| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2007 07:39:14 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Regarding the creation of 3 internal images, sometimes common-sense only need be applied. There is no way you could get anything near the style of tonemapped imagery with curves/shadow/highlight etc on a single image. |
Yes you can. This is what I did with shadow/highlights a while back:
Does that not look tone mapped to you?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:42:09 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Hi Kirbic,
in the help file of Photomatix it says..
"Another trick is to derive several exposures from the RAW file and combine them with the Exposure Blending method Highlight & Shadows - Auto. (Please note that deriving "fake" exposures from a single RAW is not suited to the creation of an HDR image -- you can directly convert your RAW file into a pseudo-HDR image by simply opening it in Photomatix)."
So basically they are saying, you can create a `pseudo HDR` image from making 3 `exposures` from a single RAW, then combining them in photomatix to create the image.. However, the last line is basically saying you can open the RAW file directly in Photomatix and that is doing the donkey work of the 3 exposures for you.. in other words, 3 images, or another way of putting it, illegal in Basic Editing.
Also, I am sure you are not trying to convince us, or yourself for that matter, that some pretty clever blending algorithms are not going on under the bonnet when tonemapping an image, blending methods that if native in Photoshop, would be completely illegal in Basic editing.. |
You can open a single RAW image, or a single 16-bit TIFF image, in Photomatix and apply tone mapping to it for a simulation of HDRI processing. It does NOT create 3 layers of varied exposures automatically. And such a tool DOES exist, is native in, Photoshop CS and above. It's called shadow/highlight. And that's the crux of the debate.
IN both cases you have an automated tool that allows you to alter the relationship of highlights to shadows and increase local area contrast in both shadows and highlights, or either. You just move sliders back and forth to define the range of the adjustments.
In a similar sense, when working with levels and/or curves, you can use sliders to control the range, or area, of the tones to which the effect is applied. When using hue/saturation, you can choose the color range of the image to which the effect is appllied. And so forth and so on. Only the most basic tools in Photoshop do not allow limiting or expansion of the range (tone or color) to which they apply. So where are you going to draw the line?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:56:22 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
My point is I do believe basic does naturally appeal to newcomers and when they fork over the $25, it means they are ready for a bit more. And I would argue that usually means they are a bit more proficient with the editing. So advanced/expert does mean at least a little more than the membership. |
Funnily enough it was the "Stright from the Camera" challenge that got me to hand over my US$25 and become a member :) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:45:13 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Cutter:
My point is I do believe basic does naturally appeal to newcomers and when they fork over the $25, it means they are ready for a bit more. And I would argue that usually means they are a bit more proficient with the editing. So advanced/expert does mean at least a little more than the membership. |
Funnily enough it was the "Stright from the Camera" challenge that got me to hand over my US$25 and become a member :) |
That is funny.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:54:13 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
That is funny. |
Don't you mean funnily? |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 09:22:40 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
...You can put as much spin on it as you like, I think we all know how PTMX tonemapping achieves its effect... sheesh.
|
LOL. Spin? I think I know a thing or two about software, image processing algortihms, and dynamic range compression/expansion. I've tried patiently to explain that what's stated in the Photomatix documentation doesn't imply the creation of different version of the image to be blended. I'll try once more.
What you are starting with is a RAW file (or other 16-bit format) that holds more dynamic range than a monitor (or any print medium) can display without compression. The software applies a specialized algorithm to remap very bright and very dark tonal values inward (compression) while retaining detail (microcontrast) within those ranges. Thus the name: tone+mapping.
For the record, I don't appreciate being accused of "spinning" anything. I'm stating the facts, to the best of my ability, and am willing to be shown to be wrong, should you prove your point with supportable facts. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 09:38:02 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by yanko:
Curiously what's the "logic" you are using when you think tone mapping shouldn't be allowed and say Hue/Saturation should be? Or do you think neither should be? |
The difference between hue/sat and tonemapping is night and day. My beef is threefold: automation, abuse, visual results. But ultimately, it is an instinctual photography thing.
Anyone with eyes can see a tonemapped image (recent winner) and say, "No way, that isn't even close to photography". ...
A general curve-sat-usm post is used bring the photograph back to center...not put it on another planet like tonemapping can. ... |
Cutter, can you point out which image on the front page was tonemapped please? Honest, I don't see it.
I'd imagine that there are many images in challenges (doing well or poorly) that have either tonemapping (in basic) or HDR (in advanced) that many viewers can't identify as that tool being used. Not everyone using those tools goes overboard. When used discretely a photo can be enhanced in a flattering way with the tools being discussed.
