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

DPChallenge Forums >> Side Challenges and Tournaments >> Official 14 Day HDR Posting Thread
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 99 of 99, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/14/2008 07:30:23 PM · #76
Originally posted by Artifacts:

Two questions for those of you who have posted:

What is your intent and purpose for using HDR?

What specifically was needed from HDR for your image that could not have been achieved by other methods?

Experimentation is a necessary building block for innovation, growth and improvement. That is what makes what you are doing here such a great activity.

I'm not questioning your motivations, purpose or results. I just want to understand what is behind them better. There are no "wrong" answers to these questions. Thanks.

Thanks to all those of you who chose to answer my questions... it was very enlightening.
04/15/2008 11:45:23 AM · #77
[thumb]669737[/thumb] [thumb]669739[/thumb]
04/15/2008 07:36:57 PM · #78
Day 10:
669866.jpg669867.jpg
04/15/2008 08:58:59 PM · #79
Getting there!!!

Day 5
669910.jpg 669911.jpg

Day 6
669912.jpg 669913.jpg

Day 7
669914.jpg 669915.jpg

Day 8
669916.jpg 669917.jpg

Day 9
669918.jpg 669909.jpg

04/16/2008 01:08:37 AM · #80
Part of the why computers overheat thread.

Note: Not any of my pewters as I maintain them regulary

[thumb]670068[/thumb] [thumb]670069[/thumb]
04/16/2008 01:39:53 PM · #81
Day 8 Playing catch up again...

670166.jpg 670167.jpg

It is amazing how much information you're able to pull out of a RAW in comparison to a jpg. Processed in Wukong and PS.

Day 9

670168.jpg 670169.jpg

This one and day 10 were both processed from 5-6 original exposures one stop apart from each other.

Day 10

670170.jpg 670171.jpg
04/16/2008 08:05:20 PM · #82
Day 10

670221.jpg 670222.jpg
04/17/2008 04:05:17 PM · #83
Day 11
670418.jpg 670419.jpg

Day 12
670420.jpg 670421.jpg

All these are in the Yorkshire Dales shot with 3 images 2 stops apart
04/18/2008 11:18:29 AM · #84
ugh i am lagging behind. busy days at work. i'll need to make up for 3 days tonight.
04/18/2008 01:25:00 PM · #85
Here is Day 11

670614.jpg 670615.jpg

I'm not sure if it this photo works that well as an HDR; however, if I would not have used HDR the fog would be too dark to see or the sky would be blown out.
04/18/2008 08:26:56 PM · #86
Day 11:
670676.jpg670677.jpg

Day 12:
670678.jpg670679.jpg

Day 13:
670680.jpg670681.jpg
04/18/2008 09:21:22 PM · #87
In my opinion, bobonacus is showing how HDR photography should be represented on this thread. It makes me cringe everytime I see comments in challenges where someone says, "HDR?", because it has that overprocessed tone-mapped quality to it(also known as: surreal, cartoonish, etc). Folks should understand that tone-mapping does not equal HDR. It's unfortunate that the two are being equated with each other a lot on this site and elsewhere.

There should be a totally different challenge format on this site that is set aside for tone-mapping. TM'ing takes a photo beyond a photo and turns it into some other form of "art." Your camera or lens didn't have anything remotely to do with the final processed image - the TM'ing software did.

As an example, this is what an HDR photo should look like:
669917.jpg

If you notice, it still looks like a real photo. I'm willing to bet that a great majority on this site, if asked, wouldn't guess that it was an HDR photo though.
04/19/2008 08:23:48 PM · #88
Day 13
670931.jpg 670932.jpg

Thanks for your feedback Josh :)))
04/19/2008 10:45:21 PM · #89
In response to 21.gif ti_evom, IMNSHO, you're demonstrating a real lack of embracing different concepts in processing.

Can you tell me which of these images were HDR processed? Which ones are multiple image results? What other techniques?

658768.jpg[thumb]625405[/thumb][thumb]652847[/thumb]625088.jpg

They are all processed using the HDR conversion tool in PS, and they're all from a single image.

I do them how I like them as they come out.

I wasn't aware that they had to be a certain way or they aren't HDR any longer.

How about this one?

[thumb]648647[/thumb]

I use this technique a lot 'cause I like the results.....Monochrome it in the channel mixer, use the tone curve tool in the HDR converter to get the tonal ranges I like, hammer it around with various increments of noise reduction, then sharpening, and back and forth 'til I get it the way I want it.

