one-file HDR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rutger, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. Rutger

    Rutger Guest

    Rutger, Nov 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rutger wrote:
    > Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    > Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    > them further for HDR.
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/


    Most the images I saw are fairly low key, little range, rather what I
    thought would be where HDR would be least needed.

    Nice shots, though.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Nov 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rutger

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Hebee Jeebes, Nov 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Rutger

    Kelpie Guest

    Kelpie, Nov 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Rutger

    Rutger Guest

    "Kelpie" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    >
    > "Rutger" <> wrote in message
    > news:4550f55e$0$24688$2.nl...
    >> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >> them further for HDR.

    >
    > What software did you use for the post processing?


    Photomatix pro, since PS just looks at the Exif-data and sees no difference
    between the pictures.

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
    Rutger, Nov 8, 2006
    #5
  6. Rutger

    Kelpie Guest

    "Rutger" <> wrote in message
    news:4551b611$0$1639$2.nl...
    > "Kelpie" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Rutger" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4550f55e$0$24688$2.nl...
    >>> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and
    >>> processed them further for HDR.

    >>
    >> What software did you use for the post processing?

    >
    > Photomatix pro, since PS just looks at the Exif-data and sees no
    > difference between the pictures.


    Yup, thats what I was wondering.. cheers,.
    >
    > Rutger
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
    >
    Kelpie, Nov 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Rutger

    Guest

    Rutger wrote:
    > Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    > Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    > them further for HDR.
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/


    Sorry, but I just don't "get" HDR. Most of those pictures look pretty
    bad to me, especially the one with all the tree branches. I think all
    of them would look much better in a single exposure.

    I've seen a few HDR pictures that look good, and where *very subtle*
    use of HDR actually makes sense. But it seems that most fans of HDR go
    completely overboard, and end up with grey, flat, low-contrast
    pictures, with weird grey and white halos everywhere. Not very
    attractive.

    There are very, very few cases where HDR improves on the original
    picture, at least in artistic terms. Yes, HDR can show more highlight
    and shadow details in a photo, but very often that's not a good thing,
    and it doesn't make for a more interesting image.

    -Gniewko
    , Nov 8, 2006
    #7
  8. wrote:

    > Sorry, but I just don't "get" HDR. Most of those pictures look pretty
    > bad to me, especially the one with all the tree branches. I think all
    > of them would look much better in a single exposure.
    >
    > I've seen a few HDR pictures that look good, and where *very subtle*
    > use of HDR actually makes sense. But it seems that most fans of HDR go
    > completely overboard, and end up with grey, flat, low-contrast
    > pictures, with weird grey and white halos everywhere. Not very
    > attractive.
    >
    > There are very, very few cases where HDR improves on the original
    > picture, at least in artistic terms. Yes, HDR can show more highlight
    > and shadow details in a photo, but very often that's not a good thing,
    > and it doesn't make for a more interesting image.
    >


    Hear hear.

    I have no idea why they're known as "high" dynamic range when they are
    effectively compressed dynamic range.

    The best example I've seen was the view inside a church where the stained
    glass windows and the walls were both perfectly exposed, which is very
    difficult to achieve in-camera.

    Otherwise it appears to be a way to make photos evenly illuminated which is
    kind of counter to the idea of good pictures.

    OK if you were a technical photographer, or maybe a reporter it may be ideal,
    if not impossible in the latter case, but for artistic pictures it seems to be
    pursuing the wrong goal.
    Richard Polhill, Nov 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Rutger

    Bigma Guest

    I give my 100% approval to Lubecki and Polhill opinions.

    mb
    Bigma, Nov 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Rutger

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:09:21 +0100, "Rutger" <> wrote:

    >Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >them further for HDR.
    >
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/
    >
    >
    >Rutger


    I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
    sees.
    The eye, with a brain behind it to "process" the image, will "see" a
    higher dynamic range than a camera can.
    But these photos do not look natural at all; certainly not like what
    the eye sees.
    They look more like what old B&W horror films looked like.
    Only in color.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Nov 8, 2006
    #10
  11. Bigma wrote:
    > I give my 100% approval to Lubecki and Polhill opinions.


    All of them?

    It's a good idea to quote enough of what you approve of.

    I agree that evening out dynamic range can be a bad thing, but sometimes
    it's useful to pull detail out where you couldn't get it otherwise. It
    can easily be overdone, but using it doesn't preclude still being
    "artistic".

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Nov 8, 2006
    #11
  12. On 2006-11-08 16:52:22 +0000, John McWilliams <> said:

    >
    >
    > I agree that evening out dynamic range can be a bad thing, but
    > sometimes it's useful to pull detail out where you couldn't get it
    > otherwise. It can easily be overdone, but using it doesn't preclude
    > still being "artistic".


    I agree. I'm sure it has its place and saves a lot of farting around
    with multiple exposures or compositing that may or may not get the
    results. I still refer to the only good application I've seen is church
    interiors where you want the interior stone and the backlit stained
    glass windows to be exposed perfectly at the same time.

    It is a technique that is overhyped, often backed up with such flat
    lacklustre examples to put one off considering the technique.

    I do wonder just how much exposure latitude is available from a single
    slide or negative, however. The implication by HDR evangelists is that
    you can overcome the limitation of film dynamic range by using several
    shots using an inherently lower dynamic range medium - digital.

    Has anyone managed to provide objective examples that demonstrate the
    limitations of either medium?
    --
    invalid = com
    Richard Polhill, Nov 8, 2006
    #12
  13. On 2006-11-08 16:49:08 +0000, Bill Funk <> said:

    >>

    >
    > I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
    > sees.
    > The eye, with a brain behind it to "process" the image, will "see" a
    > higher dynamic range than a camera can.
    > But these photos do not look natural at all; certainly not like what
    > the eye sees.
    > They look more like what old B&W horror films looked like.
    > Only in color.


    They are pretty foul aren't they. The castle looks like a bad
    composite, which I suppose it is in a way. The others look like they've
    been taken with a contrast grad filter over the lens, if such a thing
    existed.

    Would have got better results using dodge and burn.
    --
    invalid = com
    Richard Polhill, Nov 8, 2006
    #13
  14. Rutger

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    The reason Photoshop does that is because there is not difference between
    the pictures. While the human's may not be able to see all of the data
    hidden is shadows and highlights the software can. By taking the same RAW
    image and making exposure adjustments to it for 3 or more separate images
    they only thing you are doing is fixing it so that the human can see the
    data. The software always could that is why Photoshop doesn't allow you to
    do HDR from a single image no matter how you adjust it.

    That is also why your attempts don't look anything like a true HDR image.

    R


    "Rutger" <> wrote in message
    news:4551b611$0$1639$2.nl...
    > "Kelpie" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Rutger" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4550f55e$0$24688$2.nl...
    >>> Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>> Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and
    >>> processed them further for HDR.

    >>
    >> What software did you use for the post processing?

    >
    > Photomatix pro, since PS just looks at the Exif-data and sees no
    > difference between the pictures.
    >
    > Rutger
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
    >
    Hebee Jeebes, Nov 8, 2006
    #14
  15. Rutger

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    If that was the case bill why do 99% of HDR images look fake. The human eye
    didn't see the scene fake? Most HDR are just horrible, these probably more
    so since their weren't real HDR images to start with.

    R


    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:09:21 +0100, "Rutger" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >>them further for HDR.
    >>
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/
    >>
    >>
    >>Rutger

    >
    > I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
    > sees.
    > The eye, with a brain behind it to "process" the image, will "see" a
    > higher dynamic range than a camera can.
    > But these photos do not look natural at all; certainly not like what
    > the eye sees.
    > They look more like what old B&W horror films looked like.
    > Only in color.
    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"
    Hebee Jeebes, Nov 8, 2006
    #15
  16. Rutger

    Rutger Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:09:21 +0100, "Rutger" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >>them further for HDR.
    >>
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/
    >>
    >>
    >>Rutger

    >
    > I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
    > sees.


    That's what i tried: the skies were actually very dark overthere.

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets
    Rutger, Nov 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Rutger

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:16:36 -0800, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    wrote:
    >
    >"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:09:21 +0100, "Rutger" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>>Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >>>them further for HDR.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Rutger

    >>
    >> I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
    >> sees.
    >> The eye, with a brain behind it to "process" the image, will "see" a
    >> higher dynamic range than a camera can.
    >> But these photos do not look natural at all; certainly not like what
    >> the eye sees.
    >> They look more like what old B&W horror films looked like.
    >> Only in color.
    >> --
    >> Bill Funk
    >> replace "g" with "a"

    >
    >If that was the case bill why do 99% of HDR images look fake. The human eye
    >didn't see the scene fake? Most HDR are just horrible, these probably more
    >so since their weren't real HDR images to start with.
    >
    >R


