|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2006 01:56:11 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
..... |
Ahhh. That explains a lot. See, I tend to think of "real" (probably the wrong word, but I'll use it here) as what I see, not what's there regardless of lighting. To me, the brain is adjusting way too much the way it is already, and I prefer to try and relax and look at stuff and see it for what it really is. If it looks yellow because of the tungsten lights, it is yellow, whether the paper actually is white or not.
To me, there's a lot of beauty in this approach. It's the ever-changing nature of light in all it's glory.
But I can see where someone else might have a different approach.
EDIT spelling
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:56:34. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:57:09 PM · #52 |
Well, as I pointed out in the beginning, it's just me messing around with the process. The significant difference is in the rendering of the surface of the water and the rocks. Especially the water. I wouldn't hold this up as a sterling example of primo tone-mapping, for sure :-) I originally posted it just to show a more subdued use of the TM as part of the layered workflow, as opposed to the more extreme, "straight" tone mapped images I had been showing.
R. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:00:40 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
R. |
This one, Bear, is by far the best I've seen come out of your experimenting. It is a very pleasing shot and far superior to the original.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:03:48 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
..... |
Ahhh. That explains a lot. See, I tend to think of "real" (probably the wrong word, but I'll use it here) as what I see, not what's there regardless of lighting. To me, the brain is adjusting way too much the way it is already, and I prefer to try and relax and look at stuff and see it for what it really is. If it looks yellow because of the tungsten lights, it is yellow, whether the paper actually is white or not.
To me, there's a lot of beauty in this approach. It's the ever-changing nature of light in all it's glory.
But I can see where someone else might have a different approach.
EDIT spelling |
We're actually on the same wavelength; it's just that I am always looking for ways to nudge images more int he direction of what I "saw". For example, the tone-mapped version of the Ecola Point shot is MUCH closer to what I "saw" than the unedited original is. So my quest is simply for whatever processing tools/techniques get me closer to that previsualized result.
Compare Ansel Adams for historical perspective; in a very real sense, when he previsualized a scene then exposed & processed his negative4s and made his prints, he was using "tone mapping", and he has LOTS of "local contrast enhancement" because of it, so that you see strikingly rich detail in the dark areas and extreme texture on brighter surfaces...
Tone mapping, for me, is beginning to approach what I used to do with B/W negatives/prints, where the subjective "feel" of the rendered image is more "real", in the sense that it's more true to what I saw and felt, than the native exposure straight from camera could possibly be.
A good example of YOU going way beyond the captured image in pursuit of your vision is this fine shot:
R.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 14:06:43. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:08:17 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
..... |
Ahhh. That explains a lot. See, I tend to think of "real" (probably the wrong word, but I'll use it here) as what I see, not what's there regardless of lighting. To me, the brain is adjusting way too much the way it is already, and I prefer to try and relax and look at stuff and see it for what it really is. If it looks yellow because of the tungsten lights, it is yellow, whether the paper actually is white or not.
To me, there's a lot of beauty in this approach. It's the ever-changing nature of light in all it's glory.
But I can see where someone else might have a different approach.
EDIT spelling |
We're actually on the same wavelength; it's just that I am always looking for ways to nudge images more int he direction of what I "saw". For example, the tone-mapped version of the Ecola Point shot is MUCH closer to what I "saw" than the unedited original is. So my quest is simply for whatever processing tools/techniques get me closer to that previsualized result.
Compare Ansel Adams for historical perspective; in a very real sense, when he previsualized a scene then exposed & processed his negative4s and made his prints, he was using "tone mapping", and he has LOTS of "local contrast enhancement" because of it, so that you see strikingly rich detail in the dark areas and extreme texture on brighter surfaces...
Tone mapping, for me, is beginning to approach what I used to do with B/W negatives/prints, where the subjective "feel" of the rendered image is more "real", int he sense that it's more true to what I saw and felt, than the native exposure straight from camera could possibly be.
R. |
OK, makes sense. I love this exchange of ideas!
I must say that I've never read Ansel Adams, or even looked much at his photos. I'll have to do that one of these days. I mean, I've seen the posters and calendars, and a couple books at the public library, but I've never really "looked" at his images or read any of his stuff. I'm not much of a technique person when it comes to photography, and I was hoping to be even less so in the future :)
----
And I answered before you added the last section.
Funny about that dandelion image - I felt tremendously apologetical (is that the way you say it?) about it, because of the processing. It's been my goal to get images that do not need much processing, it is now more than ever. I tend to find RAW somewhat frustrating because of that, it seems to lead to a lazier approach to photography. Well, actually, the whole digital approach leads in that direction. I mean, in digital I can shoot 100 images and pick one, so easy, whereas if I were using film I'd be much more careful.
