Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you hate HDR too?  (Read 255707 times)
rustyjaw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #80 on: March 19, 2008, 11:56:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I suppose it's possible that Photomatix actually treats separate images differently than a single image. But at least in theory, you should not be able to get better results by making versions of the original image. It would be a shame is the programmers of Photomatix had it behave this way, but sometimes it happens.

I guess I should do a test to see if the results from one RAW are any different from a multi-version RAW.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 11:56:57 AM by rustyjaw » Logged

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']flickr[/span] | [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']website[/span]
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564


« Reply #81 on: March 19, 2008, 01:37:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suppose it's possible that Photomatix actually treats separate images differently than a single image. But at least in theory, you should not be able to get better results by making versions of the original image. It would be a shame is the programmers of Photomatix had it behave this way, but sometimes it happens.

I guess I should do a test to see if the results from one RAW are any different from a multi-version RAW.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=182754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I tried the single file conversion and it loked just as bad. I am sure is the location, I shot handheld at a high ASA, I tried another photo with the same results, maybe HDR and high ASA  don't mix well together?
Logged
rustyjaw
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2008, 02:41:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, that's too bad. I must say that some shots just don't work in HDR, even 3-exposure brackets. Often it's a mystery why. When it's not a mystery it seems that the exposures didn't cover the dynamic range of the scene evenly...at least that's my theory.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 03:57:22 PM by rustyjaw » Logged

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']flickr[/span] | [span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']website[/span]
larkvi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213



WWW
« Reply #83 on: March 21, 2008, 04:49:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not fond of the overprocessed look that HDR has been identified with, and the grocery and diner shots above move into that area from me. That aside, I think this thread has shown some of the ways that HDR can be extremely useful in rendering all the visual information of a scene that is pleasing to the eye but unavailable to the camera. I'll pitch in something: on my recent trip to Ethiopia, I took the shots for this image--I ended up using 4 exposures each 2 stops apart and combining it by hand with masks:

[attachment=5675:attachment]
Entrance, Abune Yemata Guh Church, Tigray, Ethiopia, October 2007

The door and the outside, especially the glare on the cliff path, were completely unavailble to one exposure, so it had to be HDR to be available at all. (I am a little unsatisfied with the way the part of the cave on the right looks, so, gentlemen, if you have any suggestions,please feel free to send them to me.) This image actually required a fun but somewhat crazy approach --well worth visiting if you can deal with getting there.
Logged

Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564


« Reply #84 on: March 21, 2008, 10:24:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, after reading a bit I think I found out my problem with my Photo.

"Shooting on high ISO will increase the noise in the image. For example, using ISO100 can produce a noise image like ISO400. So if you use ISO400 it will be very noisy. Don’t even think about ISO800 or 1600 unless you are desperate and have a great noise reduction technique. I find that Noiseware doesn’t do a thing against the noise in a HDR shot, but Noise Ninja can. However using Noise Ninja will soften the image."

I shot the image handheld at 1600 ISO because they would not allowed me to use a tripod in the cavern.
Logged
papa v2.0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #85 on: March 21, 2008, 11:46:42 PM »
ReplyReply

hi
i think that hdr
is Basic a problem of compression of a high dynamos range into a small output dynamic range
« Last Edit: March 22, 2008, 11:24:48 AM by papa v2.0 » Logged
PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #86 on: March 23, 2008, 09:50:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ok, after reading a bit I think I found out my problem with my Photo.

"Shooting on high ISO will increase the noise in the image. For example, using ISO100 can produce a noise image like ISO400. So if you use ISO400 it will be very noisy. Don’t even think about ISO800 or 1600 unless you are desperate and have a great noise reduction technique. I find that Noiseware doesn’t do a thing against the noise in a HDR shot, but Noise Ninja can. However using Noise Ninja will soften the image."

