Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: High Dynamic Range  (Read 1564 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Steve P
Guest
« Reply #45 on: 03 October 2008, 10:59:31 AM »

No worries Phil.  Have fun  Wink
Logged
JamesC
Guest
« Reply #46 on: 17 November 2008, 07:10:43 PM »

Downloaded easyHDR for a trial and bought the license to get rid of the watermark (£27). I must admit I'm in two minds about it. Some hdr's look fantastic while others give me a headache. EasyHDR seems to give more natural results compared to Photomatix etc and has plenty of features for the price. I think it's maybe a phase we're all going through and I had to see what the fuss was about but didn't want to spend a bundle. It seems ok in moderation but go over the top and you end up with something that resembles a cartoon and will fall out of fashion some day. Remember starburst filters Cheesy.
« Last Edit: 17 November 2008, 07:13:09 PM by JamesC » Logged
mxbuck
Full Member
***

Karma: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187



WWW
« Reply #47 on: 17 November 2008, 08:29:49 PM »

My sentiments exactly.

  I've tried it 3 ways - actually 4 - CS2/3, easyHDR, Photomatix and lately Hugin (Opensource panoramic software that also does HDR). I prefer to use HDR for what it stands for: "High Dynamic Range" -extending the range of a subject by bracketing. You can split the functionality of Photomatix into three:  a) creating the HDR file which imbeds the extended range  , (b) the tone-mapping or greyscale-mapping (such as gamma, logarithmic, and adaptive statistical variations) and (c) exposure blending.

 CS2/3 does exposure blending and I find this is the more realistic way of using so called HDR.
In my opinion the Photomatix freaks out there are using the "tone-mapping" part of it almost exclusively, and to great excess yielding the cartoonish, surreal images that look like charcoal paintings. EasyHdr and CS2/3 can do some of that but they don't have the large number of (IMHO) inter-dependent sliders like Photomatix has. When I say inter-dependent, I mean that adjusting one slider produces a result that always needs to be compensated by the others. It becomes unwieldy to try to get consistent results.

  I'm also finding it becomes a tremendous time-waster. I can get nice realistic results by first creating the HDR file, saving it and doing modest tone-mapping with CURVES in CS2/3. Boost the saturation a bit to help it along. Another thing I've noticed is that Photomatix can really up the noise level if you're too cavalier with the sliders. Keep an eye out for the shadows for increased luminance noise and highlights for increased grain.

  Caution when you hear HDR being bandied about - most of the time its tone-mapping with Photomatix and I wouldn't call that pure HDR in the true sense of the phrase.

  BTW, true HDR is based on bracketing and multiple exposures often requiring a tripod, so did you ever wonder how some people get action shots done in so called "HDR"? Simple - they shoot one shot in RAW mode and run that through Photomatix's tone-mapping. In fact you don't need RAW files. Try this: take an action shot in JPEG (8bit) or TIFF (8/16 bit) -open it in CS2, convert it to 32 bit, and then immediately convert back to 16 bit (yes - sounds dumb, but read on). This forces CS2 to invoke its tone-mapping window. Voila - you cant hen tone-map the action shot with the drop down "adaptive mapping" method. Of course you can also do this with Photomatix since it also converts the files to 32 bit floating point format before doing its whiz-bang calculations.

Its a new tool in the arsenal, but needs a bit of practice to master (I haven't yet). Caveat emptor.

But hey ! Have fun with it and explore!  Smiley
Logged

mxbuck
Full Member
***

Karma: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187



WWW
« Reply #48 on: 17 November 2008, 08:39:33 PM »

Here's the Facebook group I belong to where you can see  all "The good, The Bad and the Ugly"  in HDR  Smiley

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204814463&ref=share
Logged

hardingbr
Full Member
***

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 147

hardingbr@hotmail.com
Email
« Reply #49 on: 17 November 2008, 08:57:44 PM »

Check out this site:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/
This guy produces some of the most gorgeous images that I have ever seen, using HDR and lots of other techniques.
Logged
JamesC
Guest
« Reply #50 on: 17 November 2008, 09:08:46 PM »

