| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2006 12:42:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm a bit leery to think that a plug-in is basic legal just because it has one dialog box. ... |
Was kind of wondering that myself. Anybody had an image validated by SC yet using this software? |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:46:02 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Originally posted by mpeters:
I've experimented with the free version of Photomatix with varied results but i'm really trying to figure out how to use CS2 HDR generation from 2 or more RAW coversions of the same file. Has anyone done this successfully? I recieve an error message stating that there isn't enough dynamic range to benefit from HDR. I wonder if the program is looking at the original exif data and interpreting the multiple conversions as one picture???? Maybe i could get rid of the exif tag and the program wouldn't know that the RAW conversions were from the same file.
Any comments? help? |
I have not done this successfully, but I think you are on the right track. I read somewhere (I can't remember where, now) that CS2 is indeed looking at the exif and pulling the same exposure value from all images. Thus, in theory, if there is no exif associated with each image, CS2 should try to HDR them and you should not get the error. |
What should be done in order to get a true HDR image is take at least 3 different images with 3 different EVs, for example you could go with -3,0,+3 or have even more -3,-1,0,+1,+3. Actually the more different exposures you get the better because there will actually be more dynamic range across the whole set of exposures. Of course this would require a solid tripod and a static scene (water is ok, but it will look like moving water in the HDR final).
A different thing is Tone Mapping, it is the 3rd step after you have created a single image from multiple originals with different EVs, and it is intendend to give you control over how the final image should see, how to interpret in a non HDR medium (monitor, photo printo) an HDR image.
You can apply tone mapping directly to a non HDR image (preferably a 16 bit image) and it would anyway bring out more detail both in shadows and highlights, this way you can bring out a very interesting look and a bit wider Dynamic Range but this is not true High Dynamic Range.
In the photo that I posted above (below) I used tone mapping with a single exposure. Also you can look at some other examples of tone-mapping with a single exposure here:
Kiwiness Portfolio Also take a look at his Venice folder, there are some very interesting Tone Mapped images there |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:53:50 PM · #28 |
| It doesn't look so much like these images have a higher dynamic range, than that they have much increased local contrast. The various challenge entries from Robert look that way too - lots of additional local contrast enhancement - is that the aim ? The more cartoonish kid's photo (which is great btw) also looks the same way - lots of localised contrast increases. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:58:43 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by patrinus:
Originally posted by ursula:
I get the feeling this would work for a lot of stuff besides landscape shots. Very interesting.
Thanks! Experimentation phase to follow. |
I just uploaded a portrait of a kid processed with HDR, It looks a bit fakey (cartoonish) and a bit painterly (at least to me), what I can say is it turned an ok photo into something that has been really memorable for lots of people (the more people that look at this photo the more they like it). I am also in the experimentation process, let's see what you think about it, I am trying to experiment with portraits and specially kids seem to be good subjects because of the even skin (I have tried this with older people but it just looks a bit freaky hehe)
***edit***
I forgot to add that this is not the straight tone mapped image, it is rather the blend of tone mapped and original image so it would not look too overdone, I have found that I prefer blending tone mapped with originals, this way you can get some of the benefits of tone mapping but have a "realistic" ground (whatever that is) or at least something that everyone is used to see that can bring down the fakey look of tone mapping |
Yeah, that's what I was talking about with "other" uses. Give me some time to experiment (I have to do some real work this morning, and maybe this afternoon, so I don't get to experiment much until later).
And yes, kiwi's Venice portfolio is quite interesting to look at when thinking tone-mapping.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:00:47. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:59:28 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm a bit leery to think that a plug-in is basic legal just because it has one dialog box. What ever happened to "what goes on behind the scenes"? I thought this was taken into consideration.
Perhaps I'm missing what is exactly being done here. Are we using a 3rd party application or are we using PS's tone mapping? |
I brought up the same question about tone-mapping earlier today with Site Council. I don't have an answer now. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:02:17 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm a bit leery to think that a plug-in is basic legal just because it has one dialog box. What ever happened to "what goes on behind the scenes"? I thought this was taken into consideration.
Perhaps I'm missing what is exactly being done here. Are we using a 3rd party application or are we using PS's tone mapping? |
I'M using a standalone program called Photomatix Pro to add local contrast to a single exposure. It's not fundamentally any different from using shadow/highlight adjustment in CS2, which I don't have.
