Why Bother?

[Scatterbrained]

BTW, learn to use the histogram and the highlight priority warning as well as the highlight and black clipping warnings in ACR/lightroom. Maybe you'll see in your images what we are talking about.

 

[superhornet59]

Why are YOU telling ME what the thread I STARTED is about. And frankly I did not spout anti-HDR, I simply said that in many cases (hello, I look at other peoples galleries) are employed in situations where it is simply not needed, sometimes by old fools who need 7 exposures to get a photographright because they can't set their camera up properly to get it in one or three.

Why do you have no gallery hmmm? show me your HDR shots. Justify yourself. Add CREDIBILTY to your statements. Where do you use HDR's, to capture both the surroundings and inside of cave on a sunny day (definitely need HDR) or more like 'capture the details' of the shadowed side of a barn (in which tone mapping is all you need). Because I'm going to get a good laugh out of you if you are using HDR merging only as a crutch for an inability to use Adobe RAW / Capture NX.

And you got me, I'm a snotty nosed teenager working as an Automotive Engineer. You must estimate my age to be around, what, 12? clearly you have not remembered a single word I have written in any of my posts and yet you continue to bicker and argue. I made an informative thread full of data and examples, and you CONTINUE to troll this thread and do nothing but flame and you have STILL not added one piece of information to it. I get it, you disagree. we know. so why are you still here? The only thing a reader reading your posts would learn is that you are narcissistic and antagonistizingly pompous, but they would learn nothing of photography. Get off of my thread if you have nothing to contribute, or start a separate rant thread about me elsewhere. This is a forum is for education and sharing of idea's, not 'my way or the highway' bafoons who can only insult others. What do you come here for? clearly not to learn, and you obviously have nothing to teach, so quit trolling me.

Where are the moderators!? I have nothing but fond memories of this forum discussing interesting potential photographs (time lapse merging, etc) with fascinating and vibrant photographers... how did a insolent know-it-all like yourself find his way here??

And Scatterbrained I can clearly see you have not learned from the data I posted (am I the only person left who isn't afraid of a little math?). You suspect all the highlights would be blown because the regions would be 250,250,250, but the point that I have been making from the start is that a 12 bit image contains 4096 levels, not 250. What may be blown on an 8-bit screen (all screens are in that bit depth if not lower) or in an 8-bit (standard) jpeg is not actually blown, you simply cannot display it because the details in the highlights and shadows are outside the range of levels it can display. They are, though, in the raw file (or another 12+ bit format), and by using your 'recover highlights' option it suddenly appears.

The reason you do not see this effect with your DODGE tool is because you are exporting your RAW files as 8-bit jpeg's, not 12-bit. Look through your raw editor's settings. I once had this problem too. I am not having an enlightening moment, as everything you know and are telling me now I knew half a decade ago. Since then I have learned more and you seem to be impervious to such knowledge and experience. 0-4096 is a bigger range than 0-256. It's unfathomable that any more should have to be said, but here I am.

I believe that shot of yours was not well manipulated. shadows turning grey over a few stops exposure is a common occurrence in 8-bit jpegs, not RAW's. I bump that high regularly and have yet to run into this problem (I will,though, if processing an 8-bit jpeg). Send me the that RAW file and we will see what I can pull out of it.


You know, I'm not just here to argue, I'm trying very patiently to teach you something you can't quickly wrap your head around, because its based around bit-depth, something not everyone understands well. Hell, it took me a while to get it to, and I was equally stubborn (I have been doing HDR for a long time, and still do from time to time). If you really don't think tone mapping is worth a shot, don't do it. I'm providing data and expanding peoples horizons, not trying to change anyone's style.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Why are YOU telling ME what the thread I STARTED is about. And frankly I did not spout anti-HDR, I simply said that in many cases (hello, I look at other peoples galleries) are employed in situations where it is simply not needed, sometimes by old fools who need 7 exposures to get a photographright because they can't set their camera up properly to get it in one or three.

Why do you have no gallery hmmm? show me your HDR shots. Justify yourself. Add CREDIBILTY to your statements. Where do you use HDR's, to capture both the surroundings and inside of cave on a sunny day (definitely need HDR) or more like 'capture the details' of the shadowed side of a barn (in which tone mapping is all you need). Because I'm going to get a good laugh out of you if you are using HDR merging only as a crutch for an inability to use Adobe RAW / Capture NX.