I shot the image handheld at 1600 ISO because they would not allowed me to use a tripod in the cavern.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That will do it
Logged

PhillyPhotographer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


« Reply #87 on: March 23, 2008, 10:11:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am not fond of the overprocessed look that HDR has been identified with, and the grocery and diner shots above move into that area from me. That aside, I think this thread has shown some of the ways that HDR can be extremely useful in rendering all the visual information of a scene that is pleasing to the eye but unavailable to the camera. I'll pitch in something: on my recent trip to Ethiopia, I took the shots for this image--I ended up using 4 exposures each 2 stops apart and combining it by hand with masks:

[attachment=5675:attachment]
Entrance, Abune Yemata Guh Church, Tigray, Ethiopia, October 2007

The door and the outside, especially the glare on the cliff path, were completely unavailble to one exposure, so it had to be HDR to be available at all. (I am a little unsatisfied with the way the part of the cave on the right looks, so, gentlemen, if you have any suggestions,please feel free to send them to me.) This image actually required a fun but somewhat crazy approach --well worth visiting if you can deal with getting there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The "painterly" look of some HDRs takes time to grow on people and sometimes it doesn't. I wish  I had a nickel for every person I knew that said they didn't like HDR and now love it. I chose to use HDR to capture the color and life of a very old indoor market (Reading Terminal Market Philadelphia) because of very poor lighting that made the colors very dull and as one person put it "depressing ". When i showed the photos to a client he couldn't believe it was the same place he visited every day. But that's just one side. I had a famous local photographer tell me "that when it comes to photography there are no rules". Then he was at a local group show and said " HDR is not photography". HDR is just another tool but to some it's just as evil as Photoshop. I recently had a group show and showed this a finished version of this HDR (fixed perspective). Half the people thought it was a painting and only some knew what process was used. I sold  several including one to the gallery owner. Hell next year I could hate HDR, who knows ?


some others from that show

Logged

Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #88 on: March 25, 2008, 02:29:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Those are pretty.
I wonder if the growing popularity of HDR, is in anyway linked to the growing acceptance of blended live action & CGI in other mediums such as film and in TV advertising. HDR when painting like or what ever, reminds me of some of those live action + CGI techniques, and high end video game illustration.

Interesting.
Logged
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564


« Reply #89 on: March 28, 2008, 11:47:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I keep experimenting with HDR, here is Dos Lagos at for me the lighting was kind of hard.

Logged
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564


« Reply #90 on: March 29, 2008, 05:01:46 PM »
ReplyReply




Another one.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #91 on: March 30, 2008, 07:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Hate is a strong word, but in general..YES!

I have seen some good HDR stuff, but most of it looks more like someone playing with blender or bryce, than a photograph. That overprocessed rendered look is not appealing to my eyes. Now, used with some caution, it can look ok. That is the word here..caution or moderation. Much like the landscapers who insist on max out saturation glow in the dark green grass, its just OTT most of the time.

A big difference between vibrant and punchy, and felt tip pen look! Much like HDR, sure bring up the shadows, but dont wipe them out 100%, because its an important part of photography. Reminds me of selective colour, huge buzz a few years back..ok I admit to doing one shot with it (but only one), its pretty corny nowadays..overuse is the problem with these techniques, more than what they do in themselves.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #92 on: April 04, 2008, 01:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been reading this with quite a lot of interest.  A couple of observations about HDR, though...

First off, whatever Photoshop is doing, it appears to be junk.

That out of the way, the only realistic HDR that I've seen is blending from multiple actual shots.  Tweaking it in Photoshop or another program artificially seems to do ugly things to the resulting image.

The Diner photos look awful, IMO.  And I think the reason is that our brain expects it to look a bit washed out and badly lit, because such is real life.  It's also why for film I tend to like stuff like Fuji Reala.  The sky just isn't that vivid Kodachrome blue at the elevations where I live.  Gorgeous for snapshots, though. (probably why I shoot mostly b/w as well - good contrast and rendition)

So what you probably want to do then, is maybe 3 shots with a 1 stop difference between them and no more.  Expand it a bit but if it's got washed out areas or black stuff you can't see... so be it.  Maybe even 5 shots with 1/2 or 1/4 stop between them unless it's insanely hard lighting or you want a painting effect.

