How long before the HDR craze is over?

[kenyc]

Someone said HDR is the new selective coloring and it definitely seems that way to me. I've seen a few great examples of the technique, but the ones that are great could almost be done with a few tweaks to a well-shot image. Most examples I see are very unreal looking. So is it a fad or something significant?

KAC

[mumbles]

I hear ya. I used to be an 'Offender'.

The ratio to me is like 97% unreal, and 3% acceptable.

[StevenParsons]

I don't like HDR images. I've seen very few that look good. Most tend to get look really grainy too.

[cosworth]

I've noticed in the papers recently that MANY, MANY shots have been ACR'd with some serious tonemapping/shadow highlight etc and they look modified. Journo shooters seem to be getting lazy on exposure.

Not HDR but this desier to get "dynamic range" from digital where "film" used to be better is garbage. Digital is making people forget to expose properly.

[mumbles]

Not HDR but this desier to get "dynamic range" from digital where "film" used to be better is garbage. Digital is making people forget to expose properly.

Exactly.

[Busto]

Yeah, makes me wonder too. I used to think HDR was sorta neat when it was new to me, but now... I don't know, it just looks downright silly a lot of the time. However, when it's done subtly, it can be great.

And don't get me started on selective coloring. That's far worse in my book. I cringe and shiver every time I see a B&W face with blue eyes or red lips.

[whowie]

And don't get me started on selective coloring. That's far worse in my book. I cringe and shiver every time I see a B&W face with blue eyes or red lips.

I'm with ya on that one, Busto.

And I'm with everyone else on this HDR thing.

[Tubthumper]

I think HDR is likemany other things: it's fine if done properly, carefully, and appropriately.

And on the subject of selective colouring, I was looking through a friends' recent wedding photos. As I went through them, I found myself thinking, "Please, no monochrome brides with colourful bouquets, pleeeeeeease...."

Guess what?

[cosworth]

What we like and what customers like are never the same.

I will do it if it sells. I will sell out any day.

That being said, HDR can be used in an artful way. I've seen a trend toward using it as an effect, not a way to make stuff look "real" and botching it.

Example of "artful" use:

http://www.jasonhollister.com/images/cemetery2.jpg

Oddly the sky looked very much like this that day.

[rparchen]

I'm a definite offender of using HDR. I tend to find it most useful when shooting directly into the sun. I really strive to stay within the "3% acceptable" range, I really try to display what my eye will see rather than something that looks like a painting filled with halo's. And Jason, that's a cool shot BTW :)

[zippy25]

Yeah, makes me wonder too. I used to think HDR was sorta neat when it was new to me, but now... I don't know, it just looks downright silly a lot of the time. However, when it's done subtly, it can be great.

And don't get me started on selective coloring. That's far worse in my book. I cringe and shiver every time I see a B&W face with blue eyes or red lips.
I agree with Oliver on both points. I hate the B&W little girl, with the striking blue eyes...Very fake and cheesy.

Never been a real fan of HDR. I have only seen a few that look "right". Otherwise, on many of them, they look so cartoonish that I expect to see a Unicorn flying around...

This last one posted by Cosworth looks really good, and I can see using it for stuff like that, but it just seems that HDR is ruining our landscape shots.

[fraggle_rock]

Just wait for the HDR selective colour pictures :D

I read an article (which i now cannot find :<) about using HDR techniques as a noise reduction technique. Similar to the stacking, but it defiantly had bracketing (four stops was the amount... I remember that much!)

Edit:
Low noise HDR type thing: http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm
discussion: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=24317970

[kenyc]

What we like and what customers like are never the same.

I will do it if it sells. I will sell out any day.

That being said, HDR can be used in an artful way. I've seen a trend toward using it as an effect, not a way to make stuff look "real" and botching it.

Example of "artful" use:

http://www.jasonhollister.com/images/cemetery2.jpg

Oddly the sky looked very much like this that day.

I agree and the above is a great example of using it that way.

KAC

[narlus]

i asked this question a year ago? :D

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=195181

i've still not tried it.

[eldiablo]

There is a time and place for all effects. I say why limit yourself. Use every technique you can come up with while shooting (filters etcetera) and when working the PP. That being said, HDR is probably here to stay, in one form or the other. Doesn't mean everyone is going to like it....

[JWright]

I think what you're seeing is not the overuse of the HDR technique, but excessive use of the tone mapping tools that come with some HDR applications (Photomatix?) I've done HDR in Photoshop CS2, using the built in automation and it looks nothing like what others are doing.

Example:

http://johnwright.smugmug.com/photos/62688334-M.jpg

[daves-not-here]

The craze is the misuse.

The proper use will probably remain forever.

[MitsuJDM]

I'll probably stop using HDR so much for my landscapes when I can finally afford my GND filters :)

Sometimes, if they sky is very hard to exposure, I'll take two exposures, and manually blend the top in bottem to avoid HDR. I try not to use HDR as an affect. I always turn the "strength" in Photomatix down to about 30%. I just find it very useful for landscapes.

I try to avoid HDR for automotive shots because it makes reflections obnoxious, but I have had some automotive HDR shots come out very nice. I HATE HATE HATE over done HDR when it's used as an affect. That's not the way it's intended to be used.

Here are a few HDR's I've done
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/264189394_a9d4adb301_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/264194897_4886fbaf93_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1209/1110155369_c90392a00a_o.jpg

NON-HDR
CPL made the sky amazing is this shot. Only PP done to the sky was slight satuaration
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/289476000_983f43741b_o.jpg

I did something right with the exposure on this on. IMO absolutly perfect exposure
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1270/560792896_a394f92713_o.jpg

Two exposures, non HDR. I just blended the top of one exposure to the bottem of the normal exposure. Much more extentsive PP done as well.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1320/1170506929_686c65920a_o.jpg

I used links because I didn't want to clutter up the thread. Take a look at my shots if you want :)

[Desertraptor]

It comes to the point of nolonger being a photo of what was there and more art.

I know people will say photos are art but altering from what the eye sees is destroying the image. IMO

I don't like changing my shots very much at all.

[Bas]

HDR is okay, but it's not like I'm loving it more then normal photographs, in fact.. i'd rather have a common photograph over HDR. HDR often seems to show off some fake-ness, which you got to love...

[curiousgeorge]

Repeating what I said a few weeks ago about oversaturated images (also applies to HDR):

People on this forum look for the wow factor, and in most cases that comes from an unnatural looking image. That's not to say it's a bad image, but highly saturated images have become the norm.

