Manhole Cover HDR

[ghpham]

I was just about to say. Tonemapping and HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging are two completely different aspects. One is nothing more than an method of determining the luminance of a point based on the weighted luminance of surrounding points (tonemapping), and the other is a method of creating an image which has a dynamic range which is too wide for any single sensor to capture.

Both your example Hugo and the OP's are examples of simply using tonemapping. This has nothing to do with HDR, and does not require more than one image. In the case of the OP it doesn't even require creating 3 seperate tweeks of a RAW.

By all means use tonemapping it's a valid way of creating a sensation of micro-contrast around an otherwise dull image. But let's call a spade a spade and not call it an elephant shall we. Simply opening an image in Photomatix and saving it again does not make it a HDR image.

Tonemapping is nothing but a watered down version of HDR. It is so because there is no HDR screen displays availabel that any of us can afford to see the true range. Tweaking an image to give a fantasy like picture is not really the purpose of tonemapping or HDR. One can use it to create a new "style" but I would preferred it not called...HDR.

 

[myshkin]

For all the purists in this thread. Next time you do an HDR, once you finish save your settings where they are(photomatix does this for me automatically but I'm sure you can save them in other programs). Then run your 0 exposure through the software with the same settings you left it from your HDR. I think you all will be saddened by how similar they are

 

[Arch]

I think you all will be saddened by how similar they are

Nope, at least not for me... as people have said here, its not the technique but the subject that is the issue. If you make a HDR image from a photo without a large dynamic range, then the results can look similar to a tonemapped one.... however the HDR image i would be putting into photomatix would need multipul exposures. That is the purpose of programmes like Photomatix for me.

Tbh, im starting to find explaining HDR to be a little like counting grains of sand, a bit pointless, and every now and then i have to start over again.

 

[myshkin]

Just try it.

And I dont need you explaining anything. I understand what HDR is.

 

[Arch]

I cant try it... thats kinda my point. I would use at least 5-6 exposures for a scene which cannot be captured in one image, to make a HDRI. This is why tonemapping one image won't produce the same results, it won't have the same information (the highlights and the shadows) to create it.
However you can create similar results if the subject matter doesn't have a large dynamic range to begin with.

I dont want to sound like a jackass here so i will leave it at that, but this is what i mean about having to explain HDR over again, people just dont understand even though they say they do.

 

[myshkin]

the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR.
The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.

 

[Arch]

yea, i understand everything about the software believe me... what im saying is you cannot get enough information from one RAW file to cover the range of 6+ exposures,... you can only do this if the range of the scene isn't very large in the first place and is capturable in one file.

Ok, to make this is easy as possible to explain:

-You CAN capture a landscape shot with 1 exposure, and then make a psudo HDR, which can look similar to a real multi exposure HDR.

-You CANNOT capture the inside of a church with 1 exposure and make a psudo HDR which looks similar to a real multi exposure HDR. The range is far too great.

This is why i said, for me, it wouldn't be possible to use 1 exposure as i am ONLY interested in using photomatix to extend my dynamic range.

I hope i wrote that clear enough. =/

 

[KmH]

the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR.
The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.

Would you be so kind to post an example(s)? I'm afraid you've got me confused.

 

[manaheim]

Arch, you are a very very patient soul.

the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR.
The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.

The most you're going to get out of a single raw is maybe 2-4 "stops" of variance. And that is ASSUMING you are using RAW... and it's not clear to me from what you are saying that you are. If you are NOT, then the software is essentially guessing at what the variances might be and doing very very bad things in the process.

As I think you've seen suggested a number of times in this thread, people often take 5 or so exposures at a difference of 2-3 stops per exposure. That gives you closer to 14-19 stops of potential variance, which is SIGNIFICANTLY more information than you will get from any single shot... RAW or otherwise.

Really, honestly... what is going on in this thread is this...

Some folks have really dug into this whole HDR thing and learned a lot about it. They're excited about the methods and really understand what HDR and tonemapping can do for you, why they are different, etc.

There is another group here who really have only barely scratched the surface on HDR methodologies and are strutting their stuff and shouting the other group down.

The problem is that the second group will read this and think they are actually in the first group.


I'm not suggesting the first group knows all, btw... but I'm telling you flat-out that a lot of you on this thread are really misinformed and should spend a little more time listening and a little less time lecturing. Your facts are way off.

 

[myshkin]

All I asked for people to do experiments and everyone gets their panties in a wad. Its a simple experiment which all new people to HDR should do. It lets you learn what works and what doesn't, and when you need multiple exp.
I see the opposite in this thread as you. I see one side saying have fun and another acting like snobs. You learn through experimenting and practice. We all can look up wiki and read the technical aspects behind HDR.

Maybe Arch is right and pseudo doesn't work as good indoor. I honestly shoot outdoor most the time, but to tell people not to try HDR on all types of images and on single file HDR is silly and plain wrong. Learn through practice, you will find what type of pictures you like this method for and what doesn't work for you. Don't let people tell you what image it should be applied to

 

[c.cloudwalker]

^^^ I was kind of avoiding even opening that particular can of worms given the nature of the audience, but you're absolutely right.

Isn't that the nature of the audience in, like, 99% of those HDR threads?

I realize that my last post did not sound very gentle towards you but it wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to say you made your point long ago, some people will never get it, and it's not worth your time. Stop complaining about HDR and move on to other more worthwhile photos.

Cheers.

 

[Bynx]

^^^ I was kind of avoiding even opening that particular can of worms given the nature of the audience, but you're absolutely right.

Isn't that the nature of the audience in, like, 99% of those HDR threads?

I realize that my last post did not sound very gentle towards you but it wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to say you made your point long ago, some people will never get it, and it's not worth your time. Stop complaining about HDR and move on to other more worthwhile photos.

Cheers.

Bless you my son, AMEN. Now pass the wine.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Bless you my son, AMEN. Now pass the wine.

Sorry. I'm on a vodka drip...

 

[usayit]

Arch, you are a very very patient soul.

I'm just waiting to see Arch rip that diaper off and go ape on someone.

 

[bigtwinky]

I'm enjoyingg watching the cheerleaders