I'm also working with full-blown HDRI images processed from variations of a single RAW file, but those are only legal in advanced editing.
Finally, I'm edging into true HDRI using several different RAW exposures of the same scene, but the processing time is excessive on my slow machine, and I'll probably not go any further with that until I get a new computer.
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:05:16 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It doesn't look so much like these images have a higher dynamic range, than that they have much increased local contrast. The various challenge entries from Robert look that way too - lots of additional local contrast enhancement - is that the aim ? The more cartoonish kid's photo (which is great btw) also looks the same way - lots of localised contrast increases. |
Ah. So after going and reading some of the background maths on this - that is basically what the tone mapping is about. How do you take a high dynamic range image and automatically turn it back into something you can show on a low dynamic range screen - and the way you do that is, localised contrast enhancement.
Makes more sense now.
My main problem with most HDR images I've seen (such as the Eiffel tower image on the Photomatix web site) is that HDR seems to be getting used to mainly to fix crappy lighting situations. But the light is still not very good. It is maybe rendered more like it was when you looked at it when you stood there, but the light just isn't very pleasing to the eye.
So you can take pictures in situations where the light has a high dynamic range (e.g., bright sunny days at mid day) and you can more realistically render the result by capturing multiple exposures, but the end result is you have have a realistic capture of unphotogenic light.
It makes me wonder that the limitations of current dynamic range isn't so much a problem with the technology, than an implicit restriction of the appeal of the light quality. If someone wants to point to good, well rendered high dynamic images that have a compelling quality of light, I'd love to see some.
Another aspect of this could well be the fundamental limits of the viewing media - looking at HDR images on a low dynamic range screen, is sort of like viewing a 3D movie without the glasses. You can't see all the extra information.
I'm not convinced that automatic transforms are the best way to recover that information - now if there were HDR to LDR tools that would let you put the masks in and control the translation more directly and locally that would be more interesting. I've done similar in photoshop when converting to B&Ws - locally selecting which of the red, green and blue sections get pulled in for particular parts of the scene. It gives massively more control over the B&W conversion process than say, channel mixer, or any of the global translation approaches. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:08:42 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm a bit leery to think that a plug-in is basic legal just because it has one dialog box. ... |
Was kind of wondering that myself. Anybody had an image validated by SC yet using this software? |
I raised that question in a thread last week and one of the SC opined that it should be OK.
Here's the history of my experimentation: as many of you know, I'm a heavy user of "contrast masking" in PS7, but it's not basic legal because it uses layers with content int hem and different blending modes. Then CS2 came out (I can't run it because my machine is out of date) with its shadow/highlight dialogue box. This is basically a more sophisticated version of contrast masking, generated from a single dialogue box.
SC declared CS2 shadow/highlight legal in basic editing, putting us in the position where the hand-made version of PS7 is NOT legal but the automated version of CS2 is. Since I can't run CS2, I was looking for alternatives. When Melethia was visiting here I got to play with CS2 on her laptop, and I looked closely at shadow/highlight dialogue box.
What we have in Photomatix Pro with tone mapping on a single exposure very closely parallels the CS2 shadow/highlight, except that it seems to be more capable of extremes. I cannot imagine ANY rationale where shadow/highlight is basic-legal and tone mapping from a single exposure is not.
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:10:59 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
SC declared CS2 shadow/highlight legal in basic editing, putting us in the position where the hand-made version of PS7 is NOT legal but the automated version of CS2 is. |
Oh, the tangled webs we weave
When we practice to deceive.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:13:23 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's another experiment, from this afternoon:
 (original)
 (rotated, cropped, tone mapped)
(this was a grabshot, handheld at 200mm, 1/60 sec, as the gull was stepping away from me; I'd been shooting the clouds)
R. |
Did you do any sharpening or was that done with tone mapping? What settings do you typically start with? This tone mapping looks really interesting. |
My RAW images are all made with sharpening set to zero, so that's what the original shows. The finished version has been sharpened with USM. However, since USM sharpening is a matter of increasing local contrast details, a tone-mapped image by its nature is sharper than one that is not tone mapped.
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:14:05 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It doesn't look so much like these images have a higher dynamic range, than that they have much increased local contrast. The various challenge entries from Robert look that way too - lots of additional local contrast enhancement - is that the aim ? The more cartoonish kid's photo (which is great btw) also looks the same way - lots of localised contrast increases. |
Ah. So after going and reading some of the background maths on this - that is basically what the tone mapping is about. How do you take a high dynamic range image and automatically turn it back into something you can show on a low dynamic range screen - and the way you do that is, localised contrast enhancement.
Makes more sense now.
My main problem with most HDR images I've seen (such as the Eiffel tower image on the Photomatix web site) is that HDR seems to be getting used to mainly to fix crappy lighting situations. But the light is still not very good. It is maybe rendered more like it was when you looked at it when you stood there, but the light just isn't very pleasing to the eye.
So you can take pictures in situations where the light has a high dynamic range (e.g., bright sunny days at mid day) and you can more realistically render the result by capturing multiple exposures, but the end result is you have have a realistic capture of unphotogenic light.
It makes me wonder that the limitations of current dynamic range isn't so much a problem with the technology, than an implicit restriction of the appeal of the light quality. If someone wants to point to good, well rendered high dynamic images that have a compelling quality of light, I'd love to see some.
Another aspect of this could well be the fundamental limits of the viewing media - looking at HDR images on a low dynamic range screen, is sort of like viewing a 3D movie without the glasses. You can't see all the extra information.
I'm not convinced that automatic transforms are the best way to recover that information - now if there were HDR to LDR tools that would let you put the masks in and control the translation more directly and locally that would be more interesting. I've done similar in photoshop when converting to B&Ws - locally selecting which of the red, green and blue sections get pulled in for particular parts of the scene. It gives massively more control over the B&W conversion process than say, channel mixer, or any of the global translation approaches. |
Very interesting. That's probably the reason for my reaction to many (if not most) of the HDR (or tone-mapped) images I've seen so far, "Weird!".
I guess that just goes to show, one more time, that nothing beats a good image to start out. Concentrate on the basics, Ursula, not the pp, and you'll be fine. Interesting.
I think another thing that has been bothering me about the whole concept of tone-mapping is that the results look so much alike, there's little life left in many of them, they look too technical, no meat in them (if that makes sense). Even examples like kiwiness' beautiful Venice shots, they are beautiful, but to my eyes sort of lifeless, too perfect in a way. In some instances it works (like in patrinus' example), but usually there's something about them that simply turns me off. Like too much of the same, no juice, no life left.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:16:02. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:15:22 PM · #37 |
Ya, I'm not trying to rain on your parade Robert. I agree with your fundamental point that shadow/highlight does basically the same thing and is basic legal. It does, on the other hand, seem like a slippery slope.
Technology, it's a bitch to keep on top of, eh?
Personally, I haven't really dug the effects I've seen so far. That's not to say they aren't good, but just not my taste. I am somewhat intrigued by the portrait of the child because I have wanted to find a method to attain that effect. It is very Joey Lawrence. I've never been good at doing grunge processing. I guess I need to buy his DVD...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:15:52 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I've experimented with the free version of Photomatix with varied results but i'm really trying to figure out how to use CS2 HDR generation from 2 or more RAW coversions of the same file. Has anyone done this successfully? I recieve an error message stating that there isn't enough dynamic range to benefit from HDR. I wonder if the program is looking at the original exif data and interpreting the multiple conversions as one picture???? Maybe i could get rid of the exif tag and the program wouldn't know that the RAW conversions were from the same file.
Any comments? help? |
The free version does not support tone mapping, just combining of images by "averaging", which is a whole other beast.
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:17:01 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ya, I'm not trying to rain on your parade Robert. I agree with your fundamental point that shadow/highlight does basically the same thing and is basic legal. It does, on the other hand, seem like a slippery slope.
Technology, it's a bitch to keep on top of, eh?
Personally, I haven't really dug the effects I've seen so far. That's not to say they aren't good, but just not my taste. I am somewhat intrigued by the portrait of the child because I have wanted to find a method to attain that effect. It is very Joey Lawrence. I've never been good at doing grunge processing. I guess I need to buy his DVD... |
But you know, Jason, you're really good at a lot of other stuff, and not everyone needs to do grunge. It's not necessary. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:18:37 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
a tone-mapped image by its nature is sharper than one that is not tone mapped.
|
This, again, speaks to the local contrast enhancement.
For most cases, 'sharpness' in an image is added by increasing the contrast, or step transition across edges in an image [mach bands] (by brightening the bright side and darkening the dark side) Your eye tends to see abrupt transitions in brightness as a sharper edge. So you increase sharpness by increasing the contrast on the edge.
