Why Bother?

[Overread]

Its fake HDR because you are not doing an HDR since the sensor has captured the image data - HDR is for when (correctly) the exposure range exceeds the level of cameras ablity to capture the full data range - or for when one wants to get improved levels of detail (especailly in the darker areas of the shot).

The single shot "fake HDR" is correctly called tone mapping and its a method I do use:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

Again you do seem to be responding to no one in this thead and simply targeting a rant at anti tonemapping people when there are none present in the thread countering the use of tone mapping.

 

[Overread]

If anyone is interested in this I suggest you look up the definition of troll and trolling. Superhornet hasnt got a bloody clue what he is talking about and encouraging him to babble on will only encourage him to keep trolling.

I've been a member here twice as long as you. That should say enough.

It says you've not been around much for 4 years
At least on the question asking/contribution/sharing side of the forum.

Edit: It also says that you are new to photography (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/77481-proffessionalism.html ) and that this is most likley not a case of trolling, but more over stating and estimating the abilty of the DSLR camera body in certain conditions. I see a chance to further learning here rather than to argue or troll

 

[Bynx]

I've been a member here twice as long as you. That should say enough.

hahahahaha ya that tells me a lot. Youre an idiot. Youre only point in starting this thread is stated in your first sentence. You're here to create an uproar.

 

[ghpham]

Its fake HDR because you are not doing an HDR since the sensor has captured the image data - HDR is for when (correctly) the exposure range exceeds the level of cameras ablity to capture the full data range - or for when one wants to get improved levels of detail (especailly in the darker areas of the shot).

The single shot "fake HDR" is correctly called tone mapping and its a method I do use:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

Again you do seem to be responding to no one in this thead and simply targeting a rant at anti tonemapping people when there are none present in the thread countering the use of tone mapping.

Tone mapping is used for "true" HDR as well since our monitors are not capable of viewing a HDR image.

 

[jubbin2001]

Couldn't we say that HDR reguardless of if it is pointless or not is just another venue for people to express their creativity? Reguardless of it the situation "needs" multiple exposures or not is irrelevant. Just because someone doesn't feel that the image warranted multiple exposures, doesn't mean that the person taking the image didn't. People enjoy it and that should be enough. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I guess that is the nature of creativity. That would be like asking why bother using colored images. If the end result is the same, then B&W should be good enough. It's all a matter of personal preference, and reguardless of what data you throw at people they will continue to do what they feel they need to in order to best represent their work. I am not trying to start an argument, just saying, why not let people express themselves they way they feel they need to be expressed? It might be pointless to you, but to them it's what they want, and we should encourage and embrace that fact. The argument about the whole 8-bit jpg thing (wich seems to be the main point of all this), well we could do 16-bit files to best show the tonal ranges and yadda yadda, but then someone would probably be bitching about files size and d/l times. Just can't make anyone happy these days :lmao:.

As for the 'noise in shadows argument' I already went over that earlier. If noise is a large concern you likely are using a very low ISO which means speed, therefore motion capture, is not your biggest priority, and yes you might as well take multiple exposures.

I have a question. Can someone PLEASE contact Nikon for me and tell them my camera is broken? All this talk about noise on low ISO and I only get noise when I shoot high ISO....I think they wired something in backwards :mrgreen:. I wanna shoot ISO 1600 with no noise...man that would be awesome. No flash for this guy.

I always thought that the higher the ISO speed, the more sensitive the camera sensor is, ergo iky noise effect. Or in a film case, the higher ISO the film the faster it exposes, but yields poor image results. I always thought (and was told by many many a profession photographer) noise was always a direct result of increased sensitivity to light...But I am not an engineer, so I might be completely off my rocker here....please help .

 

[superhornet59]

Frankly I didn't post here to be attacked personally. I haven't been on TPF but what the point I have made is that no i have not been kicked out for trolling and I have been practicing photography for quite a while now (and long before joining). Frankly the information in my profile is outdated. Bynx i think you ought to re-read the definition of trolling then re-read your posts in this thread. as you have contributed zero information, zero data, zero samples, zero anything: just flaming and rude remarks. If you have nothing to say (because you know nothing on the topic i speak of) please find a different thread to express it on. This isn't a rant thread, this is a"guys.. the technology we have is amazing.. why arent we making the most of it?" thread.

