Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you hate HDR too?  (Read 257829 times)
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7866



WWW
« Reply #300 on: September 30, 2011, 08:46:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.

-h
+1.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Monito
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



WWW
« Reply #301 on: September 30, 2011, 09:10:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.

Perhaps, but the issue of pixel coding and bit size is important to many aspects vital to practitioners of digital photography today.  Bits per pixel affects dynamic range at the sensor.  Choice of bits per pixel (8 bit vs 16 bit) is a factor in avoiding processing artifacts when doing conversion and post-processing with programs like Photoshop.  An understanding of how the image data is transformed in HDR processing will help the practitioner avoid some pitfalls and achieve more refined results.

But we're discussing image data having 3 x 32 bit floats, or 32 bits per channel, 96 bits per pixel.  It represents both astronomical dynamic range and accommodates fractional results with sufficient precision.

As far as I know, the standard HDR conversions and file formats are 32 bit floating point per pixel, not 3x32 = 96.  It is still an improvement over 24 bit integer (3x8) pixels for many things, encoding a greater number of colours and a wide range, to my understanding.
Logged

MonitoPhoto (Landscape, Architecture, Portraits: Halifax, Nova Scotia)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6179



WWW
« Reply #302 on: September 30, 2011, 09:32:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that a thorough discussion of pros and cons of integers vs floating points is beyond the scope of this site and this thread. It introduce a lot of details that most of us simply does not have to think about. My point was simply that one should not make choices of format only based on it being float or int.

-h

+ at least 10.37689953
Logged

Monito
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



WWW
« Reply #303 on: September 30, 2011, 09:37:00 AM »
ReplyReply

The HDR format Photoshop uses is HDR Radiance, and that is 32 bits per pixel, 8 x 3 channels plus an 8 bit exponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGBE_image_format
http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/filefmts.pdf

There are other formats, for example the 64 bit HDRi format, useful in scanning:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRi_%28data_format%29
Logged

MonitoPhoto (Landscape, Architecture, Portraits: Halifax, Nova Scotia)
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #304 on: October 01, 2011, 01:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm.  Maybe I was wrong.  If I was, I apologize.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3550


« Reply #305 on: October 01, 2011, 02:40:37 AM »
ReplyReply

The HDR format Photoshop uses is HDR Radiance, and that is 32 bits per pixel, 8 x 3 channels plus an 8 bit exponent.

Indeed, and here is a nice summary of some of the more common HDR file types, of which the ILM OpenEXR format offers the best compromise between file size, magnitude range, and accuracy (to resist accumulating errors) for postprocessing of photographic HDR images.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 03:59:36 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #306 on: October 01, 2011, 11:21:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Mixed feelings, but I sometimes find it useful. Mostly I use Merge to HDR in Photoshop.

Some samples: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Special-methods/HDR/HDR

Best regards
Erik

OK slightly pejorative title, but I've recently been looking around at a few other forums, especially ones for people new or newish to photography (was going to name them but am chickening out). I have to say most of the HDR shots posted on this site, whilst not always my thing, are for the most part technically competent and at the more subtle end of the genre - but really there are some seriously ugly images being produced out there!

Photomatrix and the saturation slider are certainly a killer combination in the wrong hands!

Neil.
Logged

theBike45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #307 on: November 27, 2011, 05:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

 I use two methods, the HDR as well as sun blocking filters, in those cases where movement
occurs in the frame. If appropriate (level horizon) I prefer the filter method, although HDR is
(usually) a whole lot simpler and less error prone.  Never looks as good as what the eye saw, but that's
always true when using a device (camera) that can't come close to matching the capability
of the human eye.  As far as picture value, technical accuracy is never anywhere near as important as
the other characteristics, assuming, of course, that the thing's in the proper focus, etc.
Logged
famalam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #308 on: January 17, 2012, 04:52:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Not against HDR itself, more it's rampant abuse by amateurs, and the way it's lapped up by people who haven't had time to realise how terrible most of it looks.
Logged

JonathanRimmel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


WWW
« Reply #309 on: January 17, 2012, 05:43:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't hate HDR. I hate grunge HDR. Although, I must say it has it's place. One photograph I found it quite useful on was that of some rusty old tools. Using a more extreme HDR technique really brought out the texture and detail. What gets me the most is using the same technique on people *Gasp*!
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2618


« Reply #310 on: January 18, 2012, 03:12:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Not against HDR itself, more it's rampant abuse by amateurs, and the way it's lapped up by people who haven't had time to realise how terrible most of it looks.