And you got me, I'm a snotty nosed teenager working as an Automotive Engineer. You must estimate my age to be around, what, 12? clearly you have not remembered a single word I have written in any of my posts and yet you continue to bicker and argue. I made an informative thread full of data and examples, and you CONTINUE to troll this thread and do nothing but flame and you have STILL not added one piece of information to it. I get it, you disagree. we know. so why are you still here? The only thing a reader reading your posts would learn is that you are narcissistic and antagonistizingly pompous, but they would learn nothing of photography. Get off of my thread if you have nothing to contribute, or start a separate rant thread about me elsewhere. This is a forum is for education and sharing of idea's, not 'my way or the highway' bafoons who can only insult others. What do you come here for? clearly not to learn, and you obviously have nothing to teach, so quit trolling me.

Where are the moderators!? I have nothing but fond memories of this forum discussing interesting potential photographs (time lapse merging, etc) with fascinating and vibrant photographers... how did a insolent know-it-all like yourself find his way here??

And Scatterbrained I can clearly see you have not learned from the data I posted (am I the only person left who isn't afraid of a little math?). You suspect all the highlights would be blown because the regions would be 250,250,250, but the point that I have been making from the start is that a 12 bit image contains 4096 levels, not 250. What may be blown on an 8-bit screen (all screens are in that bit depth if not lower) or in an 8-bit (standard) jpeg is not actually blown, you simply cannot display it because the details in the highlights and shadows are outside the range of levels it can display. They are, though, in the raw file (or another 12+ bit format), and by using your 'recover highlights' option it suddenly appears.

The reason you do not see this effect with your DODGE tool is because you are exporting your RAW files as 8-bit jpeg's, not 12-bit. Look through your raw editor's settings. I once had this problem too. I am not having an enlightening moment, as everything you know and are telling me now I knew half a decade ago. Since then I have learned more and you seem to be impervious to such knowledge and experience. 0-4096 is a bigger range than 0-256. It's unfathomable that any more should have to be said, but here I am.

I believe that shot of yours was not well manipulated. shadows turning grey over a few stops exposure is a common occurrence in 8-bit jpegs, not RAW's. I bump that high regularly and have yet to run into this problem (I will,though, if processing an 8-bit jpeg). Send me the that RAW file and we will see what I can pull out of it.


You know, I'm not just here to argue, I'm trying very patiently to teach you something you can't quickly wrap your head around, because its based around bit-depth, something not everyone understands well. Hell, it took me a while to get it to, and I was equally stubborn (I have been doing HDR for a long time, and still do from time to time). If you really don't think tone mapping is worth a shot, don't do it. I'm providing data and expanding peoples horizons, not trying to change anyone's style.

First, I do all of my exposure manipulations in raw, if I must export an image to do other work it is usually as a TIFF file. Second, you are the one who clearly isn't paying attention, the numbers I posted are the values given to the RGB color scale (each color individually). Open an image up in lightroom and you will see these numbers as you move your cursor around the image. Or you can just look at the histogram; if it goes off to the right there are areas overexposed/blown out, if it goes off to the left there are areas recorded as pure black. I'm sorry that you haven't learned to read a histogram yet, but you're really starting to show your ignorance on the subject. You're starting to behave like the petulant schoolkid you are.
BTW: I'm a CPA, so no, I'm not afraid of math, but I know an arrogant college kid when I see one.

 

[superhornet59]

Example photos:

I picked the highest contrast photograph I could find in 2-3 minutes of browsing. It's no Ansel Adams shot, but very simple image I used to test a theory. Pay attention to what can 'appear' from the shadows. The image was exposed to properly catch the clouds, not a 'compromise' between shadow and highlight (though, you really don't to overexpose by anything more than 1 stop, because the digital format (even at 12/14 bit) will capture lots of detail in the darker shadows, but not as much in the lighter highlights. This is, as we know, completely opposite to film.)
My point is look at how much more data I can extract by manipulating the 12-bit raw BEFORE exporting to jpeg, instead of using photoshops tools on an 8-bit jpeg. This is about as high contrast as I would go before resorting to multiple exposures.. but seriously.. on my screen, the shadows of the original raw look almost flat black! how much more of a dynamic range do you need on a day to day basis. This is a pretty much 'worst case scenario' photo.


