1-Image HDR

why is that not the same think?

The layer mask and high-pass technique is what people refer to regarding Dave Hill (and sometimes Dragan) style photos. It's generally done with successive layers of high pass filtering and USM, to start.
 
I agree with the original sentiment of this thread but I am curious to somthing.

Would it be possible to create an HDR/HDResk Image with one image using seven, five or three exposures on the same frame using multiple exposure functions and the appropriate settings adjustments?
 
I agree with the original sentiment of this thread but I am curious to somthing.

Would it be possible to create an HDR/HDResk Image with one image using seven, five or three exposures on the same frame using multiple exposure functions and the appropriate settings adjustments?

Do you mean in camera?
 
Yes but firstly all evidence I've seen for dynamic range of film/sensors point the range between blown highlights and pitch black to be around 5-6 stops for sensors, around 6 stops between loss of detail and blown highlights in slides, and around 7 stops between loss of detail and blown shadows in negatives...

Negative film can manage a lot more than 7 stops - up to about 15 stops, depending on how you measure useful range. 12 stops is possible without trying. My initial experience with the Nikon D3, which Chasseur d'Images does not consider to be exceptional in terms of dynamic range, is that over 8 stops is easily achievable without using D-lighting and without using the toe and shoulder. There's about 10 stops between the start of the toe and the end of the shoulder.

Here is an example from a single scan of a single exposure on film. The scan was made without the intention of doing an HDR combination, so highlight and shadow detail has already been lost in the original file.

Original scan, some adjustments already made to raise midtone contrast at the expense of highlight and shadow detail and contrast. Notice the overall low contrast effect caused by compressing the brightness range of the scene to the smaller dynamic range of a monitor.



nyn184_16-orig-s.jpg



Next, the rendition I wanted, obtained by simple dodging and burning manipulations (actually done by layers, but that doesn't matter).

nyn184_16p2s800.jpg


Finally, the original file converted into three files (over, mid and under), combined as an HDR, then tone mapped.

nyn184_16u1_mid_o1_tonemapped.jpg


Best,
Helen
 
Helen, how exactly are you measuring exposure range? The other day I shot a scene in which I considered the lighting to be nearly impossible. Shadows were metering at 2 sec and highlights at 1/250. I was surprised and elated when the film managed to capture it all. Sounds like 9 stops to me. Much beyond that and I'd really be pushing it w/o a staining developer and some azo to print on. It was b&w film btw.
 
Max,

You need to give less development to B&W film to cope with a greater brightness range - that should solve your problems with blown-out IR film as well. It isn't inherent in the film, it is because you seem to give too much development (judging by the comments you have made here, and by the B&W images you have shown). A bit of Zone System-type experimentation should help you understand this. If you want B&W film to have 15 stops of brightness range you can do it by controlling the development. You don't need to print on Azo to achieve it.

With colour film there is less room for adjustments during development, but colour negative film has a very wide dynamic range anyway.

I'm referring to the range over which film can hold detail - ie the straight-line portion of the curve, plus a little of the usable shoulder and toe, not to the complete range from the onset of the toe to the last gasp of the shoulder.

Best,
Helen
 
By definition there is no such thing.


I think you may be mistaken...my understanding is that the dynamic range that can be captured by modern sensors is a bit larger than current printing and display devices. When the camera saves the image data in a "processed" form (jpeg for instance), it maps a subset of the camera's dynamic range from which to make pixel data.

A RAW file, however, seems to contain the full captured range, and can possibly allow an image to be mapped to a (partial?) exposure stop above and below the settings of the camera settings.

Afterwards, instead of converting a subset of this range to JPG or TIFF, you may be able to map different areas of the picture to different ranges (tone mapping), the same as you would had you had 3 different exposures...although 3 separate exposures would give you an even bigger range to work with.

In other words, the camera captures at a higher dynamic range than the output devices, and there are several techniques to convert the camera dynamic range to the output devices' dynamic range.

At least, that is my understanding.
 
The layer mask and high-pass technique is what people refer to regarding Dave Hill (and sometimes Dragan) style photos. It's generally done with successive layers of high pass filtering and USM, to start.

I guess we have different definitions of HDR or emphasize different attributes and applications. I see HDR as being bright and bolder colors and the lighting that would be required to achieve those effects for the natural eye to see in the real world. In my option exposure is it most useful application and not the Dragan or exam style of images that most people call HDR. I’m not say I do not like that style of image, just that there are far more practical HDR applications for dealing with exposure issues.
 
I guess we have different definitions of HDR or emphasize different attributes and applications. I see HDR as being bright and bolder colors and the lighting that would be required to achieve those effects for the natural eye to see in the real world. In my option exposure is it most useful application and not the Dragan or exam style of images that most people call HDR. I’m not say I do not like that style of image, just that there are far more practical HDR applications for dealing with exposure issues.

I'm not following you. That technique I described is not HDR.
 

My point is that by definition it is impossible to extend the exposure range of a given photo. It has a discrete range that cannot be widened by traditional post-processing methods. Hence, the need for more than one actual exposure in order to produce a true HDR image.
 
Max,
If you want B&W film to have 15 stops of brightness range you can do it by controlling the development.

I'd be very interested in seeing a single exposure with a 15-stop exposure range, provided you have one to show. Details of the shot, including meter readings and development scheme would be greatly appreciated.
 
I'm not following you. That technique I described is not HDR.

High Dynamic Range of what? You can have High Dynamic Range of anything.

But in photograph it is light. HDR is a tool to control exposure in editing after the fact or when light rigging is not feasible.

Now days a lot of folks post and publish image that they refer to as HDR that have extreme colors, tones, textures and exposure. IMO, these images have more similarity to the Dragon effect images than you referred to than traditional photography.

My original post asking “Why Not” was in response to your reply to Trent’s posting, where you applied that using layers, masking and etc would not create a HDR image.

I my option any editing process that change the exposure, so that areas of an image that would have be black or blow out, is a form of HDR

That is as clear as I’m going to be.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top