If you have an average looking photo and improve it with pp then it's less about photography and more about digital art.

It's the unfortunate future of photography.

I can't see the use of HDR declining, though I really hope it does.

[rparchen]

I agree that most people leave the shots extremely over saturated which ruins it for me. I think HDR can be used to make a shot darker and more moody. The coulds didn't have this much detail but HDR brought them out pretty well. This was five bracket shots and about 15% for the HDR amount. Too much or part of the acceptable 3%?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/rparchen/Photography/Travel/ShipWreck2_small.jpg

[chakalakasp]

Someone said HDR is the new selective coloring and it definitely seems that way to me. I've seen a few great examples of the technique, but the ones that are great could almost be done with a few tweaks to a well-shot image. Most examples I see are very unreal looking. So is it a fad or something significant?

KAC

Most photographers shooting HDR do not understand the medium. This is understandable -- HDR is a relatively new thing to photography (though it's been around in the CGI circles for a relatively long time.) Eventually the "acid trip" look will wear out; however, photographers who understand the technique will continue to refine it and do things with it that were previously unimagined. HDR opens up tremendous new doors into photography once you get a handle on the technique, far beyond what is possible with simple tweaks of a LDR photo.

Additionally, in the next decade, HDR monitors will become more mainstream, meaning that photos that are now shot with HDR in mind and archived somewhere as a 32 bit floating point HDR file will display with a clarity far beyond other photos from this time period.

I have a HDR tutorial available here:

http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html

And an HDR gallery here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digicana/sets/72157594345135413/

[curiousgeorge]

It depends what you mean by acceptable.

Acceptable as in nice looking, or as in natural looking?

This one looks nice but I wouldn't say it looks natural.

[Tsmith]

Its the over done tone mapping technique that so many distaste, in my opinion.

Here's one I've been working on but the distant haze was rather tough that evening.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1282/1188566722_ad841e8b7c_o.jpg

[jdizzle]

I am no fan of HDR or selective coloring but, if it's used for artful expression than that's fine. I personally like using my GNDs and CPL. It makes me work harder on getting the exopsure right. I think Jason made a good point of people getting lazy of properly exposing but, if ya get paid for it. Fine by me.

[Bas]

Its the over done tone mapping technique that so many distaste, in my opinion.

Here's one I've been working on but the distant haze was rather tough that evening.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1282/1188566722_ad841e8b7c_o.jpg

That one looks acceptable, there are however quite a lot of photographs which look tó fake for my liking, but hey that's everybody's own opinion, and I guess that HDR is something that came along with the Digital Camera era. We'll just have to get used to it ;)

[Tareq]

I like HDR anyway even it is fake in all or most cases.

[Tubthumper]

It comes to the point of nolonger being a photo of what was there and more art.

I know people will say photos are art but altering from what the eye sees is destroying the image. IMO

I don't like changing my shots very much at all.


But isn't that the point of HDR? The human eye can perceive detail in a given scene with a dynamic range of about 10,000:1 whereas a camera can only manage about a third of that: even then the monitor or printer can only manage a dynamic range of about 100:1.

I admit that my knowledge of HDR is layman at best, but I have always held the opinion that HDR images have such a distinctive look is because they do look more like something as percieved by the mark-one eyeball, and less like an "ordinary" photograph.

Actually, a friend has just asked how long it will be before cameras have a built-in HDR function? Set your exposure bracketing, take your series of shots, hit HDR....

[adam*]

I've tried HDR and it can be done well but personally i'd rather do without. Probably why I just bought a full ND set of filters :)

[S.Horton]

I've just started to play with it -- Looks like it needs to be carefully blended into the photograph to help add some depth or look, but otherwise it just seems to look overcooked.

@ any reader, would you please post tasteful use of HDR and discuss how/why it was done?

[Tsmith]

I am no fan of HDR or selective coloring but, if it's used for artful expression than that's fine. I personally like using my GNDs and CPL. It makes me work harder on getting the exposure right. I think Jason made a good point of people getting lazy of properly exposing but, if ya get paid for it. Fine by me.

The problem that can arise with using GND filters is the transition line between the light & dark areas can be quite noticeable. Which makes one have to revert to post precessing to correct. Yeah there will be times they work perfectly but also times they won't.

I wouldn't go as far as saying HDR is a lazy technique or "artful" (thats the over processed tone mapped stuff) your referring too but a method to capture more dynamic range, as its intended. Its really no different than blending copies in photoshop between highlight and shadows.

This months copy of Popular Photography (http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4451/filters-vs-photoshop.html)has as good article on a Pro - Marc Adamus (http://www.wildphoto.smugmug.com/)that often uses GND filters and Photoshop for blending to get the final result. No different than if one used an HDR application to accomplish the same result.

[glowie]

HDR images are so MTV

[Tsmith]

HDR images are so MTV

Do explain ... :confused:

Two images combined in Photomatix for highlight & shadow detail.
Used a nik Color Efex Pro Gradual Neutral Density Filter plug in for CS3 to help with the sky detail.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/82487962/original.jpg

[S.Horton]

^^ Nicely done!

[Busto]

This months copy of Popular Photography (http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4451/filters-vs-photoshop.html)has as good article

Thank you very much for that link! I found it very interesting and helpful.

[jdizzle]

The problem that can arise with using GND filters is the transition line between the light & dark areas can be quite noticeable. Which makes one have to revert to post precessing to correct. Yeah there will be times they work perfectly but also times they won't.

I wouldn't go as far as saying HDR is a lazy technique or "artful" (thats the over processed tone mapped stuff) your referring too but a method to capture more dynamic range, as its intended. Its really no different than blending copies in photoshop between highlight and shadows.

This months copy of Popular Photography (http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4451/filters-vs-photoshop.html)has as good article on a Pro - Marc Adamus (http://www.wildphoto.smugmug.com/)that often uses GND filters and Photoshop for blending to get the final result. No different than if one used an HDR application to accomplish the same result.

I get your point T. I like HDR in some instances when it doesn't look unnatural. I have tried HDR in the past and I didn't like the results since it didn't look right to me. Maybe I need to give HDR a try again. :)

[jdizzle]

Do explain ... :confused:

Two images combined in Photomatix for highlight & shadow detail.
Used a nik Color Efex Pro Gradual Neutral Density Filter plug in for CS3 to help with the sky detail.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/82487962/original.jpg
Would you mind explaining where you metered to get the 2 exposures for this photo T. I remember you posting this shot. It doesn't look HDRish at all. Thanks.