I've been trying to work in digital as if I were using film, set it up well, don't just do "crap" stuff (oyyy, I sad a bad word) because you can (and my latest entry to bokeh is one of those, done because I can more or less, no life in it).
Musings.
ADDED: And I just realized what a stupid thing it is to say that I've been trying to work in digital as if it were film. Duh! That's what people like AA were doing. Working in film, and they did all sorts of stuff afterwards to the negative. Yikes!
Oh well. Still .... nothing like starting with a good negative :P
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 14:24:48. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:27:35 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I've been trying to work in digital as if I were using film, set it up well, don't just do "crap" stuff (oyyy, I sad a bad word) because you can (and my latest entry to bokeh is one of those, done because I can more or less, no life in it).
Musings. |
A lot of this comes down to process. That is, what process you go through with your images. There's nothing inherent about digital that means you take more photos for example. The immediate costs might be less than film, but that's because you paid all those upfront costs. (Expensive camera vs expensive processing)
It can certainly be instructive to take just enough memory with you to make one exposure. Just one. No opportunity to delete it - that's what you are stuck with.
That can be an educational 30 day or 3 month or 1 year project. One exposure per day - no more, no less. Talk about slowing down your process...
On the flip side of process, is 'post-processing' In many ways I find that a terrible name - it isn't the processing you do after you've taken the image - its the processing you do to _make_ the final image.
But - the key point is that the image you put into the start of the 'pipe' certainly has a lot to do with what comes out. You need to put
the optimal version in to get the best results out. There isn't a lot to be said for wasting time 'fixing' mistakes if you could have fixed it prior to exposure - light, composition, stuff in the frame etc.
This is the discipline that leads to the 'straight from the camera' challenge ideas - and I think it is a great skill to improve. Capture the best possible image, straight from the camera. And with that you are probably half way there to a good image ;)
But - and this is where the 'straight from the camera' idea falls down -
what the best possible image means, depends on your process.
If you know you are going to do a lot of contrast work, post processing etc - you want an image from the camera that captures the most information. For example, in terms of contrast, you want something fairly flat - it is easier to add than remove contrast. In terms of colour saturation, you want a wide gamut, so that you can then compress it down to your final vision. You want the best raw (or RAW) material that suits your process.
The learning steps along the way - slowing down, limited frames, best straight from the camera, etc - are all key stages in putting together a flow or process that works for you (or for a body of images)
The more experienced you get, probably the tendancy to move away from fixing, to finalising images. You stop repairing mistakes and move to optimising results.
Previsualisation is fundamental to this too - if you aren't sure where you plan to go, then you don't know the steps to take, right back to not being sure where to start. Trying to get the final results you thought you were going to get right back at the start and working out all the steps between here and there is a great skill to work towards. It takes concious practice though. Intent. Previsualisation.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:34:45 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ursula:
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. |
Always nice to have another tool in the box. Don't have to use it often, but good to know it's there...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:44:37 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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.
Robt. |
Our minds indeed play visual tricks on us. In fact, our mind magnifies things in the distance. That huge moon on the horizon is huge mainly because our mind magnifies it. To prove it, look upside down at the moon when it's huge and it will appear smaller because the reference of the horizon is no longer where it should be. Auto zoom of the brain. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:50:49 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by patrinus:
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 |
It does appear that PS look at the exif data when combining files for HDR. I ran 6 RAW exposures from the same file through Neat image demo with all settings dialed down to zero. This removed the exif data. PS then allowed a HDR conversion. Here is the resulting image and a comparison image, both with a the same curve, contrast, and USM applied. I see that tone-mapping is another animal and i am going to download the Photomatix demo version to experiment more.
HDR  original EV 0 
The HDR tended to be pretty red, especially in the ceiling woodwork, but i recall this being a little closer to the actual wood color. The iron lights show up much better on the HDR version. Highlites at end of walkway were blown even with a -4 EV RAW conversion so not much i could do with them. This is where several exposures, blended together could have helped. The additonal details in the ceiling and lights was pleasing to my eye at least. Possible with contrsast masking?? Probably.
Challenge entry with two RAW conversions and contrast masking  The results on this one are different and even more dramatic, but I spent a fair amount of time on this one.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 15:00:19.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 08:25:59 AM  |
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: 08/18/2025 08:25:59 AM EDT.
|
