generate extended dynamic range images. It's been interesting, but it was limited. I just paid for the registered copy to open up true HDRI imaging, and this includes something called "tone mapping" which I find fascinating. Here's an example of an extremely manipulated HDRI image with aggressive tone mapping. Note that nearly all this manipulation was done in Photomatix to generate the composite; PS was just used to clean it up a little and adjust the colors to be (believe it or not) less aggressive.



I'm aware that this is a flawed image on many levels, but an interesting effect is happening here.

R,


It is an interesting image... I found the combination of the realistic sunset tones in the sky and water, and unrealistic tones in the boats and foliage didn't quite work for me, so I tried playing with the hue slider in PS and came up with a more "alien landscape" feel - no idea if you will like it...



Message edited by author 2006-10-03 07:29:01.
09/20/2006 06:04:02 PM · #32
So, this is essential taking the same picture with different exposures and then having a program pic the best exposed areas and stiching them together to form one pic?

So I could essential meter for a bright sky, correctly exposing it, and then meter for a darker object (say a tree) correctly exposing it (cause know there aren't enough f stops to provide for what our eyes can see) and then put the two together?

If so, then I want to try it!
09/20/2006 06:16:33 PM · #33
Originally posted by jfriesen:

So, this is essential taking the same picture with different exposures and then having a program pic the best exposed areas and stiching them together to form one pic?

So I could essential meter for a bright sky, correctly exposing it, and then meter for a darker object (say a tree) correctly exposing it (cause know there aren't enough f stops to provide for what our eyes can see) and then put the two together?

If so, then I want to try it!


Yes, that's correct, that's the essence of HDR merging.

R.
09/20/2006 06:20:26 PM · #34
I understand HDR is basically for high contrast situations like those in landscapes. Has anybody tried this technique for portraits for example? is there something added to the photo or you really really want to have very high contrast in your photo for HDR to give a better rendition than the camera itself?.

If shooting people for example you would not be able to fully use HDR (exposure bracketing) you would have to use a single RAW file and process it for highlights/midtones/shadows. I would love to see more samples of HDR to really understand its use

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 18:21:43.
09/20/2006 06:20:32 PM · #35
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:


It definitely works with 3 versions of the same RAW exposure, processed for shadows/midtones/highlights. That's specifically what I'm working on, because 3 in-camera exposures isn't legal for DPC.


How is that HDR though? You are still working within the limits of the dynamic range of the camera and just cleaning up what it gave you to work with..?


If you push the histogram to the right as far as rational during exposure, you can create from RAW an under and an over that do not themselves look accurate but are better for the bright tones and the dark tones respectively: combining these two with the correctly exposed mid-tone image will give you significantly increased dynamic range in the composite. It's not as dramatic an effect as you can accomplish with separate exposures, but it's often superior to what you can do with levls, curves, and contrast masking off a single median exposure.

R.
09/20/2006 06:20:59 PM · #36
Cool! GIMP needs to get HDR then, now that'd be cool!
09/20/2006 06:25:23 PM · #37
Originally posted by jfriesen:

Cool! GIMP needs to get HDR then, now that'd be cool!


Go to //www.hdrsoft.com and download the trial version. It allows the merging of several images into one in the trial version, and that's good forever. I've used it quite a bit. I purchased the license so I could produce tone-mapped HDR images, which is the next step up. Give the basic version a try, you'll be amazed.

R.
09/20/2006 06:43:51 PM · #38
Originally posted by patrinus:

I understand HDR is basically for high contrast situations like those in landscapes. Has anybody tried this technique for portraits for example? is there something added to the photo or you really really want to have very high contrast in your photo for HDR to give a better rendition than the camera itself?.

If shooting people for example you would not be able to fully use HDR (exposure bracketing) you would have to use a single RAW file and process it for highlights/midtones/shadows. I would love to see more samples of HDR to really understand its use


You mean like these?:


Found these in traveller2020's profile. Very nice and intriguing!

As Bear said, go to HDRsoft link. They have pics there.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 18:46:05.
09/20/2006 09:57:02 PM · #39
Here's another HDR image out of Photomatix Pro... I tried on several occasions to make this look good using PhotoShop CS2's HDR (in fact, it was specifically for *this* picture that I ugpraded to CS2!!!) but I was never happy with the results.