12 stops makes it look like some odd Twilight Zone effect.  Or some Thomas Kincaid nastiness.

I can see how you might like it, though.  If you get tired of buying lithographs and framing them and want photos to frame on your walls, it's fantastic to over HDR it to the point of looking offset printed.  Yes, I would put those prints on my walls as well - and for that's it's fantastic.  Keep on making those shots.

Me, I'll get tight groups and blend them to clean it up.

P.S.
Why don't they make sensors that register say, 16 bit data instead of 255 being white?  Just curious.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 01:45:00 PM by Plekto » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2008, 12:44:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why don't they make sensors that register say, 16 bit data instead of 255 being white?  Just curious.

They do. Every modern digital camera sensor records at least 12 bits, (0-4095). Newer DSLRs (the Canon Mark III series, for example) record 14 bits (0-16383), and some medium format backs record 16 bits (0-65535). And the newer versions of Photoshop support editing in 16-bit mode for even non-HDR images. The only time you should downsample to 8-bit is after all edits are done and you need a JPEG version for the web or something. But you should always keep a copy of the 16-bit original file.
Logged

Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #94 on: April 06, 2008, 02:44:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I didn't mean the color depth but the luminosity.  Ie - the contrast has a value of 255 and  - poof - it washes out and you get that nasty spike of values that can't be altered or recovered.  I see the graphs for the histograms and it's always 0-255?

Why not more values for brightness?  Or is that something the software that you use is doing?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 02:52:40 AM by Plekto » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #95 on: April 06, 2008, 08:24:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't mean the color depth but the luminosity.  Ie - the contrast has a value of 255 and  - poof - it washes out and you get that nasty spike of values that can't be altered or recovered.

There is no difference; the histogram is scaled the same whether the maximum value is 255, 4095, 16383, or 65535. You have just discovered the basis of the "expose to the right" concept. With film, you metered on the basis of a 12%-18% gray card so that it fell at the middle of the response curve of the film because film has a fairly linear exposure response in the middle and rolls off smoothly in the highlights and shadows. With digital, the response curve is linear until the sensor reaches its maximum output value, and then you hit a brick wall. Increasing exposure beyond that point will not increase then numeric values output by the sensor, and you have clipped the data. So with digital cameras, the optimal exposure level is always that in which the non-specular highlights fall within one exposure increment of this clipping point, but are still below it. Read this article for a more in-depth explanation.
Logged

amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #96 on: April 08, 2008, 04:04:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's some new cave HDR shots just to keep this one running.







Logged

Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.com
JSPhotoe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #97 on: November 23, 2008, 01:20:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, I too think hate is a very strong word. HDR is a wonderful new technique to overcome limitations of our digital cameras. As far as not being able to visualize the image with HDR is just a factor of inexperience with the technique. I think the master Ansel Adams would have embraced this new technique since he loved new technology, and was a master of manipulation.

Here are some of my HDR's:

[attachment=9827:53725700...63cd64_b.jpg]

[attachment=9829:24993472...2eb3eec1.jpg]

[attachment=9828:18442145...aae9c5_b.jpg]

Just my opinion!

My Images
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 01:30:33 PM by JSPhotoe » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #98 on: November 23, 2008, 01:44:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I see no problem with a technique that clearly works well; perhaps there might be times when it has been overdone but I wouldn´t say any of the above examples falls into this category at all; very nice work, I feel.

Rob C
Logged

mnmblu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #99 on: December 06, 2008, 12:18:04 PM »
ReplyReply




Is it me or do some of these HDR's just need a bit of adjustment in color, tone and the like, to make them look better?  Most of these HDR's that I see,  just seem to be begging for a bit of tweaking to make them look acceptable.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 12:29:15 PM by mnmblu » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad