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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2010, 9:13 PM   #71
Senior Member
 
Ancientritual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, IL
Posts: 347
Default

The sole purpose of HDR is to expand the EV range to duplicate what the human eye can see. This was being done decades and decades ago by a photographer named Ansel Adams. Instead of using software, he expanded the EV range through the Zone system. Pushing or pulling development times had a direct impact on the dynamic range of the negative. To determine if your photo is a HDR canidate, take a meter reading of the shadows and highlights. If it goes beyond a certain amount of f-stops (my number is in the 5 range) it will benefit from HDR. Just look at the trend my friends. A lot of new cameras are coming out with there own version of expanding the dynamic range. Of course subject matter is also a big consideration...
Ancientritual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 9:35 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato
HDR is a dramatically useful technique for optimizing scenes in which the dynamic range exceeds what our present technology can capture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
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 ?
Bwahahahahaha - Oh goody, I get a chance to defend HDR.

My statement stands by itself. Raw cannot always capture the entire range of the scene in a stand alone shot. On another thread I posted an example of a situation where I shot a Little Blue Heron and a Snowy Egret. Either the Egret or the Heron would have been lost without using a home made version of HDR to recover the highlights - And THAT was a lot of work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
I disagree. Weird over saturated, high local contrast, looks are easy enough with good editing software.
Steve's Digicams Forums - View Single Post - Sun and snow in Papperhavn

My entire quote echoes your statement about weird shots, but they are few and far between on this board. Far more typical is the work of people like Walter S, whose shots in the link above are truly spectacular. I actually had in mine some previous shots of Churches highlighted against impossible skies, etc - But those examples are examples of good art, unlike the crap I had in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato
The remaining area of disagreement, is that of sharpening the image. In my opinion this is largely an illusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
I agree, from what I have seen so far. Good examples may prove us wrong.
To my mind it's not so much a question of being wrong or right. If an image is taken in an optimum manner, then it can be as sharp as anything HDR is capable of. If it's not, then HDR will do a better job simply because it's a combination of exposures in which the final result is an optimum shot. It's only when HDR techniques are applied to an excellent shot, that present versions of the software attempt to correct problems that are simply not there, and as a result often make things worse. On this thread I have posted one example of my conclusions about this, and they appear to be born out by my results.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 6:33 AM   #73
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? ''


Bahadir wrote: ''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.''


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
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

Haha, so is your instinct of survival Chato! Just try to define and redefine your pointless statements accompanied by 'big grins'. Remember, you've came to this point from claiming 'the dynamic range we see though our eyes being more than camera sensor capable of capturing is just a myth' and trying to falsify 'some HDR proponents' who suggest multiple raw files rather than a single raw for attaining larger dynamic range.
In your response to Bynx you complain that some people including me do not bother to read what you write. Well, in the 'closed' thread of mine one can read my through explanations to your enquiries starting from 'if I could really see what I photographed in my hdr photo!!' to your concerns about the aducation of new beginneres to photography, besides a number of free associations forcing the limits of patience.
Now, you're comparing photomatix 'as an editing software to clear the mass!!' to other softwares asking others to compare their skill in them! Boy, haven't you heard a phrase 'All in good time' Now, even assuming photomatix did the best editing job for your raw file, you don't applaude a tenor for clearing his voice, since it had been repeatedly told you that the hdr process does not start at the front of the computer!
As for your sudden inspiration of cutting away from comparing photography to Rembrandt; in all photography classes it is taught that photography is about training one's eye in the first place, and photography which is 150 years old, too young when compared to other arts, retain many things in common with the art of painting once it derived from...Now you can practice a number of softwares but with the sensitivity of the 'avarage Joe' your end products will be hollow!