Is the rampant abuse by professionals OK? Wink
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #311 on: January 18, 2012, 03:47:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Is the rampant abuse by professionals OK? Wink



Stamper, in today's world economy, I doubt any photographer feels particularly rampant; best left to the lions...

(Sorry folks, this is a little north-of-the-border in-joke.)

Rob C
Logged

famalam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


WWW
« Reply #312 on: January 18, 2012, 01:00:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Is the rampant abuse by professionals OK? Wink

ah touché lol Smiley
Logged

jessuca09
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #313 on: February 06, 2012, 01:10:02 AM »
ReplyReply

HDR? Is this some new hormone replacement therapy?




Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400



WWW
« Reply #314 on: February 09, 2012, 11:58:53 AM »
ReplyReply

HDR is a tool like anything else, sometimes it gets abused, sometimes not but that is all an opinion by the viewer, if the person who took the image is happy and it was their intent to have an image look like that then who is say their vision is wrong? Like many things in life, there are polarized positions, it is up to the viewer to form their own opinions of what they like or dislike. I have seen images that were not hdr but look garish and over processed but that is just my opinion, I respect the photographer for their work, as long as it was their vision.  Smiley

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



WWW
« Reply #315 on: February 09, 2012, 06:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I dabble in HDR for specific goals I know I can't achieve in one shot. I think it's curious that some folks to identify themselves as "HDR" photographers. Much like those labeling themselves "pinhole", "panorama", "medium format", "large format", "Holga", "cell phone", etc. photographers.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3348



WWW
« Reply #316 on: February 15, 2012, 09:35:53 PM »
ReplyReply

It was a typo, dude - get over yourself.  You'd argue with a doorknob ... and lose.

Grin
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1030


« Reply #317 on: February 18, 2012, 04:23:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I did at first. Saw too many garish images. But the way I look at it now, as most have said, it is really a tool where you can try to create a look or quickly rectify image light disparites with presets- or you can vary that as well. You can go for the so-called authenic and true look to bring light levels under control or you can use it to create something artistic. I did these two. Are they garish? To me the first looks like an illustration. All I really did was to accentuate what was already there. With some effort, you can do the same in photoshop without using an HDR specific program.



Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 578



« Reply #318 on: February 19, 2012, 08:55:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I see HDR as having two completely separate applications (probably many more).

1. To compensate for the limitations of current digital camera sensors by allowing the full tonal range, as interpreted by the human eye, to be more closely reproduced in an image. Done well, it should not be possible to tell that HDR has been used.

2. As an artistic tool capable of producing a wide range of "treatments" extending from the subtle to the outlandish. Used this way, HDR will be more or less obvious and whether any individual hates or loves a particular image will depend upon personal appreciation (or otherwise) of the artist's rendition.

Horses for courses, different strokes for different folks and a plethora of similar inane cliches.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1275



WWW
« Reply #319 on: February 19, 2012, 09:24:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I see HDR as having two completely separate applications (probably many more).

1. To compensate for the limitations of current digital camera sensors by allowing the full tonal range, as interpreted by the human eye, to be more closely reproduced in an image. Done well, it should not be possible to tell that HDR has been used.

2. As an artistic tool capable of producing a wide range of "treatments" extending from the subtle to the outlandish. Used this way, HDR will be more or less obvious and whether any individual hates or loves a particular image will depend upon personal appreciation (or otherwise) of the artist's rendition.

Point 1 is wrong. The existence of HDR techniques and software is not beause of the limitations of digital sensors. Even if you had a digital sensor capable of capturing in a single shot what today requires bracketing (and these sensors will become true with electronic noise being reduced with technology advances), the problems in HDR scenes would be the same, and HDR techniques will still be necessary because of the limited dynamic range of the output devices (print, monitor, projector) compared to real world scenes and human vision.

So the only difference with today's situation once we have super HDR cameras, will be that only one shot will be needed. But unless the cameras include the tone mapping algorithms to process the RAW capture, we'll still have to work hard on post processing HDR scenes.

Regards
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 09:32:25 AM by Guillermo Luijk » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad