Single Exposure HDR?

[clanthar]

You're stuck on the need to define HDR as a method that requires stacked multiple exposures.

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that.

Post #23 page 2

Thanks sapcefuzz.

 

[480sparky]

So the alternative would be............?

 

[spacefuzz]

So the alternative would be............?

lol, read posts 1-61

 

[clanthar]

So the alternative would be............?

This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:

If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.

If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.

=====================================================

This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:

Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.

There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

So the alternative would be............?

lol, read posts 1-61

 

[480sparky]

So the alternative would be............?

This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:



If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.

If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.

=====================================================

This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:




Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.

There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Joe

Uh.... you have, once again, captured the dynamic range of the scene IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE. You didn't extend the camera's dynamic range one, single bit.

To state, "Hey lookie here.... an 8-bit jpeg with lots of contrast in it! See what I can do with the 14-bit raw?" is meaningless.

Now once again, I will ask you what your solution would be to a situation where the range of the scene exceeds the camera's capacity....even in a raw file?

 

[clanthar]

So the alternative would be............?

This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:



If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.

If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.

=====================================================

This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:




Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.

There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Joe

Uh.... you have, once again, captured the dynamic range of the scene IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE. You didn't extend the camera's dynamic range one, single bit.

HDR isn't about taking photos that exceed the dynamic range of a specific piece of hardware. It's about taking better photos of high dynamic range lighting conditions that have historically challenged film and continue to challenge digital capture which must ultimately answer to the dynamic range of the final print. 8 bit RGB files were developed to match the dynamic range of the output media -- print. HDR is any of a collection of methods that can capture lighting contrast that historically exceeds those limits.

To state, "Hey lookie here.... an 8-bit jpeg with lots of contrast in it! See what I can do with the 14-bit raw?" is meaningless.

Not to any photographer who shoots film or who shoots camera JPEGs. You know well from reading this forum that the majority of photographers do not shoot RAW files.

As the RAW file was capable of producing an image superior to anything the 8 bit JPEG could produce your claim of meaningless is just wrong.

Now once again, I will ask you what your solution would be to a situation where the range of the scene exceeds the camera's capacity....even in a raw file?

I would do what I always do and take multiple exposures and combine them. I'm quite comfortable with that method as I teach it regularly in college classes. And now you explain how that would work with the bike race and we can quit.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

......... And now you explain how that would work with the bike race and we can quit.

Joe

Did I ever claim you could?


I'm getting dizzy now from running around in circles. Pardon me while I spin a couple more times then puke.

 

[spacefuzz]

What everyone here needs to realize is that there is no ISO 9001 style standard for what constitutes HDR for photography. Is is an image that exceeds an 8 bit jpeg? Is it how much range my Nikon D7000 sensor can capture? What about your canon camera with a different chip in it, it can capture a different dynamic range. Does that mean whats HDR on your camera isnt on mine? Is it some measure related to the human eye? Is it compared to what you could get out of color film? B&W film? what can be printed? but ahhh what ink and what paper?

There is NO standard definition of what HDR is....and what it isnt. Just please keep that in mind when making arguments that some photo doesnt qualify.

 

[mistermonday]

So the alternative would be............?

This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:

If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.

If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.

=====================================================

This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:




Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.

There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Joe

Racing Photo snipped:

The correct term for the scene is High Contrast (HDR refers to the captured / processed image). Your camera managed to capture the entire dynamic range. Retaining the sensor data in a 12 or 14 bit RAW file (14 bit is the actual max rsolution possible in today's Analog/Digital converters) has allowed you using a RAW processor (which in this case is an HDR application as opposed to ACR or Lightroom or other) to maintain max detail and post process the file into a good looking image. You have not actually extended the range of the original NEF since all of the data was captured in a single exposure. If the contrast of the scene had been much higher and had greatly exceeded the capture range of your camera's sensor, you would have a problem. So now you are probably saying "well those who bracket are also screwed". There is another option. Set up a tripod. Set up for bracketed exposures. Meter on the cyclists and fire off the first shot. Let all the cyclists go by until only the background remains. Fire off the rest of the bracketed exposure. Merge and tonemap the bracketed set without the cyclists, tonemap the single cyclist image, overlay in PS and blend the two layers. I do this most of the time when people are prime subjects as they do not always do well when run subjected to tonemappers.
Regards, Murray

 

[clanthar]

So the alternative would be............?

This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:


If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.

If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.

=====================================================

This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:




Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.

There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Joe

Racing Photo snipped:

The correct term for the scene is High Contrast (HDR refers to the captured / processed image).

Happy to call it high contrast.

Your camera managed to capture the entire dynamic range.

No it didn't, but it got a whopping good piece of it.

Retaining the sensor data in a 12 or 14 bit RAW file (14 bit is the actual max rsolution possible in today's Analog/Digital converters) has allowed you using a RAW processor (which in this case is an HDR application as opposed to ACR or Lightroom or other) to maintain max detail and post process the file into a good looking image.

So you say I used an HDR application -- then I must have made an HDR image just like the folks at hdrsoft say it can be. Thanks! That's all I'm saying.

You have not actually extended the range of the original NEF since all of the data was captured in a single exposure.

Which is what I've been saying all along. I have never claimed that I extend the range of my original RAW capture. I'd have to take multiple exposures to do that.

If the contrast of the scene had been much higher and had greatly exceeded the capture range of your camera's sensor, you would have a problem.

Absolutely, again something I have said all through this thread.

So now you are probably saying "well those who bracket are also screwed". There is another option. Set up a tripod. Set up for bracketed exposures. Meter on the cyclists and fire off the first shot. Let all the cyclists go by until only the background remains. Fire off the rest of the bracketed exposure. Merge and tonemap the bracketed set without the cyclists, tonemap the single cyclist image, overlay in PS and blend the two layers.

Those who bracket would have been screwed. This was a fast action sports event. This wasn't a good shot but it was good for this illustration so I used it. To get a couple good shots of an event like this you have to shoot a lot. Setting up a tripod during a sports event attended by thousands and then trying to catch a bracket set through a scene without moving people is as silly as the earlier example of setting up a tripod in a moving boat. I take a lot of photos from a moving boat and those who bracket would be screwed.

Since what I was able to do with a single capture RAW file worked in this case (I knew it would) it was the most efficient and effective choice for the type of photo.

I do this most of the time when people are prime subjects as they do not always do well when run subjected to tonemappers.
Regards, Murray

I've been familiar with the term HDR for a long time now; from way before the existence of any kind of HDR software that could combine multiple exposures. I'm aware of that technique and I use it. I'm also well aware that high contrast lighting conditions have always existed. That those lighting conditions strained and indeed broke the limits of what was possible with film and what is possible with 8 bit digital capture -- what the vast majority of people with digital cameras do today. From the day photography was born we've looked for methods to deal with high contrast light and extend our reach. High Dynamic Range Imaging should not refer exclusively to methods that require the stacking of multiple exposures. Hdrsoft doesn't think so. Silverfast doesn't think so. Spacefuzz doesn't think so and neither do I. That's all. When you can't run a bracket set (keep thinking moving boat) there are still effective things you can do to handle high contrast and even extreme high contrast lighting. And if you succeed it's appropriate to call the final result an HDR image. An HDR image is a successful photo of a scene in very high contrast light that doesn't look like a scene in very high contrast light. It is not exclusively a photo from stacked multiple exposures.

Joe

 

[mistermonday]

Clanthar wrote: "So you say I used an HDR application -- then I must have made an HDR image just like the folks at hdrsoft say it can be. Thanks! That's all I'm saying".
I am not sure exactly how the HDRSoft people market it, but what you are actually doing is using the tone mapping module of Photomatix (or for that matter other HDR apps) to process the RAW or JPG image much like you would in ACR and Lightroom and Photoshop. You have not created an HDR image because the dynamic range is the same as the source image. You have just redistributed the tones. If you wish to call that an HDR image, the semantics are up to you. Frankly this entire thread is really pointless as it has generated useless bickering among those who understand the processes going on and probably serves to confuse those who don't. I suggest we all find more constructive contributions to this forum.
Regards, Murray

 

[clanthar]

Clanthar wrote: "So you say I used an HDR application -- then I must have made an HDR image just like the folks at hdrsoft say it can be. Thanks! That's all I'm saying".
I am not sure exactly how the HDRSoft people market it, but what you are actually doing is using the tone mapping module of Photomatix (or for that matter other HDR apps) to process the RAW or JPG image much like you would in ACR and Lightroom and Photoshop. You have not created an HDR image because the dynamic range is the same as the source image. You have just redistributed the tones.

If you wish to call that an HDR image, the semantics are up to you.

Yes I do, and I'm completely comfortable accepting responsibility for the semantics.

Frankly this entire thread is really pointless as it has generated useless bickering among those who understand the processes going on and probably serves to confuse those who don't. I suggest we all find more constructive contributions to this forum.
Regards, Murray

I agree it's time for this to end. I reject a definition of an HDR image as exclusively produced by stacking multiple exposures. Other options exist. That's the bottom line in this thread. When I laid out that bottom line earlier I got a denial, but that really is it. There's a group here who insist that if you're not combining multiple exposures the result can't be called an HDR image. Fair enough, I will not agree to that because my definition is focused on the end result and not the method. I have a different working definition and I'm not alone. Here's an ancient screen shot of Silverfast scan software:

Their definition of HDR matches mine. Google search "single RAW HDR" and you'll get scores of tutorials and articles and a years worth of reading. I've already posted HDRsoft's FAQ that agrees with my definition as well. I'm happy with that.

Joe

 

[DiskoJoe]

So i was looking around on deviantart and saw this post Warmth by =IvanAndreevich on deviantART it looks absolutely amazing. in the description it said "Noise reduction + distortion correction + HDR techniques from a single jpeg exposure." any ideas how you can get an HDR from a single jpeg?

With photomatix you can use a single raw file to do an hdr. It is not quite as nice as using 3-5 images but it can come out nicely if you know how to adjust the photo settings.