JMO of course. :D
bold text added for emphasis |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 10:14:51 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Cutter, can you point out which image on the front page was tonemapped please? Honest, I don't see it.
I'd imagine that there are many images in challenges (doing well or poorly) that have either tonemapping (in basic) or HDR (in advanced) that many viewers can't identify as that tool being used. Not everyone using those tools goes overboard. When used discretely a photo can be enhanced in a flattering way with the tools being discussed.
JMO of course. :D |
Yeah I am with you on the discreet thing. But a very gentle tonemap effect can be achieved with already legal editing. The final effect of a tonemap, to me, is a cheap way to achieve an otherwise more organic/hands on finished product.
Its like this...If you know anyone in the business of fine food, a high quality cut of meat is a skill, almost an art form. Now, you can go down the road to the nearest grocery and get a fine piece of steak to grill, but to a butcher, it is a crude, nearly uneatable piece of meat. Why? Because it has no heart, it has no soul...it is not authentic.
If you really wanna know my reference of the tonemapped example, I can pm you.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 11:01:11 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Cutter, can you point out which image on the front page was tonemapped please? Honest, I don't see it.
I'd imagine that there are many images in challenges (doing well or poorly) that have either tonemapping (in basic) or HDR (in advanced) that many viewers can't identify as that tool being used. Not everyone using those tools goes overboard. When used discretely a photo can be enhanced in a flattering way with the tools being discussed.
JMO of course. :D |
Yeah I am with you on the discreet thing. But a very gentle tonemap effect can be achieved with already legal editing. The final effect of a tonemap, to me, is a cheap way to achieve an otherwise more organic/hands on finished product.
Its like this...If you know anyone in the business of fine food, a high quality cut of meat is a skill, almost an art form. Now, you can go down the road to the nearest grocery and get a fine piece of steak to grill, but to a butcher, it is a crude, nearly uneatable piece of meat. Why? Because it has no heart, it has no soul...it is not authentic.
If you really wanna know my reference of the tonemapped example, I can pm you. |
So it sounds like your against allowing tonemapping in the 'Basic' editing ruleset because it's in essence "cheating" or taking the easy way out?
I bet you don't like those Nikon D200's much either - eh? You know, because they allow double exposures in-camera... :D |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 12:56:00 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by marksimms:
...You can put as much spin on it as you like, I think we all know how PTMX tonemapping achieves its effect... sheesh.
|
LOL. Spin? I think I know a thing or two about software, image processing algortihms, and dynamic range compression/expansion. I've tried patiently to explain that what's stated in the Photomatix documentation doesn't imply the creation of different version of the image to be blended. I'll try once more.
What you are starting with is a RAW file (or other 16-bit format) that holds more dynamic range than a monitor (or any print medium) can display without compression. The software applies a specialized algorithm to remap very bright and very dark tonal values inward (compression) while retaining detail (microcontrast) within those ranges. Thus the name: tone+mapping.
For the record, I don't appreciate being accused of "spinning" anything. I'm stating the facts, to the best of my ability, and am willing to be shown to be wrong, should you prove your point with supportable facts. |
Reading materials on the photomatix site, it seems to me that it does not create several layers. It is indeed a much more complex algorithm - but that is working on one image layer only.
"[tone mapping] Local operators
Take into account the pixel's location in the image in order to determine the appropriate scaling for this pixel. So, a pixel of a given intensity will be mapped to a different value depending on whether it is located in a dark or bright area.
Local tone mapping requires looking up surrounding values for each pixel mapped, which makes it slower (memory access is the major speed bottleneck on today's computers) but tends to produce more pleasing results (our eyes react locally to contrast). If correctly done, this results in an image preserving local contrast as well as details in highlights and shadows, as shown on those examples. "
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 01:06:36 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Cutter, can you point out which image on the front page was tonemapped please? Honest, I don't see it. |
He's probably talking about this one...
 |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 01:22:55 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Cutter, can you point out which image on the front page was tonemapped please? Honest, I don't see it. |
He's probably talking about this one...
|
Yeah since the photog comments say that it was tonemapped I'd say thats the one. And I have to tend to agree that looking at his original and then looking at the challenge entry thats a pretty big difference for basic editing. I would be nearly impossible to do without the photomatix software. I tend to think that Basic editing should be just that basic. Tonemapping should be an advanced editing tool.