Granted some of you agree tone mapping has many benefits, but the point I am making is *not* that HDR imaging cannot exceed the sensors dynamic range (because yes, of course it does) *but* rather that the sensor's dynamic range is high enough that there are very few situations that justify 'true' HDR, and therefore unnecessary in many circumstances when you know how to make the most of your RAW files. I've been processing my RAW's for years, and I'll be honest I have almost never found that I did not have enough data in the shadows/highlights in a single exposure.

 

[Overread]

I guess then your output medium is affecting your views in comparison to others I know myself that noise in the shadows leads to noise and loss of overall quality in those areas - of course if you are just outputting to the internet at 1000pixels or less or outputting to smaller print sizes you might not be seeing the problem as much as those also cropping or producing larger size output mediums.

Again you can add only so much light to an underexposed area before the quality lacks and suffers - if you want the ideal perfect dark areas brigther then HDR is the only way to get them like that

 

[Arch]

Granted some of you agree tone mapping has many benefits, but the point I am making is *not* that HDR imaging cannot exceed the sensors dynamic range (because yes, of course it does) *but* rather that the sensor's dynamic range is high enough that there are very few situations that justify 'true' HDR, and therefore unnecessary in many circumstances when you know how to make the most of your RAW files.

No, as i said before you are still missing the point.

The problem is you are suggesting that most peoples fake HDR images don't need to be HDR.... well of course, we know that. You can get a similar look from a 3 exposure HDR to a single RAW (except you will have more noise) but if you have all the highlights and shadows captured then you probably don't need to 'HDR it' in the first place.

However you are confusing the people that 'do HDR' just to get the tonemapping effect with the real reason for HDR, which CANNOT be done with a RAW file. Yes the situation does exsist.

This is fact, you can dispute it all you want, but to be honest this thread will go nowhere because it has been discussed before mutliple times, all you have to do is use the search function and we can avoid another pointless arguement.

I've been processing my RAW's for years, and I'll be honest I have almost never found that I did not have enough data in the shadows/highlights in a single exposure.

Then you have never taken an image of a scene which a true HDR is needed.

 

[superhornet59]

Then you have never taken an image of a scene which a true HDR is needed.

Send me one of the three (the "correctly" exposed of the three) RAW file of a landscape scene and the resulting HDR Image, and we will see wha I can do.

Frankly, you can pull details out of shadows around 4-5 EV below the 'correctly exposed area' (a 12-bit camera has a dynamic range of about 8-9 EV).

Unless you bracket by 5 EV, all the extra details in the shadows are going to be of the same luminosity as the ones captured and brightened in the tone-mapped image. Do you bracket 5 full stops? Even then you would need to tone map each of THOSE images to make the most (not just 'capture', but SHOW) the details.

I am not arguing that taking multiple exosures is NEVER necessary, I am arguing that it's not necessary for most situations in which it is employed.

Upload a reasonable high contrast photo which you bracketed and later made an HDR image out of, merged using standard HDR merging techniques (so not tone mapping each exposure to extract even MORE useable data, because while it is a good idea, i have yet to seen someone commonly make HDRs out of tone mapped photos) and I'll show you I can capture the same details. Don't send me ISO 3200 photos of a black object in front of the sun, because that's not what I mean by 'most scenarious'. But trees infront of the sun, cities at night, etc... the details are all there when you use a reasonably low noise ISO setting. I'll glady do it because I support my comments instead with proof and data.. not flaming.

 

[Arch]

I don't know how to write it any other way... you have your blinkers on to prove a point and are not reading my posts properly...

Send me one of the three (the "correctly" exposed of the three) RAW file of a landscape scene and the resulting HDR Image, and we will see what I can do.

Scroll up... I just said the range difference between 3 images and RAW is minimal... of course you can make them look similar, iv said that twice in this thread already.

Frankly, you can pull details out of shadows around 4-5 EV below the 'correctly exposed area' (a 12-bit camera has a dynamic range of about 8-9 EV).

Unless you bracket by 5 EV, all the extra details in the shadows are going to be of the same luminosity as the ones captured and brightened in the tone-mapped image. Do you bracket 5 full stops? Even then you would need to tone map each of THOSE images to make the most (not just 'capture', but SHOW) the details.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, it is certainly not necessary to tone map each image in order to make a HDR.

