Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 8, 2010, 10:43 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
vvcarpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
vvcarpio,
It looks as though there's a lot of blockiness in the sky on the left in the HDRs, especially with the 2 image HDR, but this may be just a low quality jpg. I'd be very surprised if editing the RAW for the central exposure couldn't produce identical or better results to the HDR. I'm happy to try if you'd like to post it.
Thanks for the input, amcam. I see the blockiness but don't know what caused it. It's also in the DPHDR output (I think). I also didn't shoot in RAW so I can't offer it to you -- sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
Hmmm, vvcarpio. Problem is the middle pick shows that you doesn't really need HDR. Look the histogram:
Ordo, I don't know (yet) how to interpret histograms (I have a rough understanding) but I understand that from it I can infer if it already has all I need to bring out more info.

To all, I think that when I (or everyone here for all I know) talk about HDR I am inadvertently referring to how my favorite HDR software -- DPHDR -- works. When I drop a bracket of shots into DPHDR, I think it does more than just do HDR. I suspect it also does a bit of color-saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc., that are standard fare in PS, PSE, and other graphics packages. DPHDR does all this to bring out the wow with pretty much just one click. If I'm correct in my suspicion, then a RAW having all the so-called "dynamic range" to bring out the same wow with PS or PSE post-processing would make sense (to me anyway). So, in a way, I may be confounding everyone with my deep incoherence babbling on HDR . My apologies.
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 5:35 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

[QUOTE=bahadir;1062377]

As inferred above, I , like the folks here, welcome any method that works for my intended purpose. Yet, when it comes to arranging my toolbox, I'd hardly agree with an opinion which equates or compares 'sharpening' to 'hdr' though I invariably use different sharpening methods for the final output. I don't take shoot a picture to be sharpened, but I originally take pictures to be 'hdr'ed'! In short, all squares are quadrilaterals but not all quadrilaterals are squares ; )

Bahadır

*********
It appears to me that what you really mean to say in the above is that you take pictures meant to be HDR'ed as HDR shots.

Surely if you're taking pictures without the intent of making them HDR, you shoot for an optimised photograph?

As for comparing HDR with sharpening? Do you also compare the taste of apples and oranges?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2010, 7:47 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

Chato wrote:''It appears to me that what you really mean to say in the above is that you take pictures meant to be HDR'ed as HDR shots.

Surely if you're taking pictures without the intent of making them HDR, you shoot for an optimised photograph?

As for comparing HDR with sharpening? Do you also compare the taste of apples and oranges? ''


No more or less than what I had openly explained it; better if you call them ‘images shot methodically to be HDR’ed’ rather than HDR shots. Otherwise, attributing it to kind of disconnection, I’d strongly advise you to read the paragraph above the quotation you chose in my original post.

As for an optimized photo…In fact, other than idle ones, you always shoot a photograph optimized for something, that is you must have a priority. Now, even when the histogram does not show ideal curves due to a complex composition, would you give up shooting that photo in your preferred exposition? Gustave Le Gray, for example, in 1856, shot two negatives one optimized for the sea and one for the sky so as to overcome a problematic of the art of photography. This is also true for me whether or not I’m shooting for HDR, well even doubly so when shooting for HDR. My point is that hdr is not a process which starts at the front of the computer but at the time when determining the correct exposure (figuring out a more complex calculation than a single shot) while holding your camera. What is there you seem not to understand here?

LOL! Since, in this forum, you originally thought of putting HDR, Sharpening Tool an even the Burn Tool in the same bag tactfully so as to dillute the matter, and thus adding the cucumber to the apple and the orange, you must be well familiar with the taste you suggest ; ) Actually I hadn’t even bothered with writing a reply for your unfortunate comparison but decided to do so as the illness recurred.
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2010, 8:18 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,435
Default

hahahahahaha
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2010, 5:25 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
Chato wrote:''It appears to me that what you really mean to say in the above is that you take pictures meant to be HDR'ed as HDR shots.

Surely if you're taking pictures without the intent of making them HDR, you shoot for an optimised photograph?

As for comparing HDR with sharpening? Do you also compare the taste of apples and oranges? ''


No more or less than what I had openly explained it; better if you call them ‘images shot methodically to be HDR’ed’ rather than HDR shots. Otherwise, attributing it to kind of disconnection, I’d strongly advise you to read the paragraph above the quotation you chose in my original post.

As for an optimized photo…In fact, other than idle ones, you always shoot a photograph optimized for something, that is you must have a priority. Now, even when the histogram does not show ideal curves due to a complex composition, would you give up shooting that photo in your preferred exposition? Gustave Le Gray, for example, in 1856, shot two negatives one optimized for the sea and one for the sky so as to overcome a problematic of the art of photography. This is also true for me whether or not I’m shooting for HDR, well even doubly so when shooting for HDR. My point is that hdr is not a process which starts at the front of the computer but at the time when determining the correct exposure (figuring out a more complex calculation than a single shot) while holding your camera. What is there you seem not to understand here?

LOL! Since, in this forum, you originally thought of putting HDR, Sharpening Tool an even the Burn Tool in the same bag tactfully so as to dillute the matter, and thus adding the cucumber to the apple and the orange, you must be well familiar with the taste you suggest ; ) Actually I hadn’t even bothered with writing a reply for your unfortunate comparison but decided to do so as the illness recurred.
Gosh Bahadir, your erudition is impressive. But I DO put unsharp mask in the same catagory - That catagory being defined as useful techniques to enhance photography. There's a time and a place for all useful techniques, and that includes HDR. Now last time I checked, its advised that some amount of unsharp mask be used with most photographs. But then again, as you have said over and over, what do I know?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2010, 11:11 PM   #36
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
I think the middle exposure (rather than a perfect exposure, which requires awareness about the perfect exposure!) should be exposed in such a way to make the next shot easily blow the highlights while retaining more info from shadows, consequently making the underexposed shot useful for highlight detail while avoiding pitch black shadows.
I agree that your suggestion meets well with HDR theory. However, this does not seem to be borne out in practice in the example in the "Best approach" thread. The dark areas show less detail in the HDR compared with the RAW. Perhaps this is a result of the HDR being created with jpgs in this instance ... or perhaps the added noise and errors from combining multiple images swamps any benefit from multiple EVs ?
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 10:03 AM   #37
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 92
Default

For me, it doesn't really matter if HDR is an entity of it's own, of rather a shortcut to a nice result that could be achieved with photoshop as well - provided that one is skilled enough to get there !
My purpose in photography is achieving a result that's very similar to what my eyes were seeing at that moment. I try to capture, what my mind's eye sees. For me that's the reason of postprocessing a shot, i.e. to get a result that is as natural as possible ( not to tweak the colors to a star-trek like environment).

Some people achieve this goal by photoshopping away, some use the HDR options. To me it's a wonderful tool to improve certain shots, and I actually don't care if it's a shortcut or a whole new technique - it's a wonderful tool, and I'm glad to use it....period
tsjiaotai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 4:06 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Cutting away from comparing photography to Rembrandt, I believe that HDR does one thing extremely well.

When a camera is unable to capture the full dynamic range of a subject, then HDR techniques are the only solution to this problem. Dedicated programs appear to do this better than other alternatives.

There is a second claim about HDR, which is to say, that it increases detail. In my opinion to a certain extent this is true, but not to the extent that people think.

Chroma noise, far more than luminence noise, is what prevents an image from being sharpened. HDR programs appear to both saturate the image, and eliminate chroma noise. This allows the programs to sharpen the image, and bring out greater detail.

This is another characteristic of these programs which is quite useful. However, the same results in most (but not all cases) can be accomplished using normal processing techniques. Mind you, I don't think that it's possible to argue that HDR techniques to not allow increased dynamic range. Point one seems to be a proven aspect of the technique, it is point two that I am talking about here.

To put it to a half way decent test I have uploaded to my site a DNG file which in my opinion needs neither more dynamic range, nor more sharpening, other than the usual Photoshop type post processing. It's a RAW file, and I will be quite happy to compare my results, with anyones results.

Here's the link to the image:
_DSC7765_3.dng

It's an 11 meg file, something to keep in mind....

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 4:08 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,435
Default

Would you please explain to me how you can compare an HDR from Photomatix to any result of the processing of a Raw file. Processing a multi shot HDR has too many variables that rely on the operator to give any output. The same can be said with the output of a Raw file.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 4:29 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Would you please explain to me how you can compare an HDR from Photomatix to any result of the processing of a Raw file. Processing a multi shot HDR has too many variables that rely on the operator to give any output. The same can be said with the output of a Raw file.
As far as this test goes, here is what I said about it...

"To put it to a half way decent test"

Since it's impossible to have taken this shot at all using the three (let alone five) shot method, I guess it's what Photomatrix calls "Pseudo HDR."
It's the original RAW file.

It's a picture of a few Scaups floating around in Dead Horse Bay.

Nevertheless, it has been claimed that HDR programs will make this image better - Or at least make it sharper than what I can do with the same image in Photoshop.

If you feel this is not a fair test (A legitimate point of view) then don't take it.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:24 PM.