First is the original RAW image converted straight to jpeg as is:

Next the RAW converter straight into an 8-bit jpeg and put through 'Shadow/Highlight' in Photoshop with no other changes:




and finally the 12-bit RAW file tone mapped then converted to *16-bit jpeg* and further enhanced with shadow/highlight:





Grains of wood recovered, the switches on the right, and (although noisily) some details under the cockpit (and frankly my eyes have trouble adjusting through all that, it get's DARK back there). I would normally perform further processing to get rid of that ugly grain (The shadows have been pushed some 6-7 stops here... WOW) and enhance colors and everything else you would do to make it artistic. This is approaching the limit of what a camera like mine can record in dynamic range / signal-to-noise, and I think one should be impressed.. try this kind of thing with film! with something like a D3s' noise levels and 14 bit sensor, I wouldn't be surprised if you could push those shadows up another few stops.. you have a huge dynamic range in RAW, but don't know how to make the most of it.

Yes there are time's when it's just not enough.. but good tone mapping can do a lot more than most of you think.

 

[superhornet59]

Oh goodness a self righteous accountant. Last time I was a 'college kid' was before I got my B. Eng.

Histograms are natively 0-255, because there are 256 levels in an 8-bit (the worldwide standard) jpeg/tiff/etc. The whole point of a 12 bit image is that it has 4096 levels, so what happens to all those extra levels when you pop open your histogram then?

Nothing, they are compressed back into a 'standard' 0-255 RGB histogram because nobody needs a histogram that takes up the full width of their screen. Otherwise I look forward to your explanation on why a 12 bit image only contains 8 bits of data per channel (2^8 is 256... guess what 2^12 is)?

I paid for my education with my photography, whether you agree with it or not, I know - and have known - what I've been doing for years.

I'm just a very abrasive person, that's all

EDIT: Your dog may also be wiser than you, Mr. Bynx. If I was comfortable having my name known online I would have put it in my username. By the way I saw your shoddy 'HDR' gallery on photo.net.. I really hope that was a joke. Anyway, I could have rendered 90% of that church photograph from a single raw, only the stained glass would give me trouble (and yes I would create a separate exposure for that). I learned on an old Russian Zenit camera which I inherited. I wonder how well your photographs would come out with no metering

 

[Scatterbrained]

Just over 3yrs ago you were 16

Hey everyone, I haven't been around in a while so you probably dont remember me, I'm Matt and I'm 16,

So at most you're 20 now. I'm not impressed.
Second, I can see all of the detail in the first image you posted on my screen, so I would have known that it could be recovered, as I've had to do similar with images before. Throwing it in LR doesn't set off a shadow or highlight warning. Sliding the fill light adjustment yields a clean but slightly underexposed image that looks quite normal. The "fixed" image you posted looks like some overcooked cartoon, and is why so many people dislike tonemapped and HDR images; because so many of them end up looking like what you posted. The point that you seem to keep missing is that the technology is there to tell you when the data can be recovered and when it can't. Most of us here know that. There are some who do HDR just for ****s and giggles (or they have a lower end camera that can't cleanly cover the range) but most of us here are very well aware of what our cameras can do and we utilize those capabilities.
On a side note, you full name is available in your EXIF data. I will not post your last name as you have stated you aren't comfortable with it being out there, but you should know that many people who frequent photography forums have EXIF readers in their browsers so your name is just a right click away. If you want to avoid that you should remove you EXIF before posting images to the internet.

 

[superhornet59]

Ouch, I see there is amateur left in me yet. I appreciate the tip, and your respect towards peoples privacy. I haven't ever tried reading exif off a jpeg, I simply didn't think the data would be kept through the conversion process. On a side note, those of you who put your names and personal information on the internet are either brave or unaware of what people can do with it. I used to throw some basic info around, and then I recieved a call that one of my bank accounts was compromised. That taught me a thing or two.

And yes, I am 20 and you know, 3 years of year-long study and I have a good job already.. I feel quite happy to be 'ahead of the game' among many of my peers. That's not being snot-nosed, it's being smart.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but I cannot see those details, and I have my brightness set rather high. Of course the image does look cartoonish post processing (I'll be honest: HDR is often art, not realistic. I try and make them my tone-mapped images or ocassional HDR's as subtle as possible.. and keep a reasonable amount of contrast) but of course this was a 'lets see how much info is down there on the low end of the histogram' test, not a work of art.

I don't think HDR is useless, just unnecessary many time's you want to get a 'salable', not for "s***'s and giggles" photograph. I have plenty of high contrast images I have tone mapped to retrieve details that which look quite real and eye pleasing and certainly don't looked 'overcooked', it's a matter of moderation. I like to have some black *somewhere* in the photo.

But I see your point, and oddly enough, now bynx's as well (though he has a rather headstrong-assault-like approach of trying to make a point) : HDR is often an artistic thing, not always directly related to image quality (plenty of high contrast images look fantastic). You can argue about data and facts, but you cant convince people when it comes to art.

