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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2010, 9:39 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

I still fail to see the purpose of this. What are you trying to prove? You are better at this or that? Photomatix is ok but there are better ways to do it? Images from Photomatix are not as good as anything you can produce doing it your way? Now to this I will say .... so what?
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 10:32 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
I still fail to see the purpose of this. What are you trying to prove? You are better at this or that? Photomatix is ok but there are better ways to do it? Images from Photomatix are not as good as anything you can produce doing it your way? Now to this I will say .... so what?
Have you not said that Photomatrix will, if not improve every image, at least not make it worse?

Have you not said, that Photomatrix will always produce a sharper image?

And are you alone in holding these positions? It would appear that quite a few people completely agree with you. Moreover, some of them on this thread (and I must say, that you HAVE followed my posts) haven't even bothered to read my statements, but are responding to cliches? Walter and Bahadir, (no offense to them intended) certainly haven't responded to anything I've actually said, rather they seem to pigion hole me, and respond to that, as opposed to what I say.

Am I seeking to prove that HDR and Photomatrix in particular are "frauds?" Not at all. I am seeking to prove exactly what I claim, no more and no less.

Photomatrix, aside from glitches one finds in any program, is an extremely easy to use, well thought out, and produces consistant results. A superb job of software engineering!

But, I believe if people bother to read what I set out to prove - I have proved it. And if anyone besides you doubts this, I have provided the RAW file, so that at least they can do a pseudo HDR to prove me wrong.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 10:39 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
This was done in Photoshop. I ran Noise Ninja to get rid of chroma noise, then unsharp mask, then noise ninja again (although it didn't really need much) for luminense noise. Very simple processing, except that most people don't use my trick of getting rid of Just Chroma noise before sharpening, and luminence noise after.

Dave
i can do just as good with one click and then save using easy hdr or martin sykes program so two clicks MAX with either program but then again i would not shoot wildlife with hdr in mind.... it is not meant to be, but this subject in which ever thread always results in the same fiasco LOL.

i say welcome to the digital era , do i process all my shots not quite do i soley shoot HDR nope but i like to learn... is HDR the best processing in the world maybe to the HDR enthusiast just like cloning and skin smoothing is for someone who loves portrait work i think you get the picture everyone edits some photos in some way is there a right and a wrong way of course there is as clearly you can see everyones opinions , tastes and views differ but i see it like this if you want to keep going round the roundabout then continue doing so but until someone stops or goes around the wrong way you will never meet and there will be no end to this cat and mouse game.

happy shooting long live digital
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 10:47 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simple View Post
i can do just as good with one click and then save using easy hdr or martin sykes program so two clicks MAX with either program but then again i would not shoot wildlife with hdr in mind.... it is not meant to be, but this subject in which ever thread always results in the same fiasco LOL.
I challenge the above statement, although I don't doubt for a moment that anyone can match my results using any image processing program. I am challenging the idea that HDR is necessary, or would produce better results. It's just not beneficial to every shot.

Again, here is my position repeated

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/1063714-post48.html

Please download the RAW file and prove me wrong. I'm sorry it's 11 megs. Life sucks...

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 11:30 AM   #65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
I challenge the above statement, although I don't doubt for a moment that anyone can match my results using any image processing program. I am challenging the idea that HDR is necessary, or would produce better results. It's just not beneficial to every shot.


Dave
i havent said it is necessary for this shot as i metioned i wouldnt shoot hdr with ducks or any wildlife in mind its a known fact bulidings landscapes work better due to alligment / movement issues .

i tried downloading the image but for some reason it displays very small on my machine almost 100 by 200 i dont know why ?maybe i havent got the correct codec ? as always dont get a psuedo mixed up with a true hdr .

i could give you one raw nef file and use 3 myself would there be a difference ? of coarse there would one would be true hdr the other a psuedo.
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR

Last edited by simple; Mar 11, 2010 at 11:33 AM.
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 11:40 AM   #66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simple View Post
i havent said it is necessary for this shot as i metioned i wouldnt shoot hdr with ducks or any wildlife in mind its a known fact bulidings landscapes work better due to alligment / movement issues .

i tried downloading the image but for some reason it displays very small on my machine almost 100 by 200 i dont know why ?maybe i havent got the correct codec ? as always dont get a psuedo mixed up with a true hdr .

i could give you one raw nef file and use 3 myself would there be a difference ? of coarse there would one would be true hdr the other a psuedo.
In order to make this universally accessable, I converted the NEF to DNG. Any version of Photoshop from CS on should load it into the Raw converter automatically. It wont load as a normal file - It has to go to the converter first, but this process should be transparent.

I'm aware of what you said, and this one said, etc, etc.

I have clearly stated what I am setting out to prove. I provided a link to my thoughts on the matter, stated on this thread. Here is the link again:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/1063714-post48.html

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 12:41 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Perhaps because I have an inferior camera I find that there is a marked improvement over the middle shot when HDR is applied. There have been numerous examples posted showing the HDR and the middle shot by Walter S. Clearly there is an improvement over the middle shot. There is no mention of Raw files but jpeg. When working with Photomatix whenever I got an unpleasant result it was my fault and I just changed the settings. I dont really want a software like others that you just input and get the output without doing anything. The HDR look I get is what I want or I work on it until it is. I dont think HDR is good for living creatures, but more for man made things like buildings, autos, furniture. Some vegetation works ok, some not. The Dave Hill look of people similar to a shot of Simon's father having an HDR grunge look I find appealing. But HDR of people would probably be better if done from Raw. Im looking forward to exploring more the use of Raw.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 12:50 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Perhaps because I have an inferior camera I find that there is a marked improvement over the middle shot when HDR is applied. There have been numerous examples posted showing the HDR and the middle shot by Walter S. Clearly there is an improvement over the middle shot. There is no mention of Raw files but jpeg. When working with Photomatix whenever I got an unpleasant result it was my fault and I just changed the settings. I dont really want a software like others that you just input and get the output without doing anything. The HDR look I get is what I want or I work on it until it is. I dont think HDR is good for living creatures, but more for man made things like buildings, autos, furniture. Some vegetation works ok, some not. The Dave Hill look of people similar to a shot of Simon's father having an HDR grunge look I find appealing. But HDR of people would probably be better if done from Raw. Im looking forward to exploring more the use of Raw.
I did one experiment in comparing a single RAW, with a three shot version also originally RAW. This was done with my little Sigma. For the life of me I couldn't see a difference in the results from the one shot or three shot version. True, not a very interesting picture to begin with, but it DID need some sort of HDR technique to bring out the range of the subject (the interior of my apartment).

So, they call it "psuedo" Raw. What does that mean when the only point is to see the results? But, one file is not exactly a comprehensive test.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 1:38 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post

I have clearly stated what I am setting out to prove. I provided a link to my thoughts on the matter, stated on this thread. Here is the link again:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/1063714-post48.html

Dave

ooops ive read it this time
__________________
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 6:38 PM   #70
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
HDR is a dramatically useful technique for optimizing scenes in which the dynamic range exceeds what our present technology can capture.
I agree with this as the theory but why does it seem so hard for anyone to show an example of HDR being "dramatically" better than an edited RAW ? Is it just theory which practical considerations, such as misalignment noise, added noise from each frame, etc tear down ?

Quote:
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.
I disagree. Weird over saturated, high local contrast, looks are easy enough with good editing software.


Quote:
The remaining area of disagreement, is that of sharpening the image. In my opinion this is largely an illusion.
I agree, from what I have seen so far. Good examples may prove us wrong.
amcam 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 6:45 AM.