Space Shuttle Discovery at the Udvar Haze Center - HDR

[Parker219]

^ That's all well and good, but in general, around this forum and most people I talk to agree that tone mapping is the process of taking 1 photo and running through the software to "fake HDR" it. While a true HDR is composed of 3 or more images, combined to make 1 image.

No need to over think it.

 

[Trblmkr]

Thanks for pointing that out. When someone says Tone Mapping, I assume it's 1 picture that's been copied and the exposure has been adjusted to meet the photographers needs. To me that's not HDR, since you're asking your software to try to alter 1 image and create the hights and lows (never works IMO). That is not what I do, nor have I ever done that.

Now pointing to your reference with Photomatix, then yes, I am doing Tone Mapping since that is what I'm doing with Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I don't use any of the other options available. Should I be ??

 

[AndyjO]

I don't know it if it is a question of should I be/shouldn't I be using other options. Photography is personal afterall. I think your images are excellent.

 

[vipgraphx]

^ That's all well and good, but in general, around this forum and most people I talk to agree that tone mapping is the process of taking 1 photo and running through the software to "fake HDR" it. While a true HDR is composed of 3 or more images, combined to make 1 image.

No need to over think it.

You can spin it however you want its still tone mapping if you use Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I have been around here for a bit as well and I never heard anyone say that only tone mapping was with one single image and the HDR is not tone mapping because its multiple exposures.

Thanks for pointing that out. When someone says Tone Mapping, I assume it's 1 picture that's been copied and the exposure has been adjusted to meet the photographers needs. To me that's not HDR, since you're asking your software to try to alter 1 image and create the hights and lows (never works IMO). That is not what I do, nor have I ever done that.

Now pointing to your reference with Photomatix, then yes, I am doing Tone Mapping since that is what I'm doing with Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I don't use any of the other options available. Should I be ??

If you don't want to tonemapp then yes you would use one of those other options. Example you want a more realistic photo..Try it and you will see what I am talking about. Whether you should use them is up to you. Manu Professionals who shoot interiors will use that method so the photo still has the Dynamic range but looks like a realistic photo and not a "TYPICAL HDR" photo

 

[Trblmkr]

Thanks for pointing that out. When someone says Tone Mapping, I assume it's 1 picture that's been copied and the exposure has been adjusted to meet the photographers needs. To me that's not HDR, since you're asking your software to try to alter 1 image and create the hights and lows (never works IMO). That is not what I do, nor have I ever done that.

Now pointing to your reference with Photomatix, then yes, I am doing Tone Mapping since that is what I'm doing with Tone Mapping/detail enhancer. I don't use any of the other options available. Should I be ??

If you don't want to tonemapp then yes you would use one of those other options. Example you want a more realistic photo..Try it and you will see what I am talking about. Whether you should use them is up to you. Manu Professionals who shoot interiors will use that method so the photo still has the Dynamic range but looks like a realistic photo and not a "TYPICAL HDR" photo[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info Vip.. I did go back and try it with my first shot of the Shuttle. And after making my adjustment in Exposure Fusion/Fusion Natural, well I wound up with about the same results with my work flow (Raw files into Photomechanic/Lightroom/PS if needed). I still had the same color tones, same range and the same amount of detail. So I guess it really comes down to what I see and what I want the pictures to look like and which method works best for me.

Still would like to see how you would process this picture, let me see how "you" would achieve a more "realistic HDR" vs the "typical Hdr".

 

[vipgraphx]

Here is the shuttle using Photomatix. I chose the fusion option 2 picture. Notice how its not over saturated, its more dull but still has the dynamic range in shadows and highlights.

Not saying one is better than the other, I myself Like vibrant, processed, cooked, cartoony, HDR. I process many different ways. I was just pointing out so you do understand what photomatix does. I would want to know if I was lead to believe something different.

Photomatix/Fusion

space shuttle fussion 2 image by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


Now look at this version I did and notice it has more texture detail. This is because in the processing of photomatix it tonemapps and brings out detail thus called detail enhancer. THis is the BIG difference between this and fusion. If you were a REAL ESTATE photographer you would want to give your clients a more realistic looking photograph rather than a cooked photograph. So depending on your job or what you want to accomplish you can process that way.



Photomatix Detail Ehancer


shuttle by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

 

[Trblmkr]

VipGraphx... Nicely done and explained. Now I see what you where talking about. It really is better to see what you're talking about, then trying to imagine what you're talking about. Thanks for taking the time to post and process the pictures I really do appreciate it.

 

[spacefuzz]

I like the comps, glad some people learned some stuff about HDR along the way as well.