Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 27, 2010, 8:05 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Ancientritual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, IL
Posts: 347
Default

I have been using the Huey Pantone Pro calibration system on my monitor, so I have always wondered what effect it had on my photos when viewed on different monitors. Printing photos however are spot on using this system. Meaning there is very little difference between what I see on the monitor and what is printed besides the differences of the two mediums.

Those hotspots in the clouds can be corrected.
Ancientritual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2010, 8:47 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Now that I am home and can see the second picture posted, I really like everything about that image, composition, exposure and all. I was paying so much attention to the guy and the background detail on first looking at it that I didn't even notice the burned out area in the clouds.

That bridge is quite interesting too.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Apr 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2010, 8:36 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientritual View Post
I have been using the Huey Pantone Pro calibration system on my monitor, so I have always wondered what effect it had on my photos when viewed on different monitors. Printing photos however are spot on using this system. Meaning there is very little difference between what I see on the monitor and what is printed besides the differences of the two mediums.
I think most monitor calibration systems are intended to match prints so I'm not really suprised that there would be some differences in brightness. I'd also suspect that a calibrated system would typically exhibit a bit lower dynamic range compared to an uncalbrated system to account for dynamic range available in prints.

That said I think larger part in this case may be taste and artistic intent so my comments on brightness are just that and not to be taken as necessarily as an opinion of right or wrong. I have played with adjusting one of my monitors to match a photo of a gray card and found the monitor to dark for general purpose use.

A. C.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2010, 1:51 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

IMO, HDR processing is done right when no one can tell it was used. For some reason people seem to think that shadows are not OK and that everything under them has to be seen clearly. That's a mistake (I think) that causes most HDR images to have that unrealistic, flat look. If one brings out the shadows too much, the image looses dimension. HDR should be used when there is a lot of contrast and the camera will either under or over expose depending on how Ev is compensated. Not every image is an ideal candidate for HDR processing. A good technique is to take one RAW shot, then go to Photoshop (or any other program that allows you to manipulate RAW images), change the exposure (- and +) and save each copy as TIFF. Then combine these TIFF images in Photomatix. Doing this way, you don't need to take three+ shots with Ev bracketing and you choose the amount of under/over exposure to apply as you fill fit.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2010, 3:33 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
A good technique is to take one RAW shot, then go to Photoshop (or any other program that allows you to manipulate RAW images), change the exposure (- and +) and save each copy as TIFF. Then combine these TIFF images in Photomatix. Doing this way, you don't need to take three+ shots with Ev bracketing and you choose the amount of under/over exposure to apply as you fill fit.
A while back (I think I was still using CS2) I tried doing that with one RAW file using Photoshops' own HDR program, but it recognized the files as having been prduced from one RAW file and would not run. I don't think I have ever tried another since and have now been using CS4 since I bought my new machine in February, 2009.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2010, 8:56 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Well, you really don't do the HDR in PS. You simply process the RAW image in PS, increasing/decreasing the exposure and saving each picture with different names as TIFF. Then use Photomatix to combine the TIFF files.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2010, 10:23 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Well, you really don't do the HDR in PS. You simply process the RAW image in PS, increasing/decreasing the exposure and saving each picture with different names as TIFF. Then use Photomatix to combine the TIFF files.
In the end all the single exposure method is doing is allowing one to experiment with the software. There is no additional information in the end result than in one raw exposure. A true multi-exposure HDR can contain much more information than can be captured in any single raw exposure.

Clarifying my earlier comments I am suggesting HDRs such as Ancientritual, vvcarpio, and the OP produce(d) may be a genre of their own. Creating it doesn't interest me in the least and I can't imagine ever using using the method except to create an image that didn't look "natural" but the original scene was a bit beyond the range of a single exposure. None the less I do find some of the "extreme" (for lack of a better term) HDRs compelling.

A. C.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2010, 10:22 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac.smith View Post
In the end all the single exposure method is doing is allowing one to experiment with the software. There is no additional information in the end result than in one raw exposure. A true multi-exposure HDR can contain much more information than can be captured in any single raw exposure.
Not really. HDR uses multiple images processed by the camera. The only difference between the images is the exposure compensation, which varies according to how the in-camera Ev bracketing was setup (i.e. -1.0, 0, +1.0). Theoretically, everything else remains the same (or pretty darn close). When you shoot RAW and process the image in PS, all you are doing is the work that the camera does if you shoot JPG, except that in this case, you are processing the RAW file and not the camera. So, the RAW file contains ALL the information (but un-processed). You then decrease the exposure, make any other adjustments you wish and convert the resulted image to TIFF. That image is no different than the JPG image your camera produced (actually in most cases it is much better because the RAW file preserves much more data, particularly the highlights). The HDR processing will simply combine those images (whether they are JPGs produced by the camera or TIFF produced by PS from your raw file).
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2010, 9:57 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Not really. HDR uses multiple images processed by the camera. The only difference between the images is the exposure compensation, which varies according to how the in-camera Ev bracketing was setup (i.e. -1.0, 0, +1.0). Theoretically, everything else remains the same (or pretty darn close). When you shoot RAW and process the image in PS, all you are doing is the work that the camera does if you shoot JPG, except that in this case, you are processing the RAW file and not the camera. So, the RAW file contains ALL the information (but un-processed). You then decrease the exposure, make any other adjustments you wish and convert the resulted image to TIFF. That image is no different than the JPG image your camera produced (actually in most cases it is much better because the RAW file preserves much more data, particularly the highlights). The HDR processing will simply combine those images (whether they are JPGs produced by the camera or TIFF produced by PS from your raw file).
When we apply differing exposure compensations to multiple in camera exposures the exposure actually changes, that is the aperture closes to differing degrees for each exposure or the shutter speed differs for each exposure or even the ISO could change for each exposure. The key element here is we have the potential of capturing addition detail. Any post-processing manipulation of "exposure" in a just one image is simply shifting what gray tone will be treated as middle gray. No additional information is captured.

In another thread the considered opinion was that modern DSLRs' jpeg engines could produce an image with a dynamic range of between 8.5 and 9.5 f stops and those same cameras could capture a dynamic range, depending somewhat on the conversion software settings, 11.5 to 12.5 stops. In that discussion we found it was fairly easy to conceive of scenes that encompassed 18 to 21 stops. No single exposure, raw or jpeg will handle that range regardless of how that single imaged is captured or processed.

A. C.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2010, 10:54 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac.smith View Post
The key element here is we have the potential of capturing addition detail...
You don't capture additional detail by bracketing the exposure. If nothing else, you may introduce problems (i.e. noise if the ISO goes up or blown highlights if the high exposure is too much). In normal daylight conditions, the variation in terms of camera settings is minimum between -1.0 and +1.0 Ev. It is true that some of the new camera models out there are producing good JPG files. However, the RAW image will always contain more information. You mention the grey line. When you process the RAW image, you can change everything, not just move the grey line. You can change the exposure, white balance, sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc, etc, etc. You do the work that the camera will do but in most cases, with better results (if you are familiar with the software you are using).
__________________

Tullio
Tullio 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 11:51 AM.