Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: HDR - the forgotten tool...  (Read 5178 times)
timparkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2013, 04:20:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Just a facetious comment

"I believe these cameras represent a revolution in DSLR photography, offering a dynamic range previously only available in medium format digital cameras"

Amazingly something called film does quite nicely... Kodak Portra 400

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/dynamic-range-2.jpg

Tim
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2013, 08:39:25 PM »
ReplyReply

For me, FWIW, it is to capture more of what we see with our own eyes and the human eye sees with what, maybe 20-24 EV of sensitivity, capacity, I don't know. Dynamic range? It could be more or less, but let's just take 24 EV of DR for the human eye.

Actually, assigning a dynamic range to the human eye is, well, problematic because of the adaptation the eye is capable of. What you perceive in a typical high dynamic range scene a camera has a real hard time capturing...remember, 1 stop of dynamic range is 2X the previous range...even if a human eye could only see 20 stops of range, a camera at 14 stops (on a good day with a tail wind) is way, way more than the sensor...

However...how far you want to extend the range depends on both the scene and how you want it to appear. Most HDR grunge looks are an effect, not real. Having an image with too much dynamic range will look flat in print. We generally want white whites and black blacks...how you tone the contrast is as much an artistic decision as it is a technical one.

On the other hand, if you can capture as much dynamic range as you can even using HDR and tone it correctly, it's your aesthetics then dictate the final contrast range of the print, not the dynamic range limitations of your sensor.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6922


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2013, 02:25:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Another forgotten HDR tool...

I guess I buy some Portra film for my Pentax 67.

Best regards
Erik


Just a facetious comment

"I believe these cameras represent a revolution in DSLR photography, offering a dynamic range previously only available in medium format digital cameras"

Amazingly something called film does quite nicely... Kodak Portra 400

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/dynamic-range-2.jpg

Tim
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2013, 04:07:47 AM »
ReplyReply

PS merge to HDR or Photomatic merge to 32 bit should be no more difficult or take any more time than Enfuse.  And should produce much better results..
I've spent many hours in the last few days looking at this and the results aren't as clear as you might expect.
Whilst Enfuse is no use with non-matching exposures that have ghost problems, it often delivers a better tonal end result than Photomatrix's blend to 32bit plug-in.

At the moment none of the solutions are really perfect;
I just hope that we have a good HDR function added to LR5. I'd guess that the provision to edit 32bit images in 4.1+ indicates that the next version will have a blend to 32bit option to complement it. I doubt if it will suit those who want eye searing novelty won't like it, but those us just seeking more DR from multiple exposures will be happy.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2013, 08:51:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I've spent many hours in the last few days looking at this and the results aren't as clear as you might expect.
Whilst Enfuse is no use with non-matching exposures that have ghost problems, it often delivers a better tonal end result than Photomatrix's blend to 32bit plug-in.


Was that before or after you made tonal adjustments to the 32bit tif in Lightroom?

Also, one thing Eric Chan pointed out to me....after making global tonal adjustments, additional tonal adjustments, if required, can be made with adjustment brush or gradient.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 08:54:25 AM by jrsforums » Logged

John
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2013, 09:02:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Was that before or after you made tonal adjustments to the 32bit tif in Lightroom?
After, it just seems something was being lost in the highlights with the Photomatrix 32bit files that Enfuse retained.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 523



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2013, 09:18:41 AM »
ReplyReply

But you are of course aware that the LR handling of a 16 bit file and a 32 bit file is quite different with different working of the sliders? So in order to adjust your pictures you need to adjust differently although the principal working of all sliders are the same. With 32 bit files they work over a much bigger scale like e.g. the exposure slider works over +/- 10 stops where you with 16 bit files would have +/- 5 stops. Similarly the tone mapping sliders are adjusted for the two file formats.

Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2013, 09:44:02 AM »
ReplyReply

But you are of course aware....
Indeed I am.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 523



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2013, 09:54:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe you can show the differences which would make the discussion a bit more concrete.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2013, 11:07:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Below are three 100% crops from an image set;
Original.jpg is one of three frames at -2ev, other were at 0 & +2. This what the part of the original image should look like if the HDR process were perfect.
Enfuse.jpg is an unchanged TIF generated in Enfuse from default settings. Not great, but just about acceptable in the context of the overall image.
Photomatrix.jpg is the best I can get out of the 32bit TIF generated by the Photomatrix plugin at default settings and processed by LR4.3. Pretty useless and posterised.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2013, 11:41:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Below are three 100% crops from an image set;
Original.jpg is one of three frames at -2ev, other were at 0 & +2. This what the part of the original image should look like if the HDR process were perfect.
Enfuse.jpg is an unchanged TIF generated in Enfuse from default settings. Not great, but just about acceptable in the context of the overall image.
Photomatrix.jpg is the best I can get out of the 32bit TIF generated by the Photomatrix plugin at default settings and processed by LR4.3. Pretty useless and posterised.

I have never seen anything like that Photomatix result.

Can you make the 3 original tiff files available so some of us can try to replicate your results?