Is it HDR still? Or not? Does it count if it's in B&W???

I love this image in particular, it's now 28" X 35" in my dining room, and it won the B&W division at my local camera club's winter photo contest......with the same votes from all three judges who couldn't agree on any other image the whole night.

I had no idea it'd turn out the way it did when I started......I knew I wanted to capture the bleak, gloomy, mist thing, that was about it. But this original sure didn't have me seeing the end result.

[thumb]670953[/thumb]

My point is........you pretty much made me tune you out because I see you as restricted by a narrow concept of what an effect should be in your mind, and you're missing a lot of variables that can make YOUR imagery different and better as you use the tools available to you.

Lighten up, try something different, and let your creativity run amok. You may be surprised.

I know I am every time I fire up the 'puter and open a new batch to process.....who knows what I can do tomorrow!
04/20/2008 08:31:06 AM · #90
Day 14

671047.jpg 671048.jpg
04/20/2008 09:29:55 AM · #91
Originally posted by ti_evom:

As an example, this is what an HDR photo should look like:
669917.jpg

If you notice, it still looks like a real photo. I'm willing to bet that a great majority on this site, if asked, wouldn't guess that it was an HDR photo though.


While I would agree with you that tone mapping is NOT the same as HDRI (that's a drum I've repeatedly beaten upon in these forums), I don't completely agree with you that your example is what HDRI "should" look like. For me (I guess I'm not one of the "great majority" here?) that's obvious HDRI work and fairly clumsy in execution. The sky is toned down way too far, it's quite unnatural. And there's distinct haloing on the sky/viaduct line, with the sky showing through the arches being a much more natural rendition than what's above.

Anyway, just in general I wouldn't be so adamant in saying what "is" and what "is not" the "correct" use of the tool. It's like any other tool; the tool itself has no meaning, it's just a means to an end. Criticize peoples' vision if you like, tell them you don't care for the results they are posting for whatever reason, tell them you prefer natural to cartoonish or surrealistic, but if the tool is giving them the results they are seeking then they are not using it "wrong".

R.
04/20/2008 09:46:58 AM · #92
Well said! This is all for a bit of fun anyway, so who cares whether it's tonemapping/HDR/Lucis or anything else. This is more about having a bit of fun and processing things in a way you wouldn't normally.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Anyway, just in general I wouldn't be so adamant in saying what "is" and what "is not" the "correct" use of the tool. It's like any other tool; the tool itself has no meaning, it's just a means to an end. Criticize peoples' vision if you like, tell them you don't care for the results they are posting for whatever reason, tell them you prefer natural to cartoonish or surrealistic, but if the tool is giving them the results they are seeking then they are not using it "wrong".

R.
04/20/2008 12:03:01 PM · #93
Agreed over here too. At the moment I'm still experimenting with styles - after all, HDR is a tool to be applied and played with as the photographer/artist feels fit. There is no right or wrong way, just right for you.

Personally I like the heavy cartoonish look when applied to the right image. Personally I like turning images into Led Zeppelin covers (think Houses of the Holy) to bring that surreal angle to it. That said I've also done a few that are light/subtle touches.

Fitness for function imho...and then personal taste :)

N
04/20/2008 12:29:20 PM · #94
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

For me (I guess I'm not one of the "great majority" here?) that's obvious HDRI work and fairly clumsy in execution. The sky is toned down way too far, it's quite unnatural. And there's distinct haloing on the sky/viaduct line, with the sky showing through the arches being a much more natural rendition than what's above.


FYI if you look at the original the sky is way lighter to the right (ie under the arches) as the sun is setting on the far right of the photo
04/20/2008 12:50:53 PM · #95
I used HDR to bring out the darker areas, especially the layers of hills to the left in the background. Again, my preferred style is to use HDR as a means to maximize range of exposure while maintaining a realistic look. Not necessarily better for everybody, just the way I like my photos to look.

671165.jpg - - - 671166.jpg
- - - - - - before - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - after - - - - - - -
04/21/2008 12:18:40 AM · #96
*edited cuz it sounded rude* All that I said was that many people seem to automatically equate(this is the key word here) heavy tone mapping with HDR. I read about it time and time again in the comments on photos. I have no problem with folks using tone mapping to create their masterpiece - some are quite good looking. But like I said earlier, it just makes me cringe when folks automatically assume that TM'ing = HDR. I just feel that some need to be better educated on the differences between the two.