Upload a reasonable high contrast photo which you bracketed and later made an HDR image out of, merged using standard HDR merging techniques (so not tone mapping each exposure to extract even MORE useable data, because while it is a good idea, I have yet to seen someone commonly make HDRs out of tone mapped photos) and I'll show you I can capture the same details. Don't send me ISO 3200 photos of a black object in front of the sun, because that's not what I mean by 'most scenarious'. But trees infront of the sun, cities at night, etc... the details are all there when you use a reasonably low noise ISO setting. I'll glady do it because I support my comments instead with proof and data.. not flaming.

OK, I'll explain what I think is going on here. You have seen X amount of HDRs (especially over the last few years) of landscapes.... someone's back garden... a statue in a park etc, and have concluded that these don't need to be multi exposure HDR's.... welcome to the club! I (and others) have being saying this for years. However by asking me to supply an image of a landscape would suggest that you think that is what HDR is used for.... what I have been trying to say to you is isn't not!

If I supplied you with a single image that I have used for a HDR it would probably be the inside of a church where, as I have said, you will not be able to get the range needed to create a balanced image. That is why HDR came about in the first place.

I am not arguing that taking multiple exosures is NEVER necessary, I am arguing that it's not necessary for most situations in which it is employed.

People who take images of average landscapes and say it's the height of their HDR technique are doing it wrong. You are trying to fix a problem that shouldn't exsist.


Please understand im not trying to have a go at anyone here, but just trying to point out that HDR doesn't mean to me what it does to you. To you, its people that use 3 exposure HDRs for everything... even if most of the range is already there... for me, the whole purpose of the technique is that of the original meaning, to go beyond that... and there, single RAWs will not help you.

 

[superhornet59]

I think we're making the same point except I am more optimistic about the capabilities of the RAW image. While I haven't done a church per say, I have done images of the inside of a vehicle with a window/opening outside (car with tinted windows, with the subjects window open for example) which to me is a very high contrast setting and years ago I would have thought it was impossible to capture the full range of shadows and highlights... then I started processing my RAWs instead of just batch converting them, and it's like a light bulb lit up. Photographs I had once thought were 'unusable' were suddenly full of detail I didn't know, simply because it wasn't in the jpeg/displayed on my screen. Once I got into tone mapping and practiced, I was astonished with what I could do.

My ultimate point is that camera users ought to see just how much contrast they can cram into a photograph and 'recover' (meaning, compress the DR into something a screen can actually display) and find their camera's limitation BEFORE they start merging photos into HDR Images.

My title 'why bother' is not to suggest 'why bother with multiple exposure blending at all?' but rather 'Why bother with it in sitations like most landscape shots' in which I see we can agree, it is unnecessary. I just think people don't give their camera the benefit of the doubt and underestemate its capability, and ought to explore tone mapping a bit and see if it suits their needs before they resort to the compromises inherent with shooting multiple scenes.

But of course there is a limit, quite possibly in such a church scenario, but I just find a lot of people use the technique when it is unnecessary, and I'd just like to shout out to said people and say 'hey, maybe good tone mapping enough 95% for your high-contrast needs'.

This was certainly NOT a 'rant' thread, though. :er:

 

[Bynx]

Why does it concern you so much which technique people are using? If anyone wants to shoot 9 shots to come up with an HDR whats it to you? I think your only concern should be limited to what you see and not how it was done. And comments like....you could have done the same thing doing it my way is not appropriate unless the OP is asking for a way other than what he/she has done. Ive never seen a site with so many people concerned about what other people are doing. If you dont like HDR no one is forcing you to come here. I shoot a lot of HDR. Most of the time it works fine. Sometimes its hardly noticeable. I dont do the cartoony look but the realistic approach and I dont care how many HDR images you have shot there is no way a single RAW or single jpeg file can get the detail and range that I need when shooting in a varied lighting situation such as churches, which I shoot a lot. Ive even shot 7 shots for a single stained glass window. I am able to get so much razor sharp detail from the white or clear glass to the almost blackish blues and purples. You might call it unecessary but youre not going to tell me to stop. I dont think you are going to convince a single person here to stop so what is your point? To me shooting for HDR is just fun. When I get back to process the files I have a choice which I wouldnt have if I never took those extra shots. Maybe you would like to limit us shooters to limit ourselves to 5 or maybe 10 shots per day? Anything else you would like us to cut out?

 

[superhornet59]

Ive never seen a site with so many people concerned about what other people are doing.

Then why are you here?

A forum is a place to exchange ideas. Next time a newbie photographer who happened to take advice from one of your posts thinks to himself 'oh no, I'm watching a ballet with a dark stage and spotlit - and moving - subject, I can't take that shot! I would rather he also remember my side of the argument and make an attempt - and after tone mapping possibly end up with a beautiful photograph - instead of being discouraged by a bitter old man.

You can fill up your whole memory card with incremental exposures of a single scene (stacking, if you didn't know, will greatly reduce noise far better than any NR software), but this thread is for people looking to expand their horizons in photography, not live in a bubble.

 

[Bynx]

Ive never seen a site with so many people concerned about what other people are doing.

Then why are you here?

A forum is a place to exchange ideas. Next time a newbie photographer who happened to take advice from one of your posts thinks to himself 'oh no, I'm watching a ballet with a dark stage and spotlit - and moving - subject, I can't take that shot! I would rather he also remember my side of the argument and make an attempt - and after tone mapping possibly end up with a beautiful photograph - instead of being discouraged by a bitter old man.

You can fill up your whole memory card with incremental exposures of a single scene (stacking, if you didn't know, will greatly reduce noise far better than any NR software), but this thread is for people looking to expand their horizons in photography, not live in a bubble.

No the point is, WHY ARE YOU HERE? This thread is for those intererested in expanding their knowledge or sharing their experiences with HDR technique. If you have some other technique you want to preach then start a thread. I dont think spouting anti-HDR is what this thread is looking for. As for being a bitter old man, this coming from a snotty nosed teenager?

 

[Scatterbrained]

I think we're making the same point except I am more optimistic about the capabilities of the RAW image. While I haven't done a church per say, I have done images of the inside of a vehicle with a window/opening outside (car with tinted windows, with the subjects window open for example) which to me is a very high contrast setting and years ago I would have thought it was impossible to capture the full range of shadows and highlights... then I started processing my RAWs instead of just batch converting them, and it's like a light bulb lit up. Photographs I had once thought were 'unusable' were suddenly full of detail I didn't know, simply because it wasn't in the jpeg/displayed on my screen. Once I got into tone mapping and practiced, I was astonished with what I could do.

My ultimate point is that camera users ought to see just how much contrast they can cram into a photograph and 'recover' (meaning, compress the DR into something a screen can actually display) and find their camera's limitation BEFORE they start merging photos into HDR Images.

My title 'why bother' is not to suggest 'why bother with multiple exposure blending at all?' but rather 'Why bother with it in sitations like most landscape shots' in which I see we can agree, it is unnecessary. I just think people don't give their camera the benefit of the doubt and underestemate its capability, and ought to explore tone mapping a bit and see if it suits their needs before they resort to the compromises inherent with shooting multiple scenes.

But of course there is a limit, quite possibly in such a church scenario, but I just find a lot of people use the technique when it is unnecessary, and I'd just like to shout out to said people and say 'hey, maybe good tone mapping enough 95% for your high-contrast needs'.

This was certainly NOT a 'rant' thread, though. :er:

So what you are saying is that you finally had an epiphany and for some reason you think the rest of the world doesn't know what you recently discovered? What did you think the "fill light" and "recovery" sliders were for in Lightroom? Why do you think we have "dodge" and "burn" tools? Meanwhile it is easy to encounter a situation where, when properly exposed for the highlights you will render the darkest areas as absolute black (that would be 0,0,0 in you RGB indicators). Simply taking another exposure a few stops higher would bring back the dark areas but would blow the highlights out (that would be 250,250,250, in the RGB indicators). What do the think the highlight warning is for? If you properly expose an image but still get a few areas that are blinking (assuming you have the highlight priority turned on) that is the camera telling you that there is no data being recorded in that area. Therefore no amount of work in raw will bring any detail back. I shot the image below shooting directly into the sun. Properly exposing for the sky rendered the foreground as a silhouette. Bumping the exposure on the foreground only brought back the brightest parts of the image, leaving the darker areas gray. This shot could not be achieved without multiple exposures, despite that it only required exposures over a 4 stop range. Properly exposed for the background much of the sky is absolute white (250,250,250 on the RGB indicator) while properly exposed for the sky much of the foreground is pure black. Granted an GND (graduated neutral density) filter could also achieve much of the same results but that is another piece of kit to carry around when i could just take a few exposures and fix it when I get home. With a GND filter I would have to be out specifically to take shots like this or it isn't worth carrying it around.