MattO
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 02:32:33 PM · #63 |
Shadow/Highlights in Photoshop does the same thing abeit with varying results. Both tools tackle the same problem so perhaps both should not be legal? Below is a re-edit of MAK's shot using shadow/highlights just for comparision.
Original
Edited using shadow/highlights (instead of tone mapping)
As you can see shadow/highlights can dramatically improve lighting and detail like tone mapping abeit it doesn't have quite that unique look tone mapping produces. Maybe the real issue here is with voters? Voters seem to like the tone mapped look in MAK's shot even though IMHO there are some serious issues with it but it's nothing MAK could have fixed in basic editing.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 14:35:05. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 03:33:38 PM · #64 |
As much as I'd hate to see it go, I agree, if you are going to pull Photomatrix, you are going to need to pull Shadow/Highlights.
I doubt either will happen though. We just had a rules revision. The extreme tonemapping will likely have a short heyday and then fade like other fads that have hit the site before.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 03:55:55 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by yanko:
As you can see shadow/highlights can dramatically improve lighting and detail like tone mapping abeit it doesn't have quite that unique look tone mapping produces. |
The tone mapped version also seems to have more detail in the building in the shadows right below the crane. I tried playing with the shadows/highlights dialog and Curves to bring out the same kind of detail but then it just blew the sky out or when tweaking that something else didnt look right as the one where Photomatix was applied to. If Photomatix uses some sort of internal layering technique ala sticking togethere differently contrast/brightness adjusted pics from one original photo, then it shouldn't be treated differently than Photoshop layers otherwise it's just another plugin which affects the entire image the same just as level, curves, shadows/highlights, or doesn't it?
Edit: Adding..
From Basic Rules:
"use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No "effects" filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur"
Just wondering is Photomatix a filter or an Image Adjustment? it's not a noise reduction, sharpening or color correction tool. If it indeed is deemed legal to use in Basic I would like to give it a try myself.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 16:09:07. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 04:21:03 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Originally posted by yanko:
As you can see shadow/highlights can dramatically improve lighting and detail like tone mapping abeit it doesn't have quite that unique look tone mapping produces. |
The tone mapped version also seems to have more detail in the building in the shadows right below the crane. I tried playing with the shadows/highlights dialog and Curves to bring out the same kind of detail but then it just blew the sky out or when tweaking that something else didnt look right as the one where Photomatix was applied to... |
yanko was working from an 8-bit, reduced-size image with the Shadow-higlight tool. Working with a full-size 16-bit TIFF would have been required to approximate the Photomatix result. Still, I can attest that photomatix does a better job; I've compared them and it is no contest. Yanko's conclusion mirors my personal conclusion, though... if you get rid of one, the other must go also. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 05:07:26 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yanko's conclusion mirors my personal conclusion, though... if you get rid of one, the other must go also. |
That does little to convince me that either should stay.
Regarding your comments about Virtual Photographer a few posts earlier, I am totally in shock. It would appear that you are telling me that a staunch position regarding a FILTER was reversed at an administrative level, either at a given point in time or as a time-based development, no announcement to that effect was made, and thus at least SOME of the effects available in VP have been INTENTIONALLY allowed in Basic Editing competition even though it HAD been made public that said FILTER was illegal???? This is a MAJOR change to my interpretation of Basic Editing rules.
NOTE: I'm not picking on Kirbic with this, or even stabbing at SC. I have no idea as to how this may have happened, or when, and I am married to a Site Council member, for goodness sake. Neither am I stabbing at my spouse. I simply find it amazing that such a major decision (IMHO) could have been made and so few people know about it.
If indeed what I'm understanding Kirbic to be saying is not the entire story, please feel free to set me straight. I admit I've not been the most active dude here, but if it's not been publicly discussed or announced... Of course, if we assume that the "new" rules means ALL existing precedent or opinions can be thrown out, maybe that's fair enough justification.
Clue me in :) |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 05:13:37 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yanko's conclusion mirors my personal conclusion, though... if you get rid of one, the other must go also. |
That does little to convince me that either should stay.
Regarding your comments about Virtual Photographer a few posts earlier, I am totally in shock. It would appear that you are telling me that a staunch position regarding a FILTER was reversed at an administrative level, either at a given point in time or as a time-based development, no announcement to that effect was made, and thus at least SOME of the effects available in VP have been INTENTIONALLY allowed in Basic Editing competition even though it HAD been made public that said FILTER was illegal???? This is a MAJOR change to my interpretation of Basic Editing rules.
NOTE: I'm not picking on Kirbic with this, or even stabbing at SC. I have no idea as to how this may have happened, or when, and I am married to a Site Council member, for goodness sake. Neither am I stabbing at my spouse. I simply find it amazing that such a major decision (IMHO) could have been made and so few people know about it.
If indeed what I'm understanding Kirbic to be saying is not the entire story, please feel free to set me straight. I admit I've not been the most active dude here, but if it's not been publicly discussed or announced... Of course, if we assume that the "new" rules means ALL existing precedent or opinions can be thrown out, maybe that's fair enough justification.
Clue me in :) |
If Virtual Photographer is allowed in Basic...then I would definitely want to have an offical confirmation also. I always thought it was illegal.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 06:01:00 PM · #69 |
The way I understand how it works is a photo gets validated based on what was achieved with just the photo in question. I wasn't under the impression video photographer filter was legal but perhaps if used in a subtle manner it doesn't fall under the "no effects" clause? I'm not familiar enough with video photographer so perhaps it could even be used in a manner to "preserve image integrity" which is legal (if it does that). Now those two terms in quotes is open to interpretation of course so perhaps one could argue one way or the other for any filter given a specific application. The point I am getting at is validation is on a photo by photo basis and well each photo is different. At least that's how I understand it. Perhaps an SC can validate that.
Btw, one could easily argue that Unsharp mask DOESN'T preserve image integrity even though it is listed as such in the rules. When used as a local contrast enhancement it can produce significant "effects" in an image but that's another topic altogether and I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 18:02:58. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:11:17 PM · #70 |
Just to clarify we must be talking about the Tone Mapping Plug-In not the Photomatix program itself? I don't see anything in the Photomatix help that says you can generate something from one single file. Both are products of HDRSoft. And the plugin only works with CS2. I only have CS so cant test it out.
edit:
Please disregard the post. I see Photomatix also has a Tone Mapping feature via the HDR Menu but it doesn't work on JPGs.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 19:16:53. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:16:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Just to clarify we must be talking about the Tone Mapping Plug-In not the Photomatix program itself? I don't see anything in the Photomatix help that says you can generate something from one single file. Both are products of HDRSoft. And the plugin only works with CS2. I only have CS so cant test it out. |
The stand-alone Photomatix can generate a pseudo-HDR file from a single image (RAW and I think TIFF); this HDR like file then needs to be tone-mapped, and then you can save it and work with it in other software.
I have the Beta version of CS3 installed, but haven't tried if the plugin works with it or not.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 19:16:45. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:16:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The way I understand how it works is a photo gets validated based on what was achieved with just the photo in question. I wasn't under the impression video photographer filter was legal but perhaps if used in a subtle manner it doesn't fall under the "no effects" clause? I'm not familiar enough with video photographer so perhaps it could even be used in a manner to "preserve image integrity" which is legal (if it does that). Now those two terms in quotes is open to interpretation of course so perhaps one could argue one way or the other for any filter given a specific application. The point I am getting at is validation is on a photo by photo basis and well each photo is different. At least that's how I understand it. Perhaps an SC can validate that.
Btw, one could easily argue that Unsharp mask DOESN'T preserve image integrity even though it is listed as such in the rules. When used as a local contrast enhancement it can produce significant "effects" in an image but that's another topic altogether and I probably shouldn't have brought it up. |
Video Photographer??? Don't you mean Virtual Photographer??
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:19:49 PM · #73 |
Thanks Ursula :)
I edited my post above before reading your reply back. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:24:28 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by yanko:
The way I understand how it works is a photo gets validated based on what was achieved with just the photo in question. I wasn't under the impression video photographer filter was legal but perhaps if used in a subtle manner it doesn't fall under the "no effects" clause? I'm not familiar enough with video photographer so perhaps it could even be used in a manner to "preserve image integrity" which is legal (if it does that). Now those two terms in quotes is open to interpretation of course so perhaps one could argue one way or the other for any filter given a specific application. The point I am getting at is validation is on a photo by photo basis and well each photo is different. At least that's how I understand it. Perhaps an SC can validate that.
Btw, one could easily argue that Unsharp mask DOESN'T preserve image integrity even though it is listed as such in the rules. When used as a local contrast enhancement it can produce significant "effects" in an image but that's another topic altogether and I probably shouldn't have brought it up. |
Video Photographer??? Don't you mean Virtual Photographer?? |
Umm yeah that! :P |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:26:11 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Thanks Ursula :)
I edited my post above before reading your reply back. |
:) |
|