[zippy25]

...It doesn't look HDRish at all. Thanks.
I agree, I did not know it was HDR whe nyou originally posted it...very subtle...nice work. Love the shot...

[Tsmith]

Would you mind explaining where you metered to get the 2 exposures for this photo T. I remember you posting this shot. It doesn't look HDRish at all. Thanks.

Not at all and thanks _ ;) I if remember correctly from my post processing these two shots where not bracketed photos so to say but rather one exposure on the foreground and one on the face of Mt. Grinnell. I can actually bring up the shadows without introducing noise but didn't think the image looked right on my monitor any brighter.

Oh and I've actually redone this to straighten the horizon and clone out that rock, just haven't saved as a .jpeg just yet.

[bacchanal]

You could probably make a similar argument against dslrs that is being made here against hdr. What exactly are we defining as HDR here...multiple blended images, blended raw exposures, both? The fact is that current dslrs have quite limited dynamic range and it makes a lot of sense to use techniques to try to increase that limited range. I don't see anything natural about blown skies or pitch black shadows that are perfectly visible in real life. HDR may be unrefined in many instances, but I don't think it's over used...now shadows/highlights...that imho is overused.

[Scottes]

I do a bit of HDR.

I have yet to do a day-time one. I use the technique to get details in lighting at night.

As an example, 9-stop range merged with CS2's HDR. There's no way a single exposure would capture the details both inside and outside of the light globes.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/MotherChurchWalkwayHDR.jpg

[Tsmith]

This is excellent Trigger Man ;) _ love how it recorded the filaments in the bulbs, worked great.

[StewartR]

Some nice HDR examples here. They might be only 3% but in the right hands it is a powerful tool. And speaking of the right hands, anyone who says HDR is a craze should (a) go visit duder (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=23572)'s gallery here (http://www.pbase.com/petejackson/yosemite_colours) and then (b) wash their mouth out.

[MitsuJDM]

Here is one I've just done recently. Grain could be due to the fact that I accidently shot all day at 800ISO :( I'm not fond of the sun in this shot, but I'm happy with how the foreground turned out :)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1209/1110155369_c90392a00a_o.jpg

[chauncey]

I think that Glowie hit it, "HDR is so MTV". It's a generational thing. My 18 y/o doesn't understand the concept of being subtle. Saturation is the slider that is shoved all the way to the right, regardless.

HDR is beautiful when used in a subtle way, but it sure is easy to go off the deep end.

[jdizzle]

Not at all and thanks _ ;) I if remember correctly from my post processing these two shots where not bracketed photos so to say but rather one exposure on the foreground and one on the face of Mt. Grinnell. I can actually bring up the shadows without introducing noise but didn't think the image looked right on my monitor any brighter.

Oh and I've actually redone this to straighten the horizon and clone out that rock, just haven't saved as a .jpeg just yet.
Thanks man! I think I will try this and see how it turns out. :)

[Tsmith]

Another interesting read going on over at NSN on the subject too: Why I Hate HDR: Photo Technology Porn (http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=109405)

[rhys]

Neat effects but they look so unnatural that they have no appeal for me.

[Tsmith]

Neat effects but they look so unnatural that they have no appeal for me.

I know its your opinion but your referring to which? The whole process in general?

[Radtech1]

And don't get me started on selective coloring. That's far worse in my book. I cringe and shiver every time I see a B&W face with blue eyes or red lips.

AGREE 100% and more!

But, Busto, all I can say is "Welcome to the party, pal!" I have been vigorously trying to dissuade the use of that trite, cheesy, "substitute for talent" trick for years (See 2005 rant here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=781093&postcount=2), when the 1 millionth newb asked "How do I take a picture of a flower and make it all black and white except the flower?)

As far as the current HDR fad - I expect it has some time left. (Bleh!) So lets just suffer on till the next craze.

Oscar Wilde was attributed with saying "Fashion is a form of ugliness so hideous that it has to be changed every 6 months." Don't know if he actually did say that, but from Selective Coloring to HDR, and on to what's next - he really hit the nail on the head.

Rad

[kenyc]

Some nice HDR examples here. They might be only 3% but in the right hands it is a powerful tool. And speaking of the right hands, anyone who says HDR is a craze should (a) go visit duder (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=23572)'s gallery here (http://www.pbase.com/petejackson/yosemite_colours) and then (b) wash their mouth out.

Since this seemed to be addressed to me.... I'll respectfully decline on the mouth washing and will point out that there are great examples of judicious use of HDR to enhance photographs without turning them into art which is what I see in that gallery, art, not photos. To me the line is crossed when any technique (including HDR) is used to take an image beyond what you'd see naturally. HDR is (at least to my mind) intended to be a technique to provide a more realistic experience when viewing an image, to make it more like what you would see naturally. Unfortunately for the most part it is misused and taken well beyond that line. I'm not say the result is bad, it's just not natural and for me that changes the viewing experience. I can still appreciate the art of it just as I can a painting of the same subject, but it has moved into the realm of art and beyond what I consider the realm of photography.

here's one example that gets about as close to the line as is possible without crossing it. :)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=364443

I'll post others in the future as I run across them.
KAC

[zippy25]

Since this seemed to be addressed to me.... I'll respectfully decline on the mouth washing and will point out that there are great examples of judicious use of HDR to enhance photographs without turning them into art which is what I see in that gallery, art, not photos. To me the line is crossed when any technique (including HDR) is used to take an image beyond what you'd see naturally. HDR is (at least to my mind) intended to be a technique to provide a more realistic experience when viewing an image, to make it more like what you would see naturally. Unfortunately for the most part it is misused and taken well beyond that line. I'm not say the result is bad, it's just not natural and for me that changes the viewing experience. I can still appreciate the art of it just as I can a painting of the same subject, but it has moved into the realm of art and beyond what I consider the realm of photography.

here's one example that gets about as close to the line as is possible without crossing it. :)


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=364443

I'll post others in the future as I run across them.
KAC

I agree with you Kenny. There have been some shots posted on this site that have used HDR that was so subtle that I was surprised when I found out that it was used. Others, as I have said before appear cartoonish. If your point in taking photographs is to create digital art, then so be it; but if your point is to capture the time and place of the setting that you are surrounded by, then overblown HDR is ruining your purpose. I do not fault anyone for using the technique, or overusing it for that matter. But, they are creating artwork, not photography. What is your goal...why are we here with cameras in our hands? Thanks, but I will worry about the perfect setting and the perfect light, rather than how many exposures I can combine in HDR.

[303villain]

I stopped reading at this post :D guilty as charged. I agree 100% cosworth.

What we like and what customers like are never the same.

I will do it if it sells. I will sell out any day.

That being said, HDR can be used in an artful way. I've seen a trend toward using it as an effect, not a way to make stuff look "real" and botching it.

Example of "artful" use:

http://www.jasonhollister.com/images/cemetery2.jpg

Oddly the sky looked very much like this that day.

[Uhland]

I like selective coloring and HDR if done nice just like I like photography when done nice.
I never did understand once something gets popular then all the "cool kids" on the block start to hate on it.

[mkuriger]

hey I'm still learning this HDR stuff, so expect some better examples from me soon!

[re_guderian]

You guys are funny. FUNNN_AYYY..

Shouldn't the right question be "What do I want this particular photo to be?"

I'm new to DSLR, but you could easily ask the following about any picture.,


Do I expect this photo to be a work of art?
Do I expect this photo to represent reality?
Do I expect this photo to represent the FOV, focus, DR and colors that the human eye sees?
Do I expect this photo to represent historical photography "norms"?HDR is just a path to some of these...

[cosworth]

.... and on to what's next


Shooting at ISO 3200 and above. Mind you that fad has been around for a while...

[transcend]

Since this seemed to be addressed to me.... I'll respectfully decline on the mouth washing and will point out that there are great examples of judicious use of HDR to enhance photographs without turning them into art which is what I see in that gallery, art, not photos. To me the line is crossed when any technique (including HDR) is used to take an image beyond what you'd see naturally. HDR is (at least to my mind) intended to be a technique to provide a more realistic experience when viewing an image, to make it more like what you would see naturally. Unfortunately for the most part it is misused and taken well beyond that line. I'm not say the result is bad, it's just not natural and for me that changes the viewing experience. I can still appreciate the art of it just as I can a painting of the same subject, but it has moved into the realm of art and beyond what I consider the realm of photography.

here's one example that gets about as close to the line as is possible without crossing it. :)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=364443

I'll post others in the future as I run across them.
KAC

That guys gallery is much more along the lines of what you would see naturally than what a digital camera can capture. A 12b digital RAW file has nowhere near the dynamic range the human eye does. Those images look quite natural to me, and i despise the overdone "HDR" look that so many people are producing.

[_GUI_]

Hi all, I have just registered in this forum as I saw this interesting thread linking to an article of mine about HDR. I am very fond of HDR images, meaning captured high dynamic range in the scene. I am not so fond of most Tone Mapping processings that trend to take images beyond a natural look.

In the last weeks I have been blending overexposed images with therir correctly exposed one using a simple pixel selection algorithm of my own. My goal was to get images free of noise in the shadows so their dynamic range was expanded, but without altering at all their brightness, tone and contrast characteristics. Afterwards it's a decision of the user how to process that information to get a final image.

I would like to show you this high contrast scene: it is made of 3 shots 0EV, +3EV and +6EV, so dynamic range is expanded by 6 f-stops. My Canon 350D can hardly register 8 f-stops, but with this severe overexposure there is no problem to get 13 f-stops which was enough to recover all the detail in the shadows.

So by blending the three through pixel selection we get this:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8906/f0ty9.jpg


And now leaving the window out of the curve mask layer to preserve its information, we lift the shadows getting a natural appearance with all its dynamic range as there is no noise and shadows have a high tonal richness:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2452/f1gv0.jpg


You can read the full article here:
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm

I am preparing a V1.0 version of my program with some advanced features such as automatic image alignment, anti ghost algorithm to avoid artifacts in images with moving parts, and adjustable progressive blending to smooth transitions in the the border areas where the pixel selection switching takes place.

Regards.

[kenyc]

Hi all, I have just registered in this forum as I saw this interesting thread linking to an article of mine about HDR. I am very fond of HDR images, meaning captured high dynamic range in the scene. I am not so fond of most Tone Mapping processings that trend to take images beyond a natural look.

In the last weeks I have been blending overexposed images with therir correctly exposed one using a simple pixel selection algorithm of my own. My goal was to get images free of noise in the shadows so their dynamic range was expanded, but without altering at all their brightness, tone and contrast characteristics. Afterwards it's a decision of the user how to process that information to get a final image.

I would like to show you this high contrast scene: it is made of 3 shots 0EV, +3EV and +6EV, so dynamic range is expanded by 6 f-stops. My Canon 350D can hardly register 8 f-stops, but with this severe overexposure there is no problem to get 13 f-stops which was enough to recover all the detail in the shadows.

So by blending the three through pixel selection we get this:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8906/f0ty9.jpg


And now leaving the window out of the curve mask layer to preserve its information, we lift the shadows getting a natural appearance with all its dynamic range as there is no noise and shadows have a high tonal richness:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2452/f1gv0.jpg


You can read the full article here:
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm

I am preparing a V1.0 version of my program with some advanced features such as automatic image alignment, anti ghost algorithm to avoid artifacts in images with moving parts, and adjustable progressive blending to smooth transitions in the the border areas where the pixel selection switching takes place.

Regards.

Now that definitely begins to look more like what I'd call a HDR image. Not a lot of color there though. I'm wondering what your technique might look like on a landscape shot.


KAC

[rhys]

I know its your opinion but your referring to which? The whole process in general?

The whole process is a little un-natural. People only see highlights.

[Scottes]

People only see highlights.
I disagree. The human eye has a much higher dynamic range than a camera. As one looks around a scene in real life they can quickly see details in shadows and see different details in highlights. I think it's quite nice to do the same thing in a photograph.

[Mike R]

HDR will go away at the time this Digital Fad, goes away, Which we all know it will, The same goes for this novelty called the Internet. :p

[tommy52]

sorry but.. what exactly is hdr or how to do it?
i did a lot of reading and just mainly seen examples and seen some stuff about taking same pic with a different exposure..
how exactly should this be done?

[_GUI_]

I disagree. The human eye has a much higher dynamic range than a camera. As one looks around a scene in real life they can quickly see details in shadows and see different details in highlights. I think it's quite nice to do the same thing in a photograph.