Last edited by bahadir; Mar 12, 2010 at 6:57 AM.
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 8:06 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post

Haha, so is your instinct of survival Chato! Just try to define and redefine your pointless statements accompanied by 'big grins'. Remember, you've came to this point from claiming 'the dynamic range we see though our eyes being more than camera sensor capable of capturing is just a myth' and trying to falsify 'some HDR proponents' who suggest multiple raw files rather than a single raw for attaining larger dynamic range.
I have no interest in debating someone whose knowledge of photography is limited to being judged by Rembrandt and whose intellectual honesty lacks something to be desired. Go fly a kite...

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 8:19 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

This reminds me of the time I was out in the back yard trying to fly a kite with my son. No matter what we tried it just wouldnt go up. Then his mother leaned her head out the kitchen window and said "You need more tail". I looked at my son, shook my head and said, "Last nite she told me to go fly a kite".
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 4:41 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Go fly a kite... Dave
LOL! I'd rather fly a balloon and call it Chato ; )
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 4:48 PM   #77
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post

Steve's Digicams Forums - View Single Post - Sun and snow in Papperhavn

My entire quote echoes your statement about weird shots, but they are few and far between on this board.
Are these shots HDR ? Very nice shots but I'd like to see a RAW vs HDR comparison.

There's another recent thread here somewhere that showed some snow shots on dark lichen covered rock, with RAW vs HDR and I certainly couldn't pick any improvement with the HDR.

Does anyone have a link to some "excellent" HDR that is dramatically better than its equivalent edited RAW please ? Surely such a comparison shouldn't be too hard ?

Last edited by amcam; Mar 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 4:56 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahadir View Post
LOL! I'd rather fly a balloon and call it Chato ; )
A basic minimum of honesty is required for any serious discussion.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 5:19 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
Are these shots HDR ? Very nice shots but I'd like to see a RAW vs HDR comparison.

There's another recent thread here somewhere that showed some snow shots on dark lichen covered rock, with RAW vs HDR and I certainly couldn't pick any improvement with the HDR.

Does anyone have a link to some "excellent" HDR that is dramatically better than its equivalent edited RAW please ? Surely such a comparison shouldn't be too hard ?
I really don't think that this is a question of "comparison."

I always shoot RAW - Always. The few times I've set out to make an HDR image, I set up my equipment to do so. They were shot in RAW.

If a scene exceeds the range of the camera, then HDR is a technique for capturing that scene as the human eye would see it. Three RAW images will do this better than three JPEG's. If a scene does NOT exceed the range of the camera, then there's no need for HDR. RAW will do a better job, or at least has the potential of doing a better job then JPEG, simply because it captures more data. But even a JPEG can do the job.

If the purpose of a shot is to capture reality, and that reality does not exceed the range of the camera, then HDR will do no better than any good shot, whatever the format. When people say, "I can tell it's an HDR," they are also saying (whether they like it or not) that they are referring to an image which is NOT what the human eye would see if present.

The other aspect of using HDR is to create Art. Those who push a simple poorly framed scene into the world of garish color, are under the impression that garish color alone gives their work merit. At the moment (although not on this board) this seems to be a popular activity...

But HDR can work well at doing this; better than filters I'm familiar with. Certainly there are other ways of accomplishing the creation of photographic based Art that are equally compelling - Modeling and Rendering, whether based on actual photographs or photographs that are complete creations of the artist.

Here's a link to piece which is extremely well done (although not to my taste) and is a perfectly legitimate example of using HDR software for more than just making an image "real."
Old Courthouse HDR - Steve's Digicams Forums

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2010, 4:14 PM   #80
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Here's a link to piece which is extremely well done (although not to my taste) and is a perfectly legitimate example of using HDR software for more than just making an image "real."
Old Courthouse HDR - Steve's Digicams Forums
Thanks for the example Dave.

Nice concept although a bit over saturated. I'm coming to the view that HDR is really only suited to special situations such as this. However in this instance, two photos an hour apart and some masked layers may have been just as effective ... personal choice as to what is easier and what gives the most interesting effect.

What does seem surprising to me that in the example in the "Best approach" thread, HDR does not give more detail in the very dark areas, as it is theoretically supposed to do.

Any other examples please ?
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 5:58 AM.