Tone mapping increases local contrast, hence adds sharpness to the image.
This, also, is why 'halo's appear if you sharpen too much - you've lightened the light edges too much, so that the lightening becomes visually noticeable - as a halo around the edges.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:20:36. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:18:38 PM · #41 |
Gordon, I'd have to try to locate the link again, but I saw a great one of the inside of a cathedral.
My hope would be to be able to render a shot like this much closer to how the eye sees it. Lighting like this, in real life, is so pleasant to my eye, but never comes near in a captured image.
I did use two RAW conversions for this shot.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:19:21 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
What's the notion behind the sepia overlay you are doing? Add back in the contrast you removed? |
Yes. In that case an overflattened, oversaturated tone mapped image was merged with a contrastier sepia version to add back density to the shadows while still supporting the increased local contrast, especially on the water. It also served to desaturate the whole image noticeably. I have other versions with barely7 any color, I'm just messing around trying things.
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:21:56 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gordon, I'd have to try to locate the link again, but I saw a great one of the inside of a cathedral.
My hope would be to be able to render a shot like this much closer to how the eye sees it. Lighting like this, in real life, is so pleasant to my eye, but never comes near in a captured image.
I did use two RAW conversions for this shot. |
I do need to say that I can see a lot of applications for HDR images for architectural photography. In most cases, architectural images are composed of multiple shots anyway, to capture the dynamic range from inside to out and to realistically render interior light sources/ lamps etc.
For landscapes though, it often seems to be used to shoot when the light is crap. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:22:34 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I think another thing that has been bothering me about the whole concept of tone-mapping is that the results look so much alike, there's little life left in many of them, they look too technical, no meat in them (if that makes sense). Even examples like kiwiness' beautiful Venice shots, they are beautiful, but to my eyes sort of lifeless, too perfect in a way. In some instances it works (like in patrinus' example), but usually there's something about them that simply turns me off. Like too much of the same, no juice, no life left. |
Do you feel that way about this one? Compare with the original linked in Photographer's Notes.
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:22:53 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gordon, I'd have to try to locate the link again, but I saw a great one of the inside of a cathedral.
My hope would be to be able to render a shot like this much closer to how the eye sees it. Lighting like this, in real life, is so pleasant to my eye, but never comes near in a captured image.
I did use two RAW conversions for this shot. |
I have a maybe silly question about this.
Is it really true that what we see with our eyes is closer to a tone-mapped image? Or is it what we see with our imaginations? I know that eyes are able to register a larger range than sensors, but, when I really just look at stuff, sometimes I can see the larger range of lights, at other times not, and I never know which one is real and which one is my mind playing tricks. Does that make sense? I mean, just sit there and relax your eyes and look out from inside the room through a bright window. To me, the dark edges around the window (wood in this case) keep flipping in and out of silhouette mode - as my eyes adjust to the outside light, the wood looks blacker, if I concentrate on the wood, it becomes clearer. What's real? |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:24:26 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
I think another thing that has been bothering me about the whole concept of tone-mapping is that the results look so much alike, there's little life left in many of them, they look too technical, no meat in them (if that makes sense). Even examples like kiwiness' beautiful Venice shots, they are beautiful, but to my eyes sort of lifeless, too perfect in a way. In some instances it works (like in patrinus' example), but usually there's something about them that simply turns me off. Like too much of the same, no juice, no life left. |
Do you feel that way about this one? Compare with the original linked in Photographer's Notes.
R. |
Oh, no, and you know I don't. I asked you for a print of that one, it's absolutely lovely. But it is a bit of an exception. And exceptions do not prove the rule. In general, I have not liked the results of tone-mapping/HDR. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:30:44 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Do you feel that way about this one? Compare with the original linked in Photographer's Notes.
R. |
I lik the top 2/3rds of that shot - I'm 'bothered' by what appears to be spotlights of light on the sand that don't look like they were ever there when the shot was taken. I'm assuming those are dodged/ burned in, but it seems pretty dramatic.
I suspect though that the rest of the effect of the image (mainly the water/ clouds) would be as easily achieved with just contrast enhancement and dodging/ burning. Though as you've mentioned before, you are restricted in the tools you have available.
Is it actually an HDR image ? (multiple exposures combined?) Edit: I see that it isn't from the shot info.
Have you tried doing any of this just with unsharp mask to get an equivalent localised contrast enhancement ?
(e.g. high radius value, 0 threshold, then vary the amount ?)
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:35:33. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:35:29 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gordon, I'd have to try to locate the link again, but I saw a great one of the inside of a cathedral.
My hope would be to be able to render a shot like this much closer to how the eye sees it. Lighting like this, in real life, is so pleasant to my eye, but never comes near in a captured image.
I did use two RAW conversions for this shot. |
I have a maybe silly question about this.
Is it really true that what we see with our eyes is closer to a tone-mapped image? Or is it what we see with our imaginations? I know that eyes are able to register a larger range than sensors, but, when I really just look at stuff, sometimes I can see the larger range of lights, at other times not, and I never know which one is real and which one is my mind playing tricks. Does that make sense? I mean, just sit there and relax your eyes and look out from inside the room through a bright window. To me, the dark edges around the window (wood in this case) keep flipping in and out of silhouette mode - as my eyes adjust to the outside light, the wood looks blacker, if I concentrate on the wood, it becomes clearer. What's real? |
Everything involving vision is in the category of tricks played by the mind. The eyes are lenses, the retina is a sensor, the optic nerves transmit RAW information to the brain, the brain processes the information and creates a virtual image. Sit inside under tungsten lights at twilight and the room looks neutral; glance out the window and the landscape looks blue. Go outside and look in the window and the room looks yellow. Stand outside looking at the sky and the blue goes neutral, Step back inside and the room is yellow, the viuew out the window is neutral, Sit inside a few minutes, and the view turns blue again; auto WB of the brain.
It's the same with high dynamic range, basically; the brain is effectively processing different versions and layering them. In the example earlier showing the processing screen, the shot of the red train, when I am looking at that scene I see the detail in the shadows inside the vestibules, but they are obliterated in the straight exposure.
From my perspective, what's "real" is what is there, regardless of the lighting. If I look at the exact same scene front-lit and backlit, I don't say to myself "Hrm, the side of the tree facing me has no detail in this backlit scene." Instead I look at it and see that the light is essentially messing with the reality of objects; it is altering our perception of them. And that's good, that's what photography is all about.
So with tone mapping I see a very sophisticated tool, which I am using clumsily right now as I learn its capabilities, for working with the objects and the light both, using the tool in an expressive way to communicate what I am seeing, what I want to show.
I'd be the first to agree that aggressive tone-mapping creates cartoons, and that's not my goal. But only by exploring the limits can I refine my processing as I zero in on my ultimate target: 20 outstanding images for a show in June.
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:42:11 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by ursula:
Do you feel that way about this one? Compare with the original linked in Photographer's Notes.
R. |
I lik the top 2/3rds of that shot - I'm 'bothered' by what appears to be spotlights of light on the sand that don't look like they were ever there when the shot was taken. I'm assuming those are dodged/ burned in, but it seems pretty dramatic.
I suspect though that the rest of the effect of the image (mainly the water/ clouds) would be as easily achieved with just contrast enhancement and dodging/ burning. Though as you've mentioned before, you are restricted in the tools you have available.
Is it actually an HDR image ? (multiple exposures combined?) Edit: I see that it isn't from the shot info.
Have you tried doing any of this just with unsharp mask to get an equivalent localised contrast enhancement ?
(e.g. high radius value, 0 threshold, then vary the amount ?) |
I specified a "single exposure" to make clear I didn't use multiple separate exposures. But in actuality I took a single RAW exposure, processed it 3 times, combined them into a single HDR image, and tone mapped that. The foreground tonalities are NOT manipulated by dodging and burning; the only work like that is a little bit on the abutment projecting in from the left, not on the beach or the beach's rocks.
I had many variations of this using other techniques, and none of them pleased me that much. I paid for Photomatix Pro specifically so I could process this image before the deadline :-) I have no doubt that really skilled maskers and tinkerers can approach this rendering without tone mapping, but I am not one of those. Believe it or not, I try to keep my processing workflow as straightforward as possible. That's why I love this tone mapping so much. Now to get it under control...
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:48:13 PM · #50 |
I'm not sure that conventional PS editing doesn't yield as good or better results Robert.
   
Your RAW conv. - Tone mapped - PS'd version - My PS edit
(easiest to click on each, then switch in the taskbar to see changes)
Just playing the Devil's Advocate in a way. I'm there are cases where TM
does do justice, but the rendering seems a bit odd, at least in my eyes.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:49:41. |
|