The human eye has a higher dynamic range than a camera (today), and this DR is even increased as our pupil adapts depending on the luminosity of the area are we are looking at.
The problem is that the area we are looking at is not the same size as the micro zones that Tone Mapping algorithms work on, it's much wider.

If you are into a poorly lighted room with a window open to a sunny landscape, your eyes will find two clearly differentiated areas to adapt to:
1. The window
2. Any other point of the room

So if you process such a picture:
- It will be natural to lift the shadows <in the whole room> vs <the whole window>, that is just 2 zones.
- But it will NOT be natural to lift the shadows individually in every 10x10 pixels micro contrast area into the room as the human eye's cone of vision is not that narrow. And this is what Tone Mapping software does today, and IMO this is why Tone Mapping software looks unreal today.

The concept of Tone Mapping (lift shadows in single areas to imitate our eye's behaviour when looking around) is OK. Present implementations (Photomatix,...) are not.


Now that definitely begins to look more like what I'd call a HDR image. Not a lot of color there though. I'm wondering what your technique might look like on a landscape shot.

Hi KAC, it would be up to you to make ir look fine or not. The technique just provides you with a picture with no contrast alteration at all, it's simply a noise-free picture. So in a landscape at first you wouldn't notice any difference between the HDR resulting image, and the least exposed image of your set of images.
You would enjoy the improvement once you detect wide areas of your landscape that are too dark in comparision to the others, and lift the shadows in them. Then you would see that there is no noise at all in those areas and that they have a great tone variety, so no banding or noise would become visible, no matter how strong your process would be.

[kenyc]

.....



Hi KAC, it would be up to you to make ir look fine or not. The technique just provides you with a picture with no contrast alteration at all, it's simply a noise-free picture. So in a landscape at first you wouldn't notice any difference between the HDR resulting image, and the least exposed image of your set of images.
You would enjoy the improvement once you detect wide areas of your landscape that are too dark in comparision to the others, and lift the shadows in them. Then you would see that there is no noise at all in those areas and that they have a great tone variety, so no banding or noise would become visible, no matter how strong your process would be.

I understand all that, but was asking for an example to view. :)

KAC

[_GUI_]

I understand all that, but was asking for an example to view. :)

KAC

I know, but I haven't tried it yet :) I also want to shoot some night photography with several shots, to find out how it works.

More interiors examples here:
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/showthread.php?t=153371

[kenyc]

I know, but I haven't tried it yet :) I also want to shoot some night photography with several shots, to find out how it works.

More interiors examples here:
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/showthread.php?t=153371


Thanks.

KAC

[Scottes]

I know, but I haven't tried it yet :) I also want to shoot some night photography with several shots, to find out how it works.
I can send you some examples, if you wish. I usually do 6 or 7 frames 1-stop apart. Let me know.

[Scottes]

More interiors examples here:
http://www.ojodigital.com/foro/showthread.php?t=153371
I do not quite find these to be great. Good, yes, but the shadow areas look flat, and there are still highlight areas that look blown. Was the range of the original frames sufficient??

[chauncey]

GUI-I find your technique interesting and the interior results much more pleasing to the eye than the usual HDR. Would like some comments from those more knowledgable than I am about the practical use in different settings.

[Steiglitz]

HDR processing is mostly crap. It often looks too cartoonish. Not saying I've not seen it done really good, but it's just a stupid bandaid.

This HDR BS will end once the idiots at Canon and Nikon give us the long, long everdue 1-3 stop increase in dynamic range....the 4 bodies released this week.....all BS....give us 3 stops more of DR....more MP is ok, so is 14 color, but at the end of the day this fluff is closer to the D30's DR.....sad....

[Scottes]

All HDR? Or just Tone Mapping?

That is to say, I think you're confusing with Tone Mapping looking cartoonish, which seems to be the default for certain tone mapping programs.

[scokar]

...

Hi KAC, it would be up to you to make ir look fine or not...


and from your typo, we get my question: I wonder what impact, if any, in-camera HDR "technique" would have on IR (infrared) pictures.... hmm....

[rivan]

My only comment on this thread - nice shots, _GUI_, and I'd be interested in seeing/testing/buying your program once you've got it to that point.

[Tsmith]

HDR processing is mostly crap. It often looks too cartoonish. Not saying I've not seen it done really good, but it's just a stupid bandaid.

Thats because the user is outputting his or her results over tone mapped.

What have you seen that falls into the not "mostly"?

[AngryCorgi]

HDR processing is mostly crap. It often looks too cartoonish. Not saying I've not seen it done really good, but it's just a stupid bandaid.

The final output of a tone-mapped HDR image is a result of user software tuning and preference. You may think some people's preference looks cartoonish or like its "mostly crap", but if you can not tune it to something that is keen to YOUR eye, then you might want to learn how to properly use the currently available software before denouncing it all.

[RedHot]

What "hdr" craze? :)

[Tareq]

What "hdr" craze? :)

High Dynamite Range;) hehe

[NickSimcheck]

Most photographers shooting HDR do not understand the medium. This is understandable -- HDR is a relatively new thing to photography (though it's been around in the CGI circles for a relatively long time.) Eventually the "acid trip" look will wear out; however, photographers who understand the technique will continue to refine it and do things with it that were previously unimagined. HDR opens up tremendous new doors into photography once you get a handle on the technique, far beyond what is possible with simple tweaks of a LDR photo.

Additionally, in the next decade, HDR monitors will become more mainstream, meaning that photos that are now shot with HDR in mind and archived somewhere as a 32 bit floating point HDR file will display with a clarity far beyond other photos from this time period.

I have a HDR tutorial available here:

http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html

And an HDR gallery here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digicana/sets/72157594345135413/


Nothing to do with HDR but the one of the chirch was on the homepage for a stock site. Or am I crazy and you don't sell stock?

[Radtech1]

What "hdr" craze? :)High Dynamite Range;) hehe

Or do you mean "High Dynamic RAGE" ?!?

[Tareq]

Or do you mean "High Dynamic RAGE" ?!?