John
Logged

John
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2013, 12:08:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I have never seen anything like that Photomatix result
Just to be clear; This is from Photomatrix "Merge to 32-bit HDR Plug-in for Lightroom" and used LR's own tools for processing, NOT Photomatrix Pro stand alone or tone mapping plug in.
(FWIW I also got similarly unacceptable results putting the Photomatrix 32bit TIF into CS4)

The originals are too big to post, but here are the appropriate jpg crops from the original HDR set;
 
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2013, 01:01:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Just to be clear; This is from Photomatrix "Merge to 32-bit HDR Plug-in for Lightroom" and used LR's own tools for processing, NOT Photomatrix Pro stand alone or tone mapping plug in.
(FWIW I also got similarly unacceptable results putting the Photomatrix 32bit TIF into CS4)

The originals are too big to post, but here are the appropriate jpg crops from the original HDR set;
 

If you cannot upload them to a site such as 'YouSendIt', there is not much we can do.

Attached are 3 shots 2 stop intervals....as you can see, absolutely no reason to have bracketed this...but similar to your shots.

The last image (.....-2 -3) is a quick merge top 32bit and less than 10 seconds of LR processing.

BTW...Do you have "Scale pixel values to fixed range"  checked.  Helps you get in the range much faster.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 01:11:52 PM by jrsforums » Logged

John
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2013, 01:22:35 PM »
ReplyReply

there is not much we can do.
I'm not asking for help, just expressing an opinion.
Quote
absolutely no reason to have bracketed this...but similar to your shots.
Odd thing to say given you've only seen a very small crop of my original.
Quote
BTW...Do you have "Scale pixel values to fixed range"  checked.  Helps you get in the range much faster.
Yes.

Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2013, 01:30:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not asking for help, just expressing an opinion.Odd thing to say given you've only seen a very small crop of my original.Yes.



OK...your opinion is that you like Enfuse better....and provide no basis for anyone to comment.

If you didn't want help or assistance, there was no reason to post any example....a simple opinion would have been sufficient.

I was commenting on what you showed, which is all I could base it on.

Since you are unwilling to show any more, I am going to caulk it up to "pilot error" and move on.
Logged

John
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2013, 01:47:40 PM »
ReplyReply

OK...your opinion is that you like Enfuse better
No, please read what I've written, not what you think I've meant.
Quote
there was no reason to post any example....a simple opinion would have been sufficient.
Hans asked for examples to justify what I'd written and I've provided them.
Quote
Since you are unwilling to show any more, I am going to caulk it up to "pilot error" and move on.
Having tried all the combinations of settings that might improve things, not that are very many, I can't see where 'pilot error' would cause this sort of issue.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 523



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2013, 03:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Below are three 100% crops from an image set;
Original.jpg is one of three frames at -2ev, other were at 0 & +2. This what the part of the original image should look like if the HDR process were perfect.
Enfuse.jpg is an unchanged TIF generated in Enfuse from default settings. Not great, but just about acceptable in the context of the overall image.
Photomatrix.jpg is the best I can get out of the 32bit TIF generated by the Photomatrix plugin at default settings and processed by LR4.3. Pretty useless and posterised.

It's hard to comment on this, but I have never seen anything like this from the Photomatix 32bit plugin for Lightroom after tone mapping in Lightroom. Did you have similar results from using Photoshop? If you tried, of course.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2013, 05:27:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Did you have similar results from using Photoshop?
Yes, very similar.
It's curious certainly. Maybe it's a peculiarity of these particular files as it gets similar results from both packages, or maybe both LR & PS have an issue with the 32bit TIFFs produced ?

However it remains that Enfuse ended up with a better end result in this attempt at going via a true HDR solution for taming the original DR.

Ironically having now spent more time with this particular set of files and taken more time working on them, it's possible to get a better overall result within LR4.3 with just the 0ev image and some serious editing using local adjustments than with any of the HDR solutions.
I do have some extreme DR cases in my library where it requires a proper HDR approach to taming DR, but pv2012 tames the vast majority of previous rejects.

Looking again at HDR options has made me better aware of the huge capabilities of PV2012 and that shooting bracketed sets is probably unnecessary in many(most) cases, or at least it may be better to shoot at +/- 1ev to hit a more optimal exposure to work with, rather than =/-2 to provide an HDR set.
Not everyone's situations will match mine, but I've learnt something from this examination of what I've shot in the past and how it's been processed that I can take forward to future shoots.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 523



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2013, 07:44:09 AM »
ReplyReply

PV2012 is a huge improvement over PV2010 and I also find that I can get almost all the difficult lighting situations covered in one RAW file using PV2012. I'm looking forward to a LR version with better taming of the halos that come from use of the clarity and highlights sliders in particular. Especially around really dark almost black subjects halos will show up. I have checked more of my HDR blends using LR/Enfuse and in many cases it does a good job.
Logged

David Eckels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 822


Paris sidewalk cafe


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2013, 11:38:44 AM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand, if you can capture as much dynamic range as you can even using HDR and tone it correctly, it's your aesthetics then dictate the final contrast range of the print, not the dynamic range limitations of your sensor.
Thanks, Jeff. The logic of this is clear. I can quit worrying about it and concentrate on esthetics. Whew!
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad