Addicted to HDR!!

Ever since I got my Canon 10-22mm lens I've been taking a lot of landscape shots and cooking them thru Photomatix. These HDR images are so much fun to mess around with. Unfortunately, also a very good way to eat up your harddrive free space depending on how you save.

I remember reading something about a camera, maybe even a high-end point and shoot, and how it took high dynamic range images (maybe not like PhotoMatix, but still nice). I'm thinking it was a sony or samsung? Anyone familiar with this?

Also, I wonder if this type of technology will be used in future cameras, if it's even possible? It would be pretty nice as an option without having to do it all in the computer, but also allow for further adjustment when desired.

Finally, anyone have any opinions on using 1 RAW image vs. 3+ differently exposed images to create an HDR image? I prefer the 3+ myself, but wanted to see what kind of luck others may have had with just 1 RAW.

And since it's always more fun with pictures ....

I don't have a lot of experience with HDR but my guess is that you will get more responses in the post processing forum.

Here, I used 1 RAW image, duplicated them in PS, adjusted exposure (over and under) then HDR.

Lots of trial and error and it seems to work best on certain kinds of image. Not sure I spotted the pattern yet but here are a few.

Then again, the originals didn't look bad at all...I was just testing it out. Here's the original for comparison.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

OK....since I'm new to digital photography, I gotta ask why use HDR in PS if you're not making lightmaps?? Unless you have an HDR monitor, you're not going to see the increased range of a 32bit HDR image At least coming from film, I'm finding I like RAW because it has a bigger color space: one that you can't see on your 8 bit per channel monitor. But you can bring out the dynamic range by layering different exposure layers in PS: doing exactly what Ansel Adams advocated for doing in the darkroom (defining your highlights through post processing).

32bit HDR is used in 3D animation: the computer can see the increased range and simulate more accurate light waves. Until the $60K HDR monitors come down in price, I can't see how "HDR" improves dynamic range as well as coming in and "burning and dodging" by hand.

For example....on the two examples that you have nicksan: on my non HDR monitor, I'm not seeing a difference in tonal range between your HDR and non HDR. The HDR seems to have more contrast and saturation. You can see the limited tonal range on the HDR image in the clouds especially (blown out highlights there). Anyway, this is just a quandary I have

I like them. Not sure if they are HDR or tone mapped, there are technical difference that I don't understand, but I like the affects. I own Photomatix and it can produce better results, I think, than PS plug-ins. You can download a free copy and give it a try, the only limitation of the trial version is a small watermark. Thanks for sharing.

Often times the Tone Compressor option gives better results than the Details Enhancer in Photomatix.

davesrose wrote in post #3072280
OK....since I'm new to digital photography, I gotta ask why use HDR in PS if you're not making lightmaps?? Unless you have an HDR monitor, you're not going to see the increased range of a 32bit HDR image At least coming from film, I'm finding I like RAW because it has a bigger color space: one that you can't see on your 8 bit per channel monitor. But you can bring out the dynamic range by layering different exposure layers in PS: doing exactly what Ansel Adams advocated for doing in the darkroom (defining your highlights through post processing).

32bit HDR is used in 3D animation: the computer can see the increased range and simulate more accurate light waves. Until the $60K HDR monitors come down in price, I can't see how "HDR" improves dynamic range as well as coming in and "burning and dodging" by hand.

For example....on the two examples that you have nicksan: on my non HDR monitor, I'm not seeing a difference in tonal range between your HDR and non HDR. The HDR seems to have more contrast and saturation. You can see the limited tonal range on the HDR image in the clouds especially (blown out highlights there). Anyway, this is just a quandary I have

An HDR image has the entire dynamic tonal range embedded and won't display properly on non-HDR monitors as well as won't print correctly.

The second step to perform on a HDR image is tonal mapping, which basically compresses that huge dynamic tonal range into a smaller version which *can* be displayed on our normal monitors as well as printed on our printers.

Ascenta wrote in post #3072093
Ever since I got my Canon 10-22mm lens I've been taking a lot of landscape shots and cooking them thru Photomatix. These HDR images are so much fun to mess around with. Unfortunately, also a very good way to eat up your harddrive free space depending on how you save.

I remember reading something about a camera, maybe even a high-end point and shoot, and how it took high dynamic range images (maybe not like PhotoMatix, but still nice). I'm thinking it was a sony or samsung? Anyone familiar with this?

Also, I wonder if this type of technology will be used in future cameras, if it's even possible? It would be pretty nice as an option without having to do it all in the computer, but also allow for further adjustment when desired.

Finally, anyone have any opinions on using 1 RAW image vs. 3+ differently exposed images to create an HDR image? I prefer the 3+ myself, but wanted to see what kind of luck others may have had with just 1 RAW.

And since it's always more fun with pictures ....

1 RAW works just fine *but* is not true HDR per se. Your sample image would work just fine using 1 RAW. Depends on the scene you're trying to shoot.

Fuji makes a camera that is suppossed to be a higher fynamic range. Each pixel has an array of two sensors. One that underexposes and one that over exposes. They somehow combine the image data for a higher dynamic range. I don't know if I am exactly with the process, but it is something like that. Here is a link to the fuji:
http://www.fujifilm.ca​/x12950.xml

ebann wrote in post #3073547
An HDR image has the entire dynamic tonal range embedded and won't display properly on non-HDR monitors as well as won't print correctly.

The second step to perform on a HDR image is tonal mapping, which basically compresses that huge dynamic tonal range into a smaller version which *can* be displayed on our normal monitors as well as printed on our printers.

So basically, with tonal mapping....it's compressing the 32bit color channel back down to 8bit. You're rolling the dice on how well the converter's system is for compressing range. Maybe it's because I'm used to hands on darkroom, and am an artist by profession....but I like using masking tools in PS to bring out different exposures : gives you more control, but the catch is it's also more tedious. With my 16bit RAW file, it inherently has more range by itself that I can bring out by hand.

I got my answer on another HDR site: this link explains some of the basics:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/hdr.shtml

EOS MAN1, I do notice that my 5D has a dynamic range of 16bit/ color channel. I would guess that most dSLRs are up to at least 16bit now. The problem is that we are stuck with printers and monitors that are 8 bit. I've just been used to using HDR for 3D animation: 3D programs require 32bit HDR formats....this is the main reason why HDR was invented IMO.

I have noticed a few nice examples of a photo program's way of converting a 32bit dynamic range back down to 8bit. Certainly if it's a good converter, it can save you time and effort. I guess I'm just too grounded in fine arts photography though....give me dodge and burn, or the mask tool in PS!!

davesrose wrote in post #3074143
So basically, with tonal mapping....it's compressing the 32bit color channel back down to 8bit. You're rolling the dice on how well the converter's system is for compressing range. Maybe it's because I'm used to hands on darkroom, and am an artist by profession....but I like using masking tools in PS to bring out different exposures : gives you more control, but the catch is it's also more tedious. With my 16bit RAW file, it inherently has more range by itself that I can bring out by hand.

I got my answer on another HDR site: this link explains some of the basics:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/hdr.shtml

EOS MAN1, I do notice that my 5D has a dynamic range of 16bit/ color channel. I would guess that most dSLRs are up to at least 16bit now. The problem is that we are stuck with printers and monitors that are 8 bit. I've just been used to using HDR for 3D animation: 3D programs require 32bit HDR formats....this is the main reason why HDR was invented IMO.

I have noticed a few nice examples of a photo program's way of converting a 32bit dynamic range back down to 8bit. Certainly if it's a good converter, it can save you time and effort. I guess I'm just too grounded in fine arts photography though....give me dodge and burn, or the mask tool in PS!!

HDR merging is pretty much mathematical as is tonal mapping. It won't be selective, but will affect the entire image. With PS you can be selective.

Even though RAW is saved as 16-bit per channel, it actually uses only 12-bit per channel, giving you 36-bit dynamic range instead of 48-bit.