Help : Someone do an hdr of these images?

[Moglex]

I just thought that i would let you know that we recently did a very nice HDR tutorial that can help you create your own images.

SINGLE IMAGE HDR CREATION | Beyond Megapixels

This is a technique I've been using for a while.

It's very useful for creating good, natural, 'non-HDR' HDR images.

It also has a couple of useful advantages over the usual, 'bracketing' method.

 

[musicaleCA]

How in the world is that different than tossing the image through something like Topaz Adjust?

And by definition the image isn't HDR.

 

[Moglex]

How in the world is that different than tossing the image through something like Topaz Adjust?

1) Of whom are you asking that question?

2) Is there any reason why it should be any different to 'tossing' the image through 'something like Topaz Adjust'. Not everyone has every piece of software, you know.

3) Why the aggression? Do have shares in Topaz?

And by definition the image isn't HDR.

By definition no image that you see on paper or any current computer monitor is HDR, so that is rather stating the obvious.

 

[UUilliam]

What musical means i think... That putting an image through Topaz adjust is just as bad as putting it through HDR process and it is a bit Obnoxious to say NO image we have seen is real HDR, there will be some images that have a REAL High Dynamic range

 

[Moglex]

What musical means i think... That putting an image through Topaz adjust is just as bad as putting it through HDR process

So you think he's just expressing an opinion that HDR is a 'bad thing'?

and it is a bit Obnoxious to say NO image we have seen is real HDR, there will be some images that have a REAL High Dynamic range

Technically you cannot display an HDR image on a computer screen or print it on paper.

What you are displaying or printing is a tone mapping of an HDR image that exists in abstract form within a computer.

Obnoxious (a funny way to put it) or not, it's a simple fact.

 

[musicaleCA]

What aggression? Apparently I wasn't aware that I was being aggressive. I'm quite peaceful.

I want to know if there's some benefit to this method or something that it does that Adjust can't. Besides, the plug-in is rather cheap; I don't think it's aggressive to point it out.

My point was that the image doesn't posses a high dynamic range at all. The information simply isn't there. All that's really been done is some creative tone mapping and selective exposure changes. But that still doesn't expand the dynamic range of the image. If we could present the image in a medium that possessed a high dynamic range, it simply wouldn't produce an HDR print/image. Using the term "HDR" in this case is a misnomer.

As to printing, this problem is likely to be tackled by the research community, eventually.

And to be clear, I don't think these methods are bad. In fact I have much love for Topaz Adjust and exposure blending. But I'm rather anal when it comes to the terminology; it drives me a little crazy how often I see "HDR" used in lieu of "tone mapping".

 

[Moglex]

What aggression? Apparently I wasn't aware that I was being aggressive. I'm quite peaceful.

Sorry, I took 'How in the world is that different' as a rather aggressive response. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive.

I want to know if there's some benefit to this method or something that it does that Adjust can't. Besides, the plug-in is rather cheap; I don't think it's aggressive to point it out.

Fair enough but it seemed to me rather like someone giving the recipe for making a hamburger and someone else responding: 'how in the world is that different to McDonalds'.

Since the Topaz Adjust site does not go into explicit details about how it does what it does it's hard to say for certain but the results look similar.

My point was that the image doesn't posses a high dynamic range at all. The information simply isn't there. All that's really been done is some creative tone mapping and selective exposure changes. But that still doesn't expand the dynamic range of the image. If we could present the image in a medium that possessed a high dynamic range, it simply wouldn't produce an HDR print/image. Using the term "HDR" in this case is a misnomer.

Yes, but if you want to be picky, as I pointed out, no image you see on a computer screen is HDR.

All you can ever see is something that is tone mapped from HDR.

As to printing, this problem is likely to be tackled by the research community, eventually.

That's why I was careful to include the word 'current'. I'm reasonably sure people will crack the problem but I'm not so sure it will ever bee seen as much more than a gimmick, or just another in a range of 'special effects'.

But I'm rather anal when it comes to the terminology; it drives me a little crazy how often I see "HDR" used in lieu of "tone mapping".

True.

People often use HDR to mean either:

1 HDR if they are talking about an HR image stored in a computer.
2 Tone mapped HDR.
3 Simple tone mapping.

1 & 2 are fair enough because there is no confusion: we know that currently you cannot display HDR so it must be tone mapped.

3 is definitely incorrect although you can get sort of TMHDR like images by certain techniques.

 

[musicaleCA]

Indeed. Glad that's sorted. I'm thinking of HDR in abstract terms. The information in an HDR image might not be displayable, but it's there. In a 16-bit depth file, it isn't. :-/ Anyway, it's the third use of the term HDR you listed that drives me bonkers. It's just silly (and sometimes makes me think the person doesn't quite know that they're talking about).

I personally look forward to the cracking of HDR media. I think i may prove less gimmiky than tone-mapping. Since it would theoretically reproduce an image with a dynamic range closer to that of the human eye, and HDR image, presented in a medium that has a high dynamic range itself, could prove to be outstanding.

Or it could prove to be a failure. Maybe our images really are better when the blacks and whites are clipped.

 

[Moglex]

I personally look forward to the cracking of HDR media. I think i may prove less gimmiky than tone-mapping. Since it would theoretically reproduce an image with a dynamic range closer to that of the human eye, and HDR image, presented in a medium that has a high dynamic range itself, could prove to be outstanding.

You could well be right.

I think I was picturing tone mapped images with brighter highlights and deeper blacks. More 'cartoonish' as some people describe it.

But, of course, that's the wrong thing to be looking at it because a 'true' HDR display would largely obviate the need for tone mapping and could produce a much more natural look.

Or very bright cartoons for those who like that sort of thing.

(Actually, I have to admit to rather liking some of the hightly processed looking TMHDR but in an 'arty' rather than realistic sense.)

 

[Arch]

[

By definition no image that you see on paper or any current computer monitor is HDR, so that is rather stating the obvious.

Just to make this clearer, images made with multiple exposures and processed using HDR software ARE HDR, whilst image made from one exposure are not HDR. This is despite how you are viewing them.

It is true that both have to be tonemapped anyway to see the effects on the average monitor, but if 32bit monitors were household products tomorrow, it would stop the confusion people have that they are roughly the same anyway. This is not the case.

 

[Moglex]

[

By definition no image that you see on paper or any current computer monitor is HDR, so that is rather stating the obvious.

Just to make this clearer, images made with multiple exposures and processed using HDR software ARE HDR, whilst image made from one exposure are not HDR. This is despite how you are viewing them.

I disagree with this.

If you take a photograph and 'develop' the raw image with no 'compensation' and find that the highlights are burned out and the shadows lack all detail it is quite possible to 'redevelop' the image with 2 stops compensation each way and end up with 3 images, 1 of which has more detail in the shadows (and even more burned out highlights) and one of which has more detail in the highlights (but even less shadow detail).

Using the correct software it is possible to combine these images in such a way that you have an internal representation of them that has a higher dynamic range than any of the original shots. This can then be tone mapped to produce what is commonly refered to as an 'HDR' image.

 

[Arch]

Disagree if you like, thats up to you, but i don't think you even are, so i'm not sure why you said that.

Firstly, you are still only manipulating what the cameras sensor captured in one exposure. You are not adding any kind of depth which wasn't there before, like you would with multiple exposures.
Sure, you can take an image of a house on a bright day, tweak the RAW exposure to create an 'HDR' but ultimately you can only do this because the scene itself doesn't have a big range, and it can make it look pretty.

Try using the Raw exposure technique of a scene which really demands the use of HDR and you will see the limitations.

Secondly, you said this yourself...

It's very useful for creating good, natural, 'non-HDR' HDR images.

This is where you are confusing yourself.... they either are or they are not.

I have said before there is nothing wrong with using the single RAW technique or using the term 'HDR' to describe it if its easier to say... but what i was trying to correct you before on, was that even tho we cannot display HDRs in their true form, the HDR file IS still HDR and can be saved in a format which can be used on a 32bit monitor. A tonemapped image like the one in this thread would not yield the same results.

 

[Moglex]

Firstly, you are still only manipulating what the cameras sensor captured in one exposure. You are not adding any kind of depth which wasn't there before, like you would with multiple exposures.

You are not adding anything to the depth of the image from the camera, obviously, but what you are doing by using multiple raw developments is allowing yourself to transfer more of the range that the camera did record to the program dealing with the image. Each time you 'develop' a raw image you are 'clipping' a 12 or 14 bit sensor image (with modern DSLR's) to the color space gamut required for JPeg or TIFF formats. As you can effectively select different parts of the sensor gamut, if you develop with +2 and -2 stops compensation you will end up with three photgraphs having, between them, the same shadow and highlight detail as if you had taken 3 separate exposures at, say, 1/125, 1/500 and 1/2000 (constant ISO and aperture). *

If these are appropriately combined you will end up with an HDR image. A real HDR image that has a 50% greater range than a single developed RAW image.

Sure, you can take an image of a house on a bright day, tweak the RAW exposure to create an 'HDR' but ultimately you can only do this because the scene itself doesn't have a big range, and it can make it look pretty.

You can do more than that!

You can take a picture of a house where the higlights would wash out and the shadows would lack detail in a singley developed RAW image and produce a real HDR which can then be tone mapped to show detail in the shadows and highlights that could never be extracted from a singly developed image.

It's very useful for creating good, natural, 'non-HDR' HDR images.

This is where you are confusing yourself....

Well, I didn't confuse myself but I must admit that it was a stupid way to express what I intended which as that it was a good technique for producing a 'natural' looking image as opposed to one of those very obviously generated by tone mapping a very high dynamic range image (i.e. more than +/- 2 stops from the central exposure).


* It is very easy to prove this for yourself.

Select an 'impossible' subject where you know that you will get burned out highlights and flat black shadows. Expose to balance the lack of shadow and highlight detail.

Now develop the RAW image three times using 0, -2 and +2 stops compensation.

Examine the results.

You will note that in one you can see shadow detail, in one you can see highlight detail and in one you can see neither.

These can be programatically combined into a non displayable true HDR image that has a greater bit depth for each colour and that image can then be tone mapped to print or display on a screen.

 

[manaheim]

Go take a picture of someone who is standing facing you with THEIR back to the sun. The sky gets blown out totally white or they become totally blacked out... that's an example of a typical scenario where an HDR would help.

Well, except that an HDR of a person would 1. likely not work well because they would move, and 2. would look REALLY wonky.



Ok, better example...

Try taking a picture from inside a building where you are pointing the camera towards a window... you either get massively overexposed window and washed out portions of the interior, or you get totally black interior and properly exposed window.

If you HDR them without going all freak-o and doing wacky bizarro colors and stuff, you wind up with something that looks like this...

I did a city skyline once that was a little bit more on the wonky side, but I was actually genuinely trying to just make it look normal. (note the sun was setting BEHIND the skyline... similar problem to taking a picture of a person facing you with THEIR back to the sun)

 

[musicaleCA]

Manaheim, my life on these forums would be incomplete without your humour.

Oh, and did you try just doing exposure blending instead of HDR?