Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos HDR Creation 
Thread started 17 Mar 2010 (Wednesday) 21:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Too Much HDR Confusion?

 
wolfden
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Mar 17, 2010 21:11 |  #1

One thing I am noticing on this board and a couple more forums is that people are not understanding what a true HDR is. Snapping a photo and running it in photomatix doesn't make your picture an HDR.

People seem to confuse tone mapping with HDR. I myself am a fan of tone mapping. Tone mapping doesn't make my pictures HDR.

People seem to confuse that any photo and I mean the composition/subject of the photo may not work for a HDR.

Maybe this forum should be called HDR and Tone Mapping, so the poor people that are just tone mapping don't get slammed for not having a real HDR image.


Wikipedia:

HDR

High-dynamic-range photographs are generally achieved by capturing multiple standard photographs, often using exposure bracketing (external link), and then merging them into an HDR image. Digital photographs are often encoded in a camera's raw image format (external link), because 8 bit JPEG (external link) encoding doesn't offer enough values to allow fine transitions (and also introduces undesirable effects due to the lossy compression (external link)).
Any camera that allows manual over- or under-exposure of a photo can be used to create HDR images.

The key here is exposure bracketing. Now with that said, one still needs to learn this. Setting your camera to -2 0 +2 may not be enough to cover the entire range. This all depends on the shot you are making.

Tone Mapping

Tone mapping reduces the dynamic range, or contrast ratio, of the entire image, while retaining localized contrast (between neighboring pixels), tapping into research on how the human eye and visual cortex perceive (external link) a scene, trying to represent the whole dynamic range while retaining realistic color and contrast.
Images with too much tone mapping processing have their range over-compressed, creating a surreal low-dynamic-range rendering of a high-dynamic-range scene.

I believe most of the pics we see are Tone Mapped. Tone Mapped is just so much easier to produced than a true HDR image. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms or anything, but maybe some are seeing this particular forum section as HDR and not tone mapped. I keep seeing a single exposure is not an HDR, which is true, but it sure looks great tone mapped.

I see questions like, well is a single exposure raw file saved as several tifs with different exposures a HDR. Some say yes, some say no. I myself really don't know, but I sure can produce a really nice looking image by doing so. Photomatix complains about exposure when doing this tho vs. 3 different RAW files.

Is HDR understood that tone mapping is an added style of it or should it be HDR and Tone Mapping? I put my tone mapped images in the HDR section of forums even tho it's not really an HDR. See the confusion?


~KJS~
Photos by KJS (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | 500px (external link) | Google+ (external link)
Canon 60D Shooter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
HastyPhoto
Senior Member
Avatar
953 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Philly Burbs
     
Mar 17, 2010 21:25 |  #2

I've also read that you can make a "True HDR" from one single RAW file if its a low contrast scene so the argument goes on.


60D | EFS 17-55 2.8 IS | Rode VideoMic Pro | Manfrotto 190XPROB

www.HastyPhoto.com (external link)
www.etsy.com/shop/Hast​yPhoto (external link)
www.facebook.com/HastyPhoto (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
007
Senior Member
Avatar
596 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: South Jersey
     
Mar 17, 2010 22:26 |  #3

Isn't it really about creating some art? sketch it.. pencil.. pen chalk .. paint it.. snap it.. computer graphics etc.. it's just art.. to either move ourselves or someone else's emotions on a topic.. Who cares how you get the image.. I am sure a sketch artist thinks photography is cheating too..


Body: Canon 7d - gripped | Canon Xsi - gripped |
Glass: 16-35 f 2.8L | 24-70 f2.8L | 70-200 f2.8L| 100 F2.8 L Macro| 50mm f/1.2L|for sale 50mm f 1.4
Flash: 580EX II (x2) | Battery Pack CP-E4
www.MaltesePhotography​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FredH999
Member
47 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Toronto
     
Mar 17, 2010 22:29 |  #4

I think the term HDR is really a misnomer.

Any photo, especially a camera jpeg has the max. dynamic range with lots of black (RGB = 0,0,0) & lots of white (RGB = 255,255,255). You can't get any higher than that.

If you check out a jpeg histogram you will see far too many pixels (about 80%) on the left & right sides with only 20-40% in the mid-tones. But that's never what the eye sees. Evolution has given us the ability to see about 90% as a mid-tone leaving only 10% for the sides of the histogram.
Therefore, the camera jpeg is wrong.

HDR software gives greater weight to mid-tone pixels & less weight to darks & lights thus stacking 80-90% of the pixels in the mid-tones. That's what the eye actually sees. And that's why HDR images can be so attractive—precisely because the higher dynamic range really lies in the mid-tones.

Camera jpegging actually wrecks the image for the sake of snappy 4x6 prints. But those same prints really look lousy when blown up because they have too many crushed blacks & too many blown whites.
RAW images allow one to stack pixels in the mid-tones.
So does any HDR software.

Next time you are outdoors look at any scene. Tree trunks are gray, not black; skys are blue, not white. In fact, you probably won't see any black or white; but, you will see mostly mid-tones. You are already looking at an HDR scene.

Any camera RAW photo can yield a perfectly viable HDR image using Photomatix. Three photos would be better but one is so much easier to shoot & is quite good enough—certainly vastly superior to any jpeg.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wolfden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Mar 18, 2010 02:21 |  #5

007 wrote in post #9819095 (external link)
Isn't it really about creating some art? sketch it.. pencil.. pen chalk .. paint it.. snap it.. computer graphics etc.. it's just art.. to either move ourselves or someone else's emotions on a topic.. Who cares how you get the image.. I am sure a sketch artist thinks photography is cheating too..

I agree and there is a several way to achieve a look. I just see a lot of confusion on it. I guess don't read into it too far.


~KJS~
Photos by KJS (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | 500px (external link) | Google+ (external link)
Canon 60D Shooter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wolfden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Mar 18, 2010 02:25 |  #6

FredH999 wrote in post #9819113 (external link)
I think the term HDR is really a misnomer.

Any photo, especially a camera jpeg has the max. dynamic range with lots of black (RGB = 0,0,0) & lots of white (RGB = 255,255,255). You can't get any higher than that.

If you check out a jpeg histogram you will see far too many pixels (about 80%) on the left & right sides with only 20-40% in the mid-tones. But that's never what the eye sees. Evolution has given us the ability to see about 90% as a mid-tone leaving only 10% for the sides of the histogram.
Therefore, the camera jpeg is wrong.

HDR software gives greater weight to mid-tone pixels & less weight to darks & lights thus stacking 80-90% of the pixels in the mid-tones. That's what the eye actually sees. And that's why HDR images can be so attractive—precisely because the higher dynamic range really lies in the mid-tones.

Camera jpegging actually wrecks the image for the sake of snappy 4x6 prints. But those same prints really look lousy when blown up because they have too many crushed blacks & too many blown whites.
RAW images allow one to stack pixels in the mid-tones.
So does any HDR software.

Next time you are outdoors look at any scene. Tree trunks are gray, not black; skys are blue, not white. In fact, you probably won't see any black or white; but, you will see mostly mid-tones. You are already looking at an HDR scene.

Any camera RAW photo can yield a perfectly viable HDR image using Photomatix. Three photos would be better but one is so much easier to shoot & is quite good enough—certainly vastly superior to any jpeg.

And jpg is one area I have never tried to work with in HDR. I never even gave it a thought as I already knew the limits with a single jpg file.


~KJS~
Photos by KJS (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | 500px (external link) | Google+ (external link)
Canon 60D Shooter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,930 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 723
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Mar 18, 2010 14:29 |  #7

FredH999 wrote in post #9819113 (external link)
I think the term HDR is really a misnomer.

Any photo, especially a camera jpeg has the max. dynamic range with lots of black (RGB = 0,0,0) & lots of white (RGB = 255,255,255). You can't get any higher than that.

Timeout here. I think you are confusing the dynamic range of current LDR output devices (that display 8 bits per channel) and the dynamic range of an actual scene that you are trying to photograph (which may have a dynamic range of thousands to millions times more than the luminance of, for example, a LCD panel (transmissive) or paper (reflective) that displays 0-255 per channel). If you have a scene that includes dark shadows in an interior and bright sunlight seen through a window, that range of brightness values is far greater than any current display device can display accurately without compressing and redistributing that high dynamic range into the standard 8 bit environment.

HDR is not a misnomer, per se. It has become a catchall phrase that means different things to different people. It has come to mean the "look" of an overly contrasty image instead of the computational photography technique that was developed to capture the full scene-referred luminance of a high dynamic range scene with a device (dSLR sensor, for example) that is incapable of capturing that high dynamic range in a single exposure. High dynamic range typically refers to the dynamic range the human brain can perceive, about 14 EV - thus we implement HDR techniques to create an image that we remember seeing when the scene itself has a dynamic range that exceeds our camera's dynamic range, typically 7-8 EV. HDR techniques are also used throughout (and evolved primarily from) global illumination lighting schemes in computer graphics, where the "luminance map" of a real life scene is captured in a 360° projection of that environment and that HDR is wrapped around a CG scene - the HDR data in the image are used to light the computer model and create photorealistic lighting and shadows. Full 32 bit workflow is the norm in high-end CG rendering and compositing, so that all of that valuable data can be used to create various looks and adjustments, waiting until the very end of the workflow pipeline to reduce the 32 bit data to the final output bit depth.

To display the full range of tones/colors in an HDR data set with current 8 bit display devices, you have to adjust the 32 bit tonal range to fit into the reduced 8 bit world. How you distribute the data in the conversion to the 8 bit realm is up to you, as a true HDR scene, captured in 32 bit HDR format gives you a LOT of data. THe trick is to compress and redistribute the high dynamic range data into the LDR world while preserving local contrast and color. Then and only then will an 8 bit JPEG give you all of the perceived dynamic range (output) that you need to render the final image.

This is HDR imaging.

Kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ McDuffie
Goldmember
Avatar
3,022 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Scottsbluff, NE USA
     
Mar 18, 2010 16:42 |  #8

kirkt wrote in post #9823079 (external link)
...the computational photography technique that was developed to capture the full scene-referred luminance of a high dynamic range scene with a device (dSLR sensor, for example) that is incapable of capturing that high dynamic range in a single exposure. High dynamic range typically refers to the dynamic range the human brain can perceive, about 14 EV - thus we implement HDR techniques to create an image that we remember seeing when the scene itself has a dynamic range that exceeds our camera's dynamic range, typically 7-8 EV.
...
This is HDR imaging.

To me, this is what new (and possibly younger) people don't seem to understand. There's no way you can pull that sort of depth out of a single image by over processing.


Gary
"I'm not much of an artist, but I like to document certain things that I see."
----------
5DII, 7D, some L, Manfroto one and three legged devices, shooting & learning bit by bit via POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wolfden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Mar 18, 2010 17:14 |  #9

Gary McDuffie wrote in post #9823926 (external link)
To me, this is what new (and possibly younger) people don't seem to understand. There's no way you can pull that sort of depth out of a single image by over processing.

right, and by over processing you are actually taking away the high dynamic range from what I read. I think it's more about the look than anything and that is where I see people having confusion. It's like trying to call Magenta Red when it's really Magenta.


~KJS~
Photos by KJS (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | 500px (external link) | Google+ (external link)
Canon 60D Shooter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IVOlution
Goldmember
Avatar
2,039 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2010
Location: bArcelona, sPain
     
Mar 19, 2010 18:45 |  #10

Here is a nice video on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=oBETWrA9tps (external link)


my.com (external link) - my Flick (external link)r - my FB (external link)
---------------

Show me what you do at night! --- Got water? post here!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
876 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Palm Harbor, Florida
     
Mar 20, 2010 12:19 |  #11

007 wrote in post #9819095 (external link)
Isn't it really about creating some art? sketch it.. pencil.. pen chalk .. paint it.. snap it.. computer graphics etc.. it's just art.. to either move ourselves or someone else's emotions on a topic.. Who cares how you get the image.. I am sure a sketch artist thinks photography is cheating too..

Yes but you don't call a painting a drawing or a sculpture a photo, so there is no reason to call a 1 exposure tone-mapped photo a HDR photo.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
876 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Palm Harbor, Florida
     
Mar 20, 2010 12:21 |  #12

Gary McDuffie wrote in post #9823926 (external link)
To me, this is what new (and possibly younger) people don't seem to understand. There's no way you can pull that sort of depth out of a single image by over processing.

I totally agree with you on this Gary.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ McDuffie
Goldmember
Avatar
3,022 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Scottsbluff, NE USA
     
Mar 20, 2010 15:20 |  #13

dugcross wrote in post #9835369 (external link)
Yes but you don't call a painting a drawing or a sculpture a photo, so there is no reason to call a 1 exposure tone-mapped photo a HDR photo.

Nice tie-in, Doug.


Gary
"I'm not much of an artist, but I like to document certain things that I see."
----------
5DII, 7D, some L, Manfroto one and three legged devices, shooting & learning bit by bit via POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,007 views & 0 likes for this thread
Too Much HDR Confusion?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos HDR Creation 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlanJr
845 guests, 249 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.