If that 'look' pleases you, by all means (though I cant recall ever seeing a professional portfolio or magazine with HDR photographs) multi-expose, but it's not necessary a lot of times.

I'm looking to upgrade to a D300 sometime. I look forward to seeing how much I can do with a 14-bit camera. Everyone marvels at digital's low noise, but I think the great dynamic range of a RAW is something that needs to be better respected as well.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Ouch, I see there is amateur left in me yet. I appreciate the tip, and your respect towards peoples privacy. I haven't ever tried reading exif off a jpeg, I simply didn't think the data would be kept through the conversion process. On a side note, those of you who put your names and personal information on the internet are either brave or unaware of what people can do with it. I used to throw some basic info around, and then I recieved a call that one of my bank accounts was compromised. That taught me a thing or two.

And yes, I am 20 and you know, 3 years of year-long study and I have a good job already.. I feel quite happy to be 'ahead of the game' among many of my peers. That's not being snot-nosed, it's being smart.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but I cannot see those details, and I have my brightness set rather high. Of course the image does look cartoonish post processing (I'll be honest: HDR is often art, not realistic. I try and make them my tone-mapped images or ocassional HDR's as subtle as possible.. and keep a reasonable amount of contrast) but of course this was a 'lets see how much info is down there on the low end of the histogram' test, not a work of art.

I don't think HDR is useless, just unnecessary many time's you want to get a 'salable', not for "s***'s and giggles" photograph. I have plenty of high contrast images I have tone mapped to retrieve details that which look quite real and eye pleasing and certainly don't looked 'overcooked', it's a matter of moderation. I like to have some black *somewhere* in the photo.

But I see your point, and oddly enough, now bynx's as well (though he has a rather headstrong-assault-like approach of trying to make a point) : HDR is often an artistic thing, not always directly related to image quality (plenty of high contrast images look fantastic). You can argue about data and facts, but you cant convince people when it comes to art.

If that 'look' pleases you, by all means (though I cant recall ever seeing a professional portfolio or magazine with HDR photographs) multi-expose, but it's not necessary a lot of times.

I'm looking to upgrade to a D300 sometime. I look forward to seeing how much I can do with a 14-bit camera. Everyone marvels at digital's low noise, but I think the great dynamic range of a RAW is something that needs to be better respected as well.

I don't know if it's in the EXIF on that particular image, but it came up on my screen. I'm using a calibrated NEC Multisync PA241W that I bought specifically for editing. My screen isn't "bright" but it can render an amazing level of contrast and nuance. As far as HDR being used professionally; real estate and architecture. The point of HDR is that if it is done right no one can tell.

 

[superhornet59]

See when I kept saying HDR wasn't necessary in "most situations" I was thinking of two major scenarios: Landscape and Architectural.

I admit I don't go around photographing building on a day to day basis, it's not my field of photographic work, but there have been a couple times here and there when I pulled the details out from the shady side of a building and it looked fine.

I'd just like to add, as I forgot earlier, that the problem with most tone mapped images which makes them look cartoonish is oversaturation that comes from messing with the RGB values, but the worst part is the highlighted 'halos' around shadows. These are dead giveaways. I would gently use the burn tool to remove said highlights, and pull saturation back a bit. That often gets me the best result.

I checked out your monitor... 1000:1 contrast ratio... nice.

I think that might be why you're not seeing the same dramatic difference I am. The contrast ratio of an 8-bit jpeg is only, for obvious reasons, 256:1 hence my plea to avoid it in tone mapping, or any kid of photography for that matter as long as memory size isn't very limited. Depending on what kind you're buying, photographs offer a contrast ratio of between 100:1 to 200:1. When looking at RAWs through such a low dynamic range medium, tone mapping seems to make details just 'appear'. That great monitor of yours may be taking the 'magic' out of it :mrgreen:

I think people looking at physically printed before/afters or looking at it through a run-of-the-mill consumer LCD would be a bit more impressed at how much the 12 bit RAW is 'hiding' down there in the shadows.

 

[DennyCrane]

superhornet59, you've trolled long enough. Time to move along.

 

[superhornet59]

We come to an agreement and civilized discussion, and you just had to toss an unnecessary, uninformative flame in here?

 

[Arkanjel Imaging]

You dont think National Geographic prints HDR processed pics? :lmao:

Because you quote and throw around a bunch of numbers (typical of an engineer) doesnt make you knowledgeable. You obviously know much less about photography than you lay claim to. Thats not an attack. Just saying the more you say... the more you say.



Silly rabbit. :hugs: