- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,457
- Reaction score
- 3,329
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #1
In that earlier train wreck of a thread one reasonably important and interesting point came up and was sort of buried, so I felt like reviving.
What is HDR?
I saw several people point to various images and say "That's not HDR". These ranged from everything from a single tone-mapped exposure, to someone who used less than X shots, to someone who USED X shots, but the end result wasn't to the reader's standard of "What is an HDR".
I'd like to make a point for some of these folks...
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.
They key word in that is the word "high".
High is a subjective and relative term. I'm 5' 8" tall. To me a basketball hoop is high. To a 7' person, it's not quite so high. To a person sitting in a cherry picker, it's quite low.
At best, you could argue that an image isn't "high" dynamic range unless the image represents a higher dynamic range than you could get using more traditional methods such as a single exposure JPEG... but that's really a pretty weak argument. I think those who complain about single-exposure tone-maps probably are on the firmest footing, but even that seems a bit weak.
I do think it's reasonable to encourage people to use more exposures to create their HDRs... after all, they will get an even higher dynamic range, right? But saying to someone "that isn't an HDR" seems kinda silly, IMO.
What is HDR?
I saw several people point to various images and say "That's not HDR". These ranged from everything from a single tone-mapped exposure, to someone who used less than X shots, to someone who USED X shots, but the end result wasn't to the reader's standard of "What is an HDR".
I'd like to make a point for some of these folks...
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.
They key word in that is the word "high".
High is a subjective and relative term. I'm 5' 8" tall. To me a basketball hoop is high. To a 7' person, it's not quite so high. To a person sitting in a cherry picker, it's quite low.
At best, you could argue that an image isn't "high" dynamic range unless the image represents a higher dynamic range than you could get using more traditional methods such as a single exposure JPEG... but that's really a pretty weak argument. I think those who complain about single-exposure tone-maps probably are on the firmest footing, but even that seems a bit weak.
I do think it's reasonable to encourage people to use more exposures to create their HDRs... after all, they will get an even higher dynamic range, right? But saying to someone "that isn't an HDR" seems kinda silly, IMO.