Both can be used;):D

[Silverpenguin]

Ah HDR, a subject i love to hate. Mianly because I get annoyed with people who automatically assume a HDR image is one of those fake looking things you see posted everywhere online. Very few people seem to grasp the idea that a HDR image should be a perfectly exposed image that contains a higher dynamic range than the camera can capture - its not an image that is un-natural and has over saturated colours everywhere. If I see one more 'HDR' image of a scene that contains no HDR and was made by PP a single shot 3 times to get the different exposures I think I'll scream lol

[Scottes]

Very few people seem to grasp the idea that a HDR image should be a perfectly exposed image that contains a higher dynamic range than the camera can capture - its not an image that is un-natural and has over saturated colours everywhere.
Exactly!

[samsen]

HDR is here to live for long if not ever.

Its our attitude and practice that will change in bringing it out best...

[Radtech1]

HDR is here to live for long if not ever.

Ok, yeah.

[Busto]

Ok, yeah.
LOL.

[_GUI_]

I do not quite find these to be great. Good, yes, but the shadow areas look flat, and there are still highlight areas that look blown. Was the range of the original frames sufficient??

Hi Scottes!

Yes, was enough for sure. For instance the image above (the one with the four chairs) is made from blending 3 images: 0EV, +4EV and +8EV.
That means a virtual DR expansion of 8 real f-stops, up to 16 f-stops :eek:

The scene didn't actually need so much as it was "only" 12.5 f-stops. However the 16 f-stops limit is only theoretical, as in a 16-bit coded image the lower f-stops are poorly represented (1, 2, 4,... levels). In fact if you look closely at the histogram below, you will see that the lowest f-stop with information (-12EV) is represented only by 8 levels. This simply cannot be improved in a 16-bit linear image.

All possible mistakes you can see on my pictures are due to my lack of skills in using PS, but the dynamic range was perfectly captured in all of them. I exposed them to the right, always allowing a little security gap in the highlights.

Look at the logarithmic histogram of the "four chairs" picture:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9198/resultado90hisiy7.gif

As you can see the highlights are not blown, there is a security gap in the end.

If we plot the same histogram just for one shot, the least exposed one (0 EV) not to blow the highlights, this is what you get:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/1193/subhisbb5.gif

On can never admit that more than the first 8 f-stops (0EV to -7EV) were well captured.


I think this kind of tests are really interesting. People are used to talk about DR without really knowing what DR they can find in real scenes, and without knowing even what DR can their cameras register at an acceptable Signal/Noise ratio, which it the key for this business.


http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2452/f1gv0.jpg

[Scottes]

OK, these might need some adjustments in PP afterwards. Jamming 12+ stops into a JPG is not easy....

[_GUI_]

OK, these might need some adjustments in PP afterwards. Jamming 12+ stops into a JPG is not easy....

Yes, in this case I simply used a curves mask layer to lift the shadows, and took care to leave the window out of that mask; otherwise it would blow as you can imagine.
And shadow lifting was really strong! without caring about banding or posterization issues as the tonal richness of the blending in the shadows is so terribly high (all levels full in the histogram) than can resist any strong PP.

This is the linear histogram in the first 768 levels of the 0..65535 range. Completely full forming a soft curve. We can clearly see the switch between the +8EV shot (deepest shadows) and the +4EV shot (medium shadows) taking place over level 234:


http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9468/resultado90hisnu2.gif

[_GUI_]

My only comment on this thread - nice shots, _GUI_, and I'd be interested in seeing/testing/buying your program once you've got it to that point.

Thanks rivan, I am still in the "thinking" stage. I will offer the program for free without any limitation: blending of N images at arbitrary exposures.

I plan however to add some advanced features (automatic image alignment, an "anti ghost" algorithm for scenes with moving parts and progressive blending in border areas), and if they work fine probably will try to sell them (very low price so it's no worth to look for it on emule lol).
However I have no idea yet how to do that :D:D:D

Regards.

[Scottes]

I'd have to wonder how this would work with 9 frames a stop apart, rather than 3 frames 4 stops apart...??

[_GUI_]

I'd have to wonder how this would work with 9 frames a stop apart, rather than 3 frames 4 stops apart...??

You would get the same total DR, but better SNR in the intermedium f-stops, and more tonal richness (number of levels) in some of the f-stops (not in all, as the 16-bit final output will produce level aggregation in the lower f-stops).
Maybe 0,+3,+6,+9 is worth the extra effort. But one shot for every f-stop, I don't think so...

_________________

BTW, I will show you something funny about PS. Photoshop works in 15-bit mode, that means as soon as you open a 16-bit image file on it, it will round half the total possible levels so only 32768 values will be possible, instead of the original 65536.
In the highlights this is not a problem at all, we have tonal richness enough to afford it. But in the shadows, when talking about high DR, to have as many as possible levels is critical to avoid banding/posterization after heavy PP.

Following next is a zoomed version of the logarithmic histogram presented before, where I said the -12EV f-stop had only 8 levels because of the limitation of 16-bit images:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5181/resultado90hisey8.gif


What happens when we open that image in PS and save it back, without modifying anything at all?
If the -12EV f-stop was already poorly represented in 16 bit, look at it now: just 4 levels (the black line overlaps the 4th) for an entire f-stop where we used to have 8, and just because PS steals the LSB from us:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4740/resultado90pshissk4.gif

[Scottes]

One of the things you may be running into is the sensor's way of using 12 bits across the range of stops. In the darkest stop of the sensor, only 128 levels can be held. The next stop holds a max of 256, then 512, then 1024, and the brightest stop can detect 2048 levels. Thus, doing 9 frames 1 stop apart will yield MANY more levels, so your "hair comb" histograms would not have nearly as many gaps, and will have a MUCH smoother curve.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml


Also, why are you running PS in 16-bit mode? Why not use 32-bit TIFF?

[_GUI_]

One of the things you may be running into is the sensor's way of using 12 bits across the range of stops. In the darkest stop of the sensor, only 128 levels can be held. The next stop holds a max of 256, then 512, then 1024, and the brightest stop can detect 2048 levels. Thus, doing 9 frames 1 stop apart will yield MANY more levels, so your "hair comb" histograms would not have nearly as many gaps, and will have a MUCH smoother curve.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml


Also, why are you running PS in 16-bit mode? Why not use 32-bit TIFF?

This is the ideal linear f-stop levels distribution a 16-bit image can hold:

0EV: 32768 levels
-1EV: 16384 levels
-2EV: 8192 levels
-3EV: 4096 levels
-4EV: 2048 levels
-5EV: 1024 levels
-6EV: 512 levels
-7EV: 256 levels
-8EV: 128 levels
-9EV: 64 levels
-10EV: 32 levels
-11EV: 16 levels
-12EV: 8 levels
-13EV: 4 levels
-14EV: 2 levels
-15EV: 1 level

So any shot providing more different levels than those, will necessarily be rounded to that maximum when doing the exposure correction and 12-bit to 16-bit conversion.


In your series of 9 shots: 0EV, +1EV, +2EV,... ,+8EV

0EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the first f-stop (0EV): OK, no rounding.
+1EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the second f-stop (-1EV): OK, no rounding.
+2EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the third f-stop (-2EV): OK, no rounding.
+3EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the fourth f-stop (-3EV): OK, no rounding.
+4EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the fifth f-stop (-4EV): OK, no rounding.

But this is the last f-stop without any loss of information. Now...

+5EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the sixth f-stop (-5EV): BUT, only 1024 can fit there, so those 2048 levels are rounded and converted into just 1024 different levels (1/2 rounding).
+6EV provides with 2048 native 12-bit levels to the seventh f-stop (-6EV): BUT, only 512 can fit there, so those 2048 levels are rounded and converted into just 512 different levels (1/4 rounding).

And so forth. That is why tone richness will not improve at all from the 5th f-stop for making more shots 1 f-stop apart, with respect to just shooting: 0EV, +4EV and +8EV.


mmm 32 bits is floating point, so it's another world. Of course it will overpass all these limitations, but it's not a "standard" as 16 bit is.

Regards.

[Scottes]

mmm 32 bits is floating point, so it's another world. Of course it will overpass all these limitations, but it's not a "standard" as 16 bit is.
Looks like CS2 uses the Radiance HDR format, which should certainly be fairly standard.

http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/dataformats/pic/

From what I can see, going to a non-HDR 24- or even 32-bit format isn't going to get you much at all. But going to 32-bit HDR certainly will.

[_GUI_]

Looks like CS2 uses the Radiance HDR format, which should certainly be fairly standard.

http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/dataformats/pic/

From what I can see, going to a non-HDR 24- or even 32-bit format isn't going to get you much at all. But going to 32-bit HDR certainly will.

I have to go deeper on this. Unfortunately it seems my graphic library cannot read/write floating point images. I will ask his creator.

http://perso.orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/enformats.html

Thanks for the link.

[Scottes]

I have to go deeper on this. Unfortunately it seems my graphic library cannot read/write floating point images. I will ask his creator.

http://perso.orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/enformats.html

Thanks for the link.
I think it can:


Radiancehttp://perso.orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/images/commun/check.gifhttp://perso.orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/images/commun/check.gifrad,img,pic
Radiance is heavily involved in HDR, and one of the extensions from that other page is "pic" so there's some hope.

[zippy25]

Wow Kenny...You have started a firestorm!! What great information on this link!!

[_GUI_]

I think it can:

Radiance is heavily involved in HDR, and one of the extensions from that other page is "pic" so there's some hope.

wow, I will ask about that in the Xnview forum as the read/write functions on pixels I am using work with 16-bit integer args. If the library deals with floating point there must be some way to read and write back in non integer format.

Thank you Scottes.

[Cybnew]

I have done ONE hdr...and It was a more realistic depiction.
Before
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Enkonta/IMG_3795.jpg
After
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Enkonta/IMG_3795_l_r_filteredrainbowcopy.jpg

[Busto]

That's awesome, Cybnew! The makeover looks a hundred times better. Good job on that one!

[Tareq]

I have done ONE hdr...and It was a more realistic depiction.
Before
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Enkonta/IMG_3795.jpg
After
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y190/Enkonta/IMG_3795_l_r_filteredrainbowcopy.jpg

I did PP on the first [Before] shot just as learning, i don't know if it is good or not, forgive me

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8256/img3795rh9.jpg

[Cybnew]

I did PP on the first [Before] shot just as learning, i don't know if it is good or not, forgive me




It is good....I have a version with no dust on the sensor :( ...forgot to post that one...however I prefer the darker sky, as that day it was rather ominous, and the weather provided a little break in order to show me a rainbow :)

[Tsmith]

I have done ONE hdr...and It was a more realistic depiction.

Seeing how the exif data is intact, is this a single exposure?

[Cybnew]

technically...yes...however...I shot in raw..and created multiple jpgs at different exposure levels...so...not a TRUE hdr...but still uses the basic principles

[_GUI_]

technically...yes...however...I shot in raw..and created multiple jpgs at different exposure levels...so...not a TRUE hdr...but still uses the basic principles

HDR means High Dynamic Range. Your camera must have a maximum DR of about 7-8 f-stops, which is LDR (Low Dynamic Range). To get a HDR image, at least today with the noisy sensors our cameras have and the few bits in which the RAW file is coded, is not possible.

There is no rule to say how many stops can be considered HDR, but as a rule we should not accept to call HDR anything which doesn't go beyond the camera's native LDR.

You are not using the basic principles of HDR at all, you are Tone Mapping a scene according to differently adjusted versions OF THE SAME IMAGE. So there is no DR expansion.

The principle of HDR is to blend different shots with different exposure values to really expand the captured DR.

The Tone Mapping process is completetely independent from HDR. You can have HDR without Tone Mapping (as in my picture), and you can have Tone Mapping without HDR (as in your picture), and you can have both. Unfortunately people trend to speak more and more about HDR when they are actually talking about Tone Mapping (local microcontrast enhancement).

[kenyc]

technically...yes...however...I shot in raw..and created multiple jpgs at different exposure levels...so...not a TRUE hdr...but still uses the basic principles

Uh, oh. Here we go.....

KAC

[AngryCorgi]

I did PP on the first [Before] shot just as learning, i don't know if it is good or not, forgive me

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8256/img3795rh9.jpg

That's a considerably better job of pulling the colors out. Nicely done!

I love the rainbow's depiction in this shot...just beautiful! I think I can see a little black pot-o-gold! ;)

[canonpink]

HDR will go away as cameras get closer to providing the same thing natively.

[AngryCorgi]

Because our skill, whether in photography or PP, is strongly influenced by the knowledge we acquire and the broad range of ideas that we experience, I have set up a thread to post HDR shots on. There is no specific pre-requisite; all tastes and types. Obviously, all criticism is not only allowed but recommended in as much as its purpose is to offer insight and information to other POTNers to broaden their minds.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=369368

Everybody go post your best, your worst, everything. HDR processing (in as much as you can tune the results with tone-mapping) carries an element of art, so hopefully this will help some people discover their own preference through the experiencing of everyone else's!

