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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 10, 2010, 4:32 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

When I made my statement I wasnt refering to your test with the Raw file. Im referring to the original outback shots of amcams. But its a general statement that HDR photos from Photomatix cant be compared to processed Raw files.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 5:02 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

First is Chato's original Raw file now low res. The second shot is HDR created from 3 jpegs made from the high res Raw file. After HDR was made it was reduced to low res to match file size of the Raw file. So other than processing the two files are identical. I cant account for the color shift. It looks like the pic was taken early in the morning for that reddish warm shift in light. I dont know what the actual color of these birds are. What is the name of them? And I dont mean Bill, Harvey and Bertha.
Attached Images
  
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 5:33 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
First is Chato's original Raw file now low res. The second shot is HDR created from 3 jpegs made from the high res Raw file. After HDR was made it was reduced to low res to match file size of the Raw file. So other than processing the two files are identical. I cant account for the color shift. It looks like the pic was taken early in the morning for that reddish warm shift in light. I dont know what the actual color of these birds are. What is the name of them? And I dont mean Bill, Harvey and Bertha.
I wont post my version yet in order to give you a chance to correct the colors. You can find similar shots on my thread in wildlife called, err, "My trip to the beach?"

Also others may want to post. I will simply say that my processed file is much better and with far more detail.

The Ducks are personal friends, and...

OK, ok, I only hope Penolta doesn't read this thread. These are Greater OR Lesser Scaups.

Dave

Edited in:

The colors of this shot should look the same as the colors of the RAW file. These shots were taken in direct sunlight, but a bit of passing light clouds. In a completely sunlit scene they would be a bit more brown, as in your version.

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Mar 10, 2010 at 5:44 PM.
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 5:51 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Checking out Lesser Scaups images on Google and there are lots with a reddish color such as I got. So I dont know the actual color.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 5:57 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Checking out Lesser Scaups images on Google and there are lots with a reddish color such as I got. So I dont know the actual color.
I started a thread called Trip to the beach. The first ducks look like the RAW version, the others look a bit browner (auburn?), closer to your version. Trust me these stinking ducks vary in color according to the light. I have a number of them with green heads, which is just a product of the light.

In addition, the pictures I posted will give you at least an idea of what I meant by detail.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 6:39 PM   #46
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
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.
For me, my aim is to get the best looking result as easily as possible. You are right that there are many variables an operator can manipulate. I tried many versions of the lake scene and got a slightly different result each time. Its actually a very instructive process, in working out the best procedure to get the most out of an image.

I don't use Photoshop, I'm using a new product called Sagelight. It doesn't do anything that you couldn't do with Photoshop but it is very fast and very intuitive. It makes it very easy to "tune" the image to get the results you want. I use GIMP instead of Photoshop but at the moment GIMP has only 8 bits per channel (Sagelight has 16 and reads RAWS directly).

For a high dynamic range situation like the lake scene at least, Sagelight seems to give better looking results than HDR ... my opinion only.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 6:43 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

You know this thing that you and amcam have gottin into Im backing out of. Im not going to discuss the comparisons between Raw and HDR. Who cares? Im just going to comment on peoples pictures, take pics of my own, and hope to get some comments on the ones I post. This rabbits hole that has been created is going nowhere, never could, never will.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2010, 8:17 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Here is my finished version...

Let me iterate my position again. I don't doubt for a minute that HDR is a dramatically useful technique for optimizing scenes in which the dynamic range exceeds what our present technology can capture. This, in and of itself, makes HDR a Very useful tool for processing images.

Second, for those who wish to make their images "beautiful," independant of capturing reality, HDR techniques are better than any filter that I'm familiar with. Since my definition of, "what is a photograph," has been demolished, these sureal images (And here I'm not referring to those hyped up garish bits of junk so popular on the internet) are in and of themselves of value.

The remaining area of disagreement, is that of sharpening the image. In my opinion this is largely an illusion. It's caused by the removal of chroma noise, and then hyping the color saturation. The resulting contrast of color, gives an apparent increase in sharpness. But this little test of mine shows that an optimally taken images, well within the range of the camera, cannot be improved by HDR programs. I also run programs like Noise Ninja twice. The first time to eliminate chroma noise. Only then do I apply unsharp mask, and, if necessary, run it again to eliminate luminence noise.

This particular shot, didn't produce much noise of any kind, and was ideal to show that programs like Photomatrix, err, sort of can't help themselves, but Have to attempt to restore the missing dynamic range, and in fact result in a worse image...



Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:10 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

I never ran this shot through Photomatrix, but to my surprise I did a better job than Bynx...

Here is my Photomatrix version, and then my normal processing version.





Still not as good as the normal processing...

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:47 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Dave, your final version looks amazing - which software did you use for developing the RAW? And what did you do with the JPEG? Would be interesting to know
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L
maggo85 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 4:10 AM.