Well... tonight, I took 4 separate exposures (this time they are 4 separate raw files, my others were from a single raw file), combined them into a single HDR image, and within minutes had a great looking image almost straight out of Photomatix Pro. I did do a tiny bit of tweaking inside of PhotoShop.


09/20/2006 10:32:13 PM · #40
Whats HDR? sorry im a newb.
09/20/2006 11:01:53 PM · #41
Originally posted by jmlelii:

Whats HDR? sorry im a newb.


"High Dynamic Range": It's software for sandwiching several exposures of the same scene so you can get shadow details and highlight details out of contrasty scenes without sacrificing mid-range contrast.

R.
09/21/2006 01:00:32 AM · #42
Here's an earlier-posted version of my pool shot in Florida, where I used contrast masking to try to contain the extreme tonal range, and the unsatisfactory result led me to juice it up with gothic glow for some visual impact; it was a lot of work.



Here's a companion shot (exposure's the same for both originals, the ball is oriented differently) processed for HDR and posted virtually straight from the HDR Tone Mapping utility:



Note the MUCH better rendition of the mid-tones, and MUCH more cloud and background detail both.

R.
09/21/2006 04:42:40 AM · #43
These hurt my eyes.
I'd love to play with an original just to see what could be done conventionally.
09/21/2006 11:13:28 AM · #44
Originally posted by BradP:

These hurt my eyes.
I'd love to play with an original just to see what could be done conventionally.


They are SUPPOSED to hurt your eyes :-) The extreme color is NOT a function of the tone mapping, obviously. Concentrate on the details, ignore the (apparently flawed) artistic decisions being made here, eh?

jejejeâ„¢

R.
09/21/2006 11:18:39 AM · #45
Bear's HDR rendition above looks much flatter to me - but cleaner. I notice that contrast masking always messes with my blues and I have to be very careful using it on images which include strong blues. But that's something Bear mentioned in the Landscape thread anyway. HDR is not the be all and end all.
09/21/2006 11:24:14 AM · #46
Originally posted by pineapple:

Bear's HDR rendition above looks much flatter to me - but cleaner. I notice that contrast masking always messes with my blues and I have to be very careful using it on images which include strong blues. But that's something Bear mentioned in the Landscape thread anyway. HDR is not the be all and end all.


Definitely not. What I'm doing is experimenting with different kinds of images here to see what happens, so I can be prepared to actually SHOOT for HDR in the right circumstances. And the blues are a problem in HDR as well, I might add :-) So are plain, bright skies, which is a bummer...

R.
09/21/2006 11:34:38 AM · #47
Thanks for being the guinea pig... I'm looking forward to upgrading one day from PS6.0 so this is all learning for me till then ;-)
09/21/2006 11:39:56 AM · #48
Originally posted by pineapple:

Thanks for being the guinea pig... I'm looking forward to upgrading one day from PS6.0 so this is all learning for me till then ;-)


You can play with merging images for expanded tonal range NOW, for free, by visiting //www.hdrsoft.com . Be sure to save-as TIFF, not jpg, and then open the merged image in PS and go from there.

R.
09/21/2006 12:47:07 PM · #49
A timely article at PopPhoto.com

How to Create High Dynamic Range Images

Does some comparisons also between Photomatrix and CS2.
09/21/2006 01:48:34 PM · #50
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... processed for HDR and posted virtually straight from the HDR Tone Mapping utility... Note the MUCH better rendition of the mid-tones, and MUCH more cloud and background detail both,




Some thought the tone mapped image was a little flat. This rendition is made from the tone mapped image above. It retains its details but pulls a bit more pop out of it.

Post:
1-Add standard 'S' Curves adjustment layer for mid-toned contrast. Paint black on mask to recover fine detail in background houses.
2-Add 50% grey layer and boost background building detail painting with 'vivid light' white at about 60% opacity.

The level of detail in this fuller version would not be possible without the tone mapping first. This is not to say mine is better, it just to say you can bring back a little more contrast from 'normal' processing applied after the tone mapping.

Message edited by author 2006-09-21 13:55:22.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 06:17:08 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 06:17:08 PM EDT.