Single Exposure HDR?

[spacefuzz]

A nice way to look at it.
Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel – eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog

 

[cgipson1]

A nice way to look at it.
Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel – eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog

Both... a GND filter doesn't always provide enough range.... (at least, never the one I have with me!) lol!

 

[spacefuzz]

A nice way to look at it.
Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel – eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog

Both... a GND filter doesn't always provide enough range.... (at least, never the one I have with me!) lol!

Exactly depends what your shooting. If I am doing seascapes a GND works very well. If I am in the mountains, I usually bracket and merge in post.

But if I do it well you wont be able to tell if its HDR via GND or HDR via blending in photoshop. So if you cant tell, why would it not be HDR?

 

[cgipson1]

Seems to be a complete misunderstanding what HDR is, how its achieved, or what its supposed to do. Wow after all this time. GND filter????

Hmm I dont think its a mis understanding of HDR at all. What is HDR? High Dynamic Range. What does that mean? Your range (luminence) is broad, usually broader than what your camera sensor can capture (NOT to be confused with tone mapping). What do you do with an HDR scene? You compress the dynamic range for display somewhere (digital or print).

Then does it matter how you compress your dynamic range to end up with a viewable result? Nope.

Would a GND work for this? Yup. A GND reduces your exposure on part of the scene so you can properly expose everything in a single shot. It is the same thing as stopping down to limit light into your camera and take a bracketed exposure.

Do they only work in certain circumstances? Yup, but so what. why would that make them non hdr?

GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure.

 

[spacefuzz]

GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure.

Yeah GNDs are not new. But they accomplish your statement in bold. so HDR.

 

[cgipson1]

A nice way to look at it.
Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel – eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog

Both... a GND filter doesn't always provide enough range.... (at least, never the one I have with me!) lol!

Exactly depends what your shooting. If I am doing seascapes a GND works very well. If I am in the mountains, I usually bracket and merge in post.

But if I do it well you wont be able to tell if its HDR via GND or HDR via blending in photoshop. So if you cant tell, why would it not be HDR?

Semantics! only the processor would know for sure. I have seen (and hopefully done) HDR's that you couldn't tell they were HDR'd! So why not call those "normal single shot exposures"?

 

[cgipson1]

GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure.

Yeah GNDs are not new. But they accomplish your statement in bold. so HDR.

GND's only directly affect the highlights... HDR can actively affect both Highlights and Shadows

 

[480sparky]

 

[cgipson1]

Get 'em Sparky!

 

[spacefuzz]

GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure.

Yeah GNDs are not new. But they accomplish your statement in bold. so HDR.

GND's only directly affect the highlights... HDR can actively affect both Highlights and Shadows

Yup which is why (at least how I use them) is to essentially shoot your darks (-2 EV) bracket shot with the GND on the sky. Then you compress your other exposures into that one shot. If you do it right your histogram goes from edge to edge and your perfect! Then sometimes I take the raw file and process it twice to make it even more homogeneous. But all the data in one shot can be convenient. Especially with movement.

aka: was this GND or Bracketing?

 

[cgipson1]

But all the data in one shot can be convenient.

Yea.. we did that with film! (as best we could, anyway!)

 

[spacefuzz]

dark [ dynamic range of scene ] bright
{ range of camera }

[ dynamic range of scene ]
{ range of camera }{GND compression}

result....

[ range of scene ]
{ range of camera }

You can use your imagination for fancy graphics

My point is just that its all about the dynamic range of the scene. How you perform your compression is semantics.

 

[480sparky]

[

dark [ dynamic range of scene ] bright
{ range of camera }

[ dynamic range of scene ]
{ range of camera }{GND compression}

result....

[ range of scene ]
{ range of camera }

You can use your imagination for fancy graphics

Use your fancy GND on this one:

 

[spacefuzz]

[

dark [ dynamic range of scene ] bright
{ range of camera }

[ dynamic range of scene ]
{ range of camera }{GND compression}

result....

[ range of scene ]
{ range of camera }

You can use your imagination for fancy graphics

Use your fancy GND on this one:

why the hostility?

 

[480sparky]

why the hostility?

No hostility. I just want to see it done.

Just like I've asked several members to tonemap a single image with digital black (0:0:0) and white (255:255;255) and magically produce the details.