The reason why I singled out Bobo's shot was due to the fact why HDR was invented. I'd be willing to bet that his 0 exposure shot was fairly dark in the shadows under the arches along with the grass, and the clouds may have been a little more blown out. Simply tone mapping this shot from a single exposure would not have brought out those details that we see in his final shot. And I didn't mean that ALL HDR shots must look like his. That viaduct shot is merely an example of HDR being used to the fullest. Afterall, he was able to bring out a fairly High Dynamic Range by combining those three exposures. Converting from a single RAW file cannot literally be classified as HDR. It would more or less be Medium-low Dynamic Range - and this really depends on whichever RAW conversion program you're using.

Jeb asked about his shots being HDR or not. Well, to answer your question, HDR cannot be accomplished by using only one exposure, RAW or not. You're only gaining a very *slight* range expansion by converting from a single RAW(even this is debatable). Not nearly enough to show all the details. I'll just throw out one of your examples:
625088.jpg
HDR would have shown the details of the power pole to the left and the signal post to the right. Instead, the pole is solid black and the signal is pretty close to being the same. You also asked about your fog shot, "Is it HDR still? Or not? Does it count if it's in B&W???" Of course HDR can be done in B&W. But I'll revert back to my original answer - HDR cannot be accomplished through one exposure. People can label single exposures as being HDR, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is not HDR. This fact, unfortunately, is not very debatable.

Message edited by author 2008-04-21 05:15:51.
04/21/2008 05:30:21 AM · #97
If I may, here is another awesome example of HDR done well:
668421.jpg

All highlights and shadows are detailed almost to a pinpoint.
04/21/2008 07:50:58 AM · #98
Originally posted by ti_evom:

...You also asked about your fog shot, "Is it HDR still? Or not? Does it count if it's in B&W???" Of course HDR can be done in B&W. But I'll revert back to my original answer - HDR cannot be accomplished through one exposure. People can label single exposures as being HDR, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is not HDR. This fact, unfortunately, is not very debatable.


HDR Imaging is, roughly, the digital equivalent of Ansel Adams' "Zone System" for B/W photography. And Zone System most assuredly is done using a single exposure and then, in effect, "tone mapping" the negative by altering the processing time to increase or decrease the contrast.

It is DEFINITELY possible to create an HDR Image from a single RAW exposure. In fact, sometimes that's the ONLY way to do it, if you're dealing with moving subjects. There is a considerable amount of latitude in a RAW capture, often distinctly more than can be rendered to the screen without some sort of adjustment to reduce or compress the tonal range of the image.

What you are talking about is "extreme" dynamic range, and you are correct for those situations; there are some scenes that cannot be covered completely with a single exposure. But we don't encounter them all that often, actually, and HDRI from a single RAW exposure is a perfectly viable way to work if the scene permits it.

R.
04/21/2008 02:41:36 PM · #99
Ok, I just found something. Considering that this is the favored software program that most people here use, I'll just let their FAQ speak for itself:

Can't I just create the exposures from one RAW file?

Not really. Your RAW file contains data captured by the sensors for only one exposure. The total dynamic range you can reconstruct from one photo converted with different exposure settings can never be more than the dynamic range captured by your camera, and this is rather limited (see above).

When you are using only one exposure to capture the scene, your RAW file is already your HDR image.

Converting the RAW file to images with different exposure levels is a bit like slicing the dynamic range of the RAW into several parts. Combining the parts back into an HDR image will at best reproduce the dynamic range of the initial RAW file.

That said, if you are using a good RAW converter to derive fake exposures from a single RAW file, you will probably notice that the HDR image created from the fake exposures shows more dynamic range than the pseudo-HDR image obtained by converting the single RAW file directly. This is because your RAW converter includes a good noise reduction function, and this has an important effect on the dynamic range. Your RAW converter may also include the ability to continue to retrieve highlights details when one or two of the color channels have already reached saturation.

So, a good RAW converter includes functions designed to optimize the dynamic range retrieved from the raw sensor data, but this does not change the fact that the dynamic range of a RAW file is limited to one exposure only. Unless the dynamic range of your scene is low, you will need to take more than one exposure to create an HDR image of the scene.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2019 12:50:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/25/2019 12:50:29 AM EDT.