;)

[chauncey]

This has turned into one great thread that I have followed with great interest and I am looking forward to GUI's release of his program/action.

Have not tried HDR as of yet but I have a couple questions;
When you save the image, what file format do you use?
What is the size of the file, ie, is it multiples of the number of images that you start with?
Is it worth anything other than monitor eye candy, which it definitly is? Can it be converted to something that can be printed while maintaining at least some of the dynamic range?

[chakalakasp]

Nothing to do with HDR but the one of the chirch was on the homepage for a stock site. Or am I crazy and you don't sell stock?

I do sell stock. Hopefully you saw it at Alamy.com and not another stock site, otherwise, I need to call a lawyer. :)

[Tsmith]

technically...yes...however...I shot in raw..and created multiple jpgs at different exposure levels...so...not a TRUE hdr...but still uses the basic principles

Kinda what I thought, the exif was a dead give away. I won't get into the logistics as GUI pretty much cover that.

[pradeep1]

Here is a flickr pool called "Quality HDR". It has some good examples, but also some of the most craptastic HDR images I've seen:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/qualityhdr/pool/

Sometimes it seems that the photographer used HDR to overcome poor compositional skills:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hireen/1253509658/in/pool-qualityhdr/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leepictures/818772999/in/pool-qualityhdr/

Other examples are okay, but I'd think they'd look better with some good cropping and curves/level adjustment in Photoshop, instead of the full blown HDR they used:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/estebandesousa/654541715/in/pool-qualityhdr/

[Busto]

Here is a flickr pool called "Quality HDR".

That's a pretty bold statement. ;) Most of the images look very unnatural and over processed.

[forsakenme720]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisjoewalker/1448255463/in/pool-qualityhdr/

When someone describes a photograph as "it reminds me of Doom" it ceases to be a photograph. You can use that as a definition if you'd like. ;)

Honestly, I like HDR. I don't like it when people make things look cartoonish with tone mapping, but if done right, they do look artful. I like things more realistic, but i like all forms of photography. I can appreciate it all.

[DrPablo]

In medicine we put the principle of primum non nocere above all others: first do no harm. It would be good to adopt that in Photoshop as well. And HDR isn't the only example of a side effect that can outweigh the benefits.

For example, tons of people leave horrible halos when they sharpen their images -- yet they barely even notice.

People who use the shadow/highlight tool or who use high radius/low amount USM leave big halos as well, but softer.

People who use the saturation slider forget that undersaturation is usually a result of too little midtone contrast and/or overexposure. So they oversaturate an overexposed image and it looks like freaking Candyland on LSD.

These are all the exact same issue as the oft cited HDR one. People get so giddy with their Photoshop toys that they forget that they're also leaving themselves ridiculous artifacts.

If people only think about maximum detail over maximum number of stops, they'll forget the fact that images need to have shadows and highlights to look plausible. So the HDR always needs to be followed up with an aggressive curves/levels treatment.

But instead people forget that, and their photos look like that horrid painted backdrop to Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments.

[samsen]

In medicine we put the principle of primum non nocere above all others: first do no harm. It would be good to adopt that in Photoshop as well. And HDR isn't the only example of a side effect that can outweigh the benefits.

For example, tons of people leave horrible halos when they sharpen their images -- yet they barely even notice.


But instead people forget that, and their photos look like that horrid painted backdrop to Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments.


Couldn't be any more disagreeable with you Doc.

1- the main difference between art and science or law, is that there is no boundaries in art. There is no such a thing as "Nocere". Even harm is a part of art in one way or another.

2- The halo you describe is the partial volume artifact of pixels at interphase between two very different (High Dynamic) exposure range. A way computer deals with that magnitude of potentials and register them that way. I personally fine many of these halos at times very attractive and in fact if the glow was not a desirable feature, it wouldn't be represented in photoshop or for that matter on every pp software as a filter etc.

3- That "horrid painted backdrop to Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments" was one of the best seller of all times or wasn't it? So might be that the banner was liked equally by those who liked the movie at the time of release many many years in pre-digital history.
:lol::)

[Tee Why]

Gui has a splendid example of what proper HDR can do in my view. When used properly it reproduces the range of light that we see.

If improperly done everything has a hazy and saturated midtone that actually decreases the dynamic range to just the middle. When I see those, a big "photoshop!" goes off in my mind and I can't quite get past the digital trick to appreciating the shot.

[kenyc]

...
3- That "horrid painted backdrop to Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments" was one of the best seller of all times or wasn't it? .
:lol::)

So was DOOM. :)

and those velvet paintings.
and...

KAC

[DrPablo]

Couldn't be any more disagreeable with you Doc.

1- the main difference between art and science or law, is that there is no boundaries in art. There is no such a thing as "Nocere". Even harm is a part of art in one way or another.

You misunderstood, I'm afraid. The harm I refer to is the artist's failure to achieve what they want. And some have such an untrained eye that they don't even see artifacts that interfere with photorealism, as from sharpening or poor HDRs. My point is that insofar as one's individual mind judges good versus poor art, the individual artist should avoid tricky Photoshop techniques that make their product worse and not better -- but that requires being able to notice it.

2- I personally fine many of these halos at times very attractive and in fact if the glow was not a desirable feature, it wouldn't be represented in photoshop or for that matter on every pp software as a filter etc.

You like having oversharpening halos in your pictures?

The softer halos look like pure digital artifact unless they're extremely subtle.

I'm not criticizing sharpening or USM or whatever. I'm criticizing its unjudicious use.

3- That "horrid painted backdrop to Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments" was one of the best seller of all times or wasn't it? So might be that the banner was liked equally by those who liked the movie at the time of release many many years in pre-digital history.
:lol::)

Yeah, well, I'm not sure that means we want it to be what we model our photography after, though... :p

[Scottes]

2- I personally fine many of these halos at times very attractive and in fact if the glow was not a desirable feature, it wouldn't be represented in photoshop or for that matter on every pp software as a filter etc.
You like having oversharpening halos in your pictures?

The softer halos look like pure digital artifact unless they're extremely subtle.
Yeah, sharpening haloes are rather pathetic, showing a lack of skill on the photographer's part. Hell, you might as well take the shot out of focus, too.

:rolleyes: