Streets 1st time in 35 years / Real or Fake HDR / Lessons Learned

[slackercruster]

Officially hit the streets last night. I gave up street shooting about 35 years ago. Back in the day I preferred to embed myself into my subjects house and shoot them there. Well, fast forward to 2012 and I am having zero luck with people (strangers) letting me into their homes to shoot them. I've asked them, advertised for them, asked fiend's to intro me to them, dropped off proposals at their work..whatever...ZERO.


So what's a tog gonna do? I have to find somebody to shoot, so hit the streets last night for the first time in 35 years. Last night was a bust. Too dark, poor light and everyone got blurred. Today was much better. Shot about 50-60 images and got about a handful of half-ass keepers. I processed one 'Les Krims' style. (Just initial, still needs LR work) That is how I like my street shots....semi-cartoonish, freaked out HDR. (OK, like BW as well for serious stuff.)

Problem with HDR is it is a pain to convert lots of images if your short on time.


Now you guys / gals that say you can't get 'real' HDR from 1 image..stop saying that...it is a lie.


I didn't have RAW. So I worked with 1 JPEG and created 3 exposures in LR to make the above image. You can see for yourself the DR is improved a lot. So stop calling 1 image HDR pseudo HDR, fake HDR or whatever.. it is FUDGING HDR!! (At least it can be if you make 3 exposures from 1 image...even from jpegs.!)

...couple of lessons from my first outings.



A lady hit my cam with her cane and could have broken the lens. Watch your cams!

I shot some food vendor and thought I was plenty far away. Was still too close and got a couple of grease specs on the lens. Luckily they did not hurt the images.



...well back at it..you get lots of exercise walking the streets

 

[HughGuessWho]

It is certainly toned mapped, but the dynamic range is not increased one but. Sorry.

 

[manaheim]

Starting off a situation by pre-arguing a point... kinda indicates to me that you know the point is going to be made... which kinda indicates that maybe there's some validity to the point that you might want to consider.

ESPECIALLY when you're doing a "HDR" based off of one JPEG... not even one RAW... one JPEG... JPEG being a lossy compression format which discards anything you don't need to see the image.

You have pretty much THE prime example of a non-HDR-HDR.

I'm not trying to be a punk... honest. I just think you should reconsider that position, and probably should avoid starting your own argument on your first post in your own thread.

 

[slackercruster]

It is certainly toned mapped, but the dynamic range is not increased one but. Sorry.

Sure it is.

Let me sum it up for you...

There is gold in seawater. You wont see the gold or get the gold from the seawater unless you process it in a special manner. Just because
you can't see the gold does not mean it is not in the seawater.

Same thing with 1 image HDR. There is a DR in the single JPEG or RAW image that wont be available to you unless you process with HDR technology.
No doubt 1 image HDR is not going to give you the results of multi image HDR. But none the same, the DR has been extracted from the 1
image in a way that would not have been possible without the specialized HDR processing.

Also see:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...-vs-250-eastman-kodak-dye-transfer-print.html

Proves again HDR can be increased with 1 image HDR. (Although I used TIFF for that test.)

Here is another example

RAW single image to TIFF to JPEG (Single non RAW JPEG looks similar)

Same RAW processed as a TIFF 0,+2,-2 with LR and processed with Photomatrix to JPEG

Big difference in the DR with the '1 turned into 3 image' vs the single image.

Of course, the scoffers and professional arguers will still say...NO HDR! but that is their job. Not to learn, not to embrace the truth. Their purpose in life is to find fault and disagree.....'A man convinced against his will...is of the same opinion still.'

So I don't post all this proof for the 'pro scoffer'...I do it for the open minded tog that 'wants' to learn.

 

[slackercruster]

Starting off a situation by pre-arguing a point... kinda indicates to me that you know the point is going to be made... which kinda indicates that maybe there's some validity to the point that you might want to consider.

ESPECIALLY when you're doing a "HDR" based off of one JPEG... not even one RAW... one JPEG... JPEG being a lossy compression format which discards anything you don't need to see the image.

You have pretty much THE prime example of a non-HDR-HDR.

I'm not trying to be a punk... honest. I just think you should reconsider that position, and probably should avoid starting your own argument on your first post in your own thread.

Had RAW, but my LR is an old one and wont open it. Still have to fool with it. In any case, it shows HDR can be made out of one lousy JPEG.

 

[manaheim]

What it shows is that you can tonemap a Jpeg to make it a little more HDR -ish, but any detail lost in that jpeg is still lost in your version.

 

[cgipson1]

I disagree... it is not true HDR. You are merely lightening the underexposed areas and darkening the overexposed areas in post. They both lack the detail that would be there with proper exposures of those areas. This scene had a pretty wide dynamic range, and even three images would probably have not been enough to cover it properly, even with good exposures.

And YES, the excessive tone-mapping is, as you stated... Cartoonish!

 

[Derrel]

Ummm...how can I get at this gold in seawater? I have a pretty good access point to the Pacific Ocean, so I could GET a BUNCH of seawater for free!!!! Please PM me details on how I need to process the sea water to get me at some gold!

I liked your picture, BTW.

 

[slackercruster]

Ummm...how can I get at this gold in seawater? I have a pretty good access point to the Pacific Ocean, so I could GET a BUNCH of seawater for free!!!! Please PM me details on how I need to process the sea water to get me at some gold!

I liked your picture, BTW.

Hey, I don't know. You got to ask the scientists.

Glad you like the photo. It could be a little better. I did not process with LR to clean it up. Here is a 2nd series I did with 1 RAW to 3 TIFF to HDR. I had to use the Oly software to convert to TIFF since my old LR would not touch it. This HDR street stuff is a pain. I may go back to BW!

Much of the HDR you see comes out 'sleepy' from the HDR software. Here is an example of the process from going from 1 RAW image to a final HDR image.

Here is the RAW converted to TIFF

From that TIFF we make 3 exposures in LR 0,+2,-2 and process with HDR

It is OK, but kinda sleepy. So we process a little in LR to get something with more snap

Or if you like it more cartoonish, use the middle version. There you have it...REAL HDR all from 1 image!!