Are 1-frame HDR's really 'good as HDR'.

[Bynx]

Josh Im not sure exactly what Im looking at in your HDR example. The second shot is without the green light (fluorescent glow). The third shot is only the glow. Is one shot with something turned off and the other turned on? Or more like after shining a bright light on a fluorescent material and all lights turned out and your shot was exposed for the glow in the dark. As Im writing this its starting to make sense and this isnt HDR so much as just layering two shots of two exposures many fstops apart. Nothing has been done to address the shadowed area of the final combined shot.

 

[Over Exposed]

480Sparky, did you use this one for a shootout one time? I feel like I remember this one from before. Would you mind sharing the files so we can have a crack at it? I'd like to look at them and pick one to do a single RAW without using an HDR algorithm.

 

[480sparky]

480Sparky, did you use this one for a shootout one time? I feel like I remember this one from before. Would you mind sharing the files so we can have a crack at it? I'd like to look at them and pick one to do a single RAW without using an HDR algorithm.

I used a different view, but yes, the subject was in one of the Shootouts.

-2EV NEF
0EV NEF
+2EV NEF

 

[boon4376]

This is my 1 frame HDR example... Using Photoshop CS5 Merge to HDR Pro - I created different exposure jpegs from my original RAW file to use.

Original Shot

HDR Shot - Shows a little more detail everywhere, most noticeable in the sand and top cliff, however it lacks that vivid wow-factor that a true HDR composite of RAW image files would provide... Because a real HDR image would contain things that simply would not expose in the original frame... And thus the sand and top cliff shadow area have an artificial look... Killed a lot of the interesting contrasts as well.

.. But its the first time I've attempted such a thing so something could have gone wrong.

 

[SlickSalmon]

I don't think the issue is whether 1-shot HDRs are as good as multiple-shot HDRs. Clearly, multiple shots are needed anytime the scene has a wider dynamic range than about 12 EV. The real question is whether 1-shot HDRs are better than single-shot JPEGs, particularly in situations where only one shot is possible. [I'd include in that comparison even single-shot RAWs straight-processed down to 8-bit.]

When the scene is happening quickly, or when the scene has action, multiple shots are frequently impossible. The world rarely holds still for us to set up a tripod. Yet, the highlights and the shadows of such scenes are often crushed by digital camera compression algorithms. What we've been shown in the above examples is that taking the time to render RAW images into three JPEGs that can be tonemapped improves the quality of the image.

The old criticism of this method is that 1-shot HDRs amplify shadow noise. But, the examples posted by 480sparky demonstrate that modern noise suppression routines (even those simply built into Photomatix) alleviate this problem. I'm very pleased and surprised by what we've been shown here.

 

[boon4376]

The real question is whether 1-shot HDRs are better than single-shot JPEGs, particularly in situations where only one shot is possible.

Well the Jpeg engine in my K-r made an absolute mess out of the above cliff image. Luckily I hit the "save raw" button just after taking it which saved it.

 

[onelove]

Hello...total noob here.

I am very new to digital photography. I was fairly serious with film and darkroom techniques about 35 years ago but haven't shot much since.

So far I have only just started playing with Photomatix and everything has been single shot, handheld and only saved as jpg, not raw. They were all taken long before I even heard of HDR.

Here is what I have come up with so far. I know there are some serious noise and clean up issues but I do not have any other post processing software yet. I am just trying to learn one thing at a time.

I welcome critiques, but please be tolerant...this is all from my first day.

Thanks

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[onelove]

A couple more...

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[Shoal]

onelove, I like them. Some of the sky seems to have noise issues, but I really like where you are going with these!

I am guilty of one-shot HDR. I have had some results that I am pleased with from this method.

 

[bryandadams]

@OneLove: Not a bad start at all.

For the original post: It's case specific. There are certainly times when a one shot HDR will render a very nice image. There are also times where it will take more than three exposures to make the HDR render as desired. The most exposures I've used in a single HDR was eleven. In that case I could have used less, but merely one exposure would not render well and would have left deep shadows in the image. Granted there are times that a one shot HDR may be a better choice, such as shooting an object in motion or when there is simply less dynamic range in the frame.

 

[Bynx]

onelove, I think your first aim should be to create a realistic image. Later when you can control the sliders the way you want then go for the painting look which you have here. If its painterly then there is no control over that. But realistic has only one look. So thats why I suggest to aim for that rather than the look you have achieved. And I say this because you yourself have admitted to being a newbie to all this.

 

[onelove]

Thanks! I am really having a lot of fun with this. Tomorrow I'll take the tripod out and get some multiples to see how that plays out. Maybe go out to the swamps.

I can see that I need a few more tools in my belt before I am ready for prime time. Good advice about working toward realistic. I can see that would be a good discipline to learn how to gain control. I used to be a darkroom "magician" but also studied basic studio lighting and darkroom at the university level. You need to master the rules before you can bend them. Thanks.

I do have a few commercial possibilities for some of the more extreme stuff in the Caribbean tourist market. They like bright colors and the "painted" look. Here are a couple that kind of surprised me. They were grab shot from a hotel window in Bangkok with a small pocket point and shoot. I will eventually work the sky a bit, but not too much. It was a stormy afternoon and looked close to that in person.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[Bynx]

Your skies show typical Highlight Smoothing errors. Halos around the buildings in the second shot and both skies have that dirty gray look instead of clouds with some texture. Try adjusting the highlight smoothing slider and see if that improves the sky. It might also help with the overall appearance of both images. Both show poor HDR processing skills. The buildings have blotches of gray, for example the bottom right corner of the second image as well as the building located to the right of dead center in the first image, above the trees and the brown roofed building. The gray blotches show tone mapping issues.
Personally I like the processing of your first 3 images posted. I prefer the painterly look to the photographic look. Just the sky problems to solve and everything is ok.