I have to agree with Max that exposure blending can produce better results in some cases than HDR. EasyHDR has an image stack mode where it can blend several exposures together and produce an 'average'. The program states that this is meant for stacking images of a similar exposure to reduce noise levels (especially long exposures) but it also works with differently exposed files of the same image. The resultant image is classed as LDR - Low dynamic range but certainly shows a good tonal spread without the 'magic mushroom effect.'  Smiley
Logged
JamesC
Guest
« Reply #51 on: 17 November 2008, 09:29:18 PM »

Check out this site:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/
This guy produces some of the most gorgeous images that I have ever seen, using HDR and lots of other techniques.

Good find Brian - his panoramas are stunning, especially the rockies. If i get 1000 images on here maybe I'll retire and go settle down there Cheesy.
Logged
mxbuck
Full Member
***

Karma: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187



WWW
« Reply #52 on: 17 November 2008, 09:52:21 PM »

Check out this site:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/
This guy produces some of the most gorgeous images that I have ever seen, using HDR and lots of other techniques.

Thanks Brian. Good site.  Check out the Hugin tutorials at http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/index.shtml  that explain how Hugin does pretty much the same thing. What's useful about Max Lyon's site is his Java script calculators. Quite handy. I had to develope my own in EXcel (ugh!). I'd almost swear he copied my code (there's nothing new under the sun).

Good find.

Logged

JamesC
Guest
« Reply #53 on: 17 November 2008, 10:08:20 PM »

Check out this site:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/
This guy produces some of the most gorgeous images that I have ever seen, using HDR and lots of other techniques.

Thanks Brian. Good site.  Check out the Hugin tutorials at http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/index.shtml  that explain how Hugin does pretty much the same thing. What's useful about Max Lyon's site is his Java script calculators. Quite handy. I had to develope my own in EXcel (ugh!). I'd almost swear he copied my code (there's nothing new under the sun).

Good find.



Hmmm.... interesting - thought about making some wideangle/fisheye panos so will look into this - cheers Max.
Logged
hardingbr
Full Member
***

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 147

hardingbr@hotmail.com
Email
« Reply #54 on: 18 November 2008, 04:07:56 AM »

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you shoot in RAW, why can't you use one photo, and in your editing software, increase/decreaase the exposure compensation saving each change as a separate file, then use whatever software you use to blend/merge/tone map, etc. all of these images into one HDR file.  That is how I do it.  Several of my online photos are HDR, I just didn't mention it.  I don't go for the garish stuff.
Logged
mxbuck
Full Member
***

Karma: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187



WWW
« Reply #55 on: 18 November 2008, 07:16:54 AM »

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you shoot in RAW, why can't you use one photo, and in your editing software, increase/decreaase the exposure compensation saving each change as a separate file, then use whatever software you use to blend/merge/tone map, etc. all of these images into one HDR file.  That is how I do it.  Several of my online photos are HDR, I just didn't mention it.  I don't go for the garish stuff.

  Yep - one can do that - I've done it too just to experiment. The best way to answer your question is to think of the RAW as already containing all the information/data that you so painstakingly are generating by creating "exposures" from it. You are , in effect,  simulating bracketing on a LDR camera (LDR meaning Low dynamic Range).  Its to fool the software (such as CS2)        into thinking you actually have bracketted JPEGS.  Now to really get ultra HDR try several bracketted  RAW files and ingest those into Photomatix! Then you're really cookin' with gas! 

Try an experiment - take one of your RAWs that you've previously massaged into bracketed Jpegs and process it directly to see if you can replicate your results.
Logged

JamesC
Guest
« Reply #56 on: 18 November 2008, 05:12:16 PM »

I would say if your subject has no movement it's best to bracket exposures in camera. Sometimes even a landscape has clouds scudding by or a breeze moving branches so the one raw file trick comes into it's own. I think most people would use +/- 2ev if bracketting.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: