| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2009 07:38:16 AM · #1 |
I have a question for all of you. It's not very original :
I often see HDR images on this site and they have this cartoony/unreal feel to them. How does that happen?
When I do HDR, i never get that effect. I just get a wider tonal range, or however you you call it. And isn't that the point of HDR? Why do so many shots look cartoons?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2009 07:41:50 AM · #2 |
| oh, and what is tonemapping and how do you do it? |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 08:02:04 AM · #3 |
I'll openly admit that I've just dabbled in HDR. My interpretation (which could be flawed) is that tonemapping is the process that compresses an HDR image's range and approximates it's appearance so that it can appear on a monitor. This is necessary because a "true" HDR cannot be displayed.
The "cartoony" look is caused by overzealous editing, and is sometimes called a "grunge" effect. Lucis Arts is known for effectively producing this, but you could do it with other programs too. I am perfectly able to create it using Photomatix.  Bear_Music, one of the resident HDR users, asserts that Lucis Arts can also be used with a light hand, therefore foregoing the whole "cartoony" appearance.
ETA: Some might claim that "TRUE" HDR is only accomplished by merging several images of varying exposure together, but I think this is sorta disputed amongst the different camps right now. Categorically, this assertion makes sense to me, in that each capture contains the standard dynamic range and by merging several you accomplish true instead of simulated range, but I'm not much of an authority on this. Hopefully I've said enough that is alternately correct/incorrect to attract additional attention for you. :)
Message edited by author 2009-05-08 08:06:10. |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 08:23:45 AM · #4 |
| I'm a dabbler as well, but the argument for using just one image only works if it's a RAW image, as the latitude in exposure can be used to create a larger dynamic range. And for what it's worth, I have gotten better results from multiple images... |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 08:44:16 AM · #5 |
The cartoon-ish effect is not a result of the HDR process, per se, but the tonemapping used during post-processing.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2009 09:35:06 AM · #6 |
HDR workflow essentially involves two things:
1. The creation/merging of several images so that the composite image contains usable information at both extremes of the tonal range.
2. The tone mapping that is used on the composite image to take this extreme range of tones and compress them so they all are visible within the tonal limits of the screen/print.
It's this second part that produces the "cartoons" you're referring to. Basically when we tone map we are compressing the contrast of the image, essentially "flattening" it. hen this is done without any other adjustments, it produces an image that's full of detail throughout but that looks unnaturally flat; that is to say, the areas that normally would be strong shadows are "filled" in the processing and they look unnaturally bright. Ditto the highlights/bright areas, which can get muted down so they are unnaturally dull.
So this native, tone mapped HDR image, whilst it contains all sorts of useful information, it is not a faithful rendering of the scene: it looks like a "cartoon", which is characterized by large, flat areas of color and a very compressed tonal range; classic cartoons don't use a lot of shadows, have you ever noticed?
Further work with tone mapping adds back in contrast, and specifically "local area contrast" in an amount that needs to be dialed in by the photographer. As photographers get more sophisticated in their use of HDR techniques, and assuming their goal is a "natural" rendering of the scene, they learn not to overcook the "luminosity" part of the initial conversion, and mute down the local area contrast part of the fine tuning, thus winding up with an image that's been tweaked just enough to reveal details that were unattainable with "straight" processing.
Some photographers are using HDR, or more specifically tone mapping, out of desire for effect, not out of necessity, and they are producing work that is clearly a departure from strict reality; these are, no doubt, the cartoons you are referring to. I've done a lot of that sort of work myself. But "serious" HDR, done properly, is hard to identify just by looking at the image; it's subtle, and very effective.
This is an example of me tone mapping (with Topaz Adjust) for cartoon effect: 
Here's another, much less extreme: 
This is a much more natural tone mapping, where the darks are allowed to remain dark, and there's a full expression of values throuighout the image: 
Hope this helps...
R. |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 10:05:27 AM · #7 |
| SO is there a TONEMAPPING button in CS3? When I make an HDR composite of several exposures I've never had that tonemapping effect. |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 10:36:08 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by smyk:
SO is there a TONEMAPPING button in CS3? When I make an HDR composite of several exposures I've never had that tonemapping effect. |
It's called shadow/highlight, and it lives in the image/adjustments menu.
R. |
|
|
|
05/08/2009 11:03:14 AM · #9 |
| I think the latest Free Study's blue ribbon is a great example of 'proper' HDR, i.e. that which could not have been achieved without a dynamic exposure range, but with no sign of the cartoonishness (new word for the OED!) of which you speak. |
|
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: 08/29/2025 06:56:44 PM EDT.