    As I said, the eye has a computer behind it; so, no, the eye didn't
    see the scene as fake.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Nov 8, 2006
    #17
  18. Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:16:36 -0800, "Hebee Jeebes" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 22:09:21 +0100, "Rutger" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>>>Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >>>>them further for HDR.
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/
    >>>>
    >>>>Rutger
    >>>
    >>>I thought HDR was an attempt to make a photo look like what the eye
    >>>sees.
    >>>The eye, with a brain behind it to "process" the image, will "see" a
    >>>higher dynamic range than a camera can.
    >>>But these photos do not look natural at all; certainly not like what
    >>>the eye sees.
    >>>They look more like what old B&W horror films looked like.
    >>>Only in color.
    >>>--
    >>>Bill Funk
    >>>replace "g" with "a"

    >>
    >>If that was the case bill why do 99% of HDR images look fake. The human eye
    >>didn't see the scene fake? Most HDR are just horrible, these probably more
    >>so since their weren't real HDR images to start with.
    >>
    >>R

    >
    > As I said, the eye has a computer behind it; so, no, the eye didn't
    > see the scene as fake.


    While it is tru the eye has an effective dynamic range much
    greater than any camera, and an HDR image can record that range,
    the problem then becomes processing the data to compress that
    range into a smaller dynamic range that any output device is capable
    of showing, whether CRT, LCD, paper, Plasma, etc. It is that
    processing step that can mangle the data to make the image look
    fake.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 9, 2006
    #18
  19. Rutger

    Ole Larsen Guest

    Richard Polhill skrev:
    > On 2006-11-08 16:52:22 +0000, John McWilliams <> said:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> I agree that evening out dynamic range can be a bad thing, but
    >> sometimes it's useful to pull detail out where you couldn't get it
    >> otherwise. It can easily be overdone, but using it doesn't preclude
    >> still being "artistic".

    >
    > I agree. I'm sure it has its place and saves a lot of farting around
    > with multiple exposures or compositing that may or may not get the
    > results. I still refer to the only good application I've seen is church
    > interiors where you want the interior stone and the backlit stained
    > glass windows to be exposed perfectly at the same time.
    >
    > It is a technique that is overhyped, often backed up with such flat
    > lacklustre examples to put one off considering the technique.
    >
    > I do wonder just how much exposure latitude is available from a single
    > slide or negative, however. The implication by HDR evangelists is that
    > you can overcome the limitation of film dynamic range by using several
    > shots using an inherently lower dynamic range medium - digital.
    >
    > Has anyone managed to provide objective examples that demonstrate the
    > limitations of either medium?


    It seems to me that there is some confusion about the idea behind HDR.

    As I understand it, the idea is to capture a dynamic range otherwise too
    large to capture and _compress_ it to make it possible to reproduce,
    including the othewise lost extremes. Doing this will naturally cause
    flattening of some areas, likely the middletones. To those of us who
    have used chemicals and the zone system, this is obvious.

    Rutgers approach is tempting, but there is no such thing as a free
    lunch, and HDR often calls for a 4-5 steps difference in exposure in
    order to catch both highlights and shadows - and you cant tune that much
    from one single exposure in the raw converter. In fact, I think what you
    can get with Rutgers methods, you can get without.

    --
    Med venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen.
    New Images And Design, oct. 2006
    http://Olelarsen.eu/
    Ole Larsen, Nov 9, 2006
    #19
  20. Rutger

    bugbear Guest

    wrote:
    > Rutger wrote:
    >
    >>Today i made some one-file HDR images:
    >>Took a RAW, processed it for under, normal and overexposure and processed
    >>them further for HDR.
    >>
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/72157594365440531/detail/

    >
    >
    > Sorry, but I just don't "get" HDR. Most of those pictures look pretty
    > bad to me, especially the one with all the tree branches. I think all
    > of them would look much better in a single exposure.


    I suppose it's a jargon thing.

    An HDR file is "truly" HDR - high dynamic range.

    But what you see on the 'net (e.g. flickR) is
    a *normal* image (e.g. JPEG) derived from an HDR
    file.

    The range of the HDR is mapped
    (normally by compression :) into the
    range of the web (JPEG) file.

    Of course, this does mean that the use of HDR
    gives very fine control over the final exposed
    image, since shadows and highlights are
    perfectly exposed (in the HDR format).

    It also means that HDR files can be used
    as an "ideal" version of the image in processing
    (e.g. ray-tracing, which is where they started).

    BugBear
    bugbear, Nov 10, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. none

    Creo's MOS and HDR file formats

    none, Jan 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    553
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jan 17, 2004
  2. g wills
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    323
    g wills
    Sep 8, 2004
  3. Peter Jason

    HDR (Photomatix) from the one photograph.

    Peter Jason, Nov 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    541
    Doug McDonald
    Nov 17, 2007
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    751
    Bert Hyman
    Dec 31, 2008
  5. Liam O'Connor
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    119
    Liam O'Connor
    May 13, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page