Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by maloner
How do you know?
The two images I posted are both created from 3 RAW exposures, 2 stops apart and using Photomatix. The second one just had the bottom half replaced with the +2EC image to reduce the strong tones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maloner
There is some truth here, but surely its largely semantics? [^o)]
Sorry angelfire, I haven't figured out this message boad yet so I don't have your post quoted here - but to answer your questions:
1) Because a true HDR image has far more data in in than the 8-bit jpgs we see on this webpage. True HDR images can't be shown in all their glory by current display technology (not all at once, anyway). They need to have their massive dynamic range compressed into something much smaller, which is what happens in the tone mapping process. I wasn't saying that you didn't use more than one exposure, or that you didn't follow a standard HDR workflow - just that the output of that workflow is not, in the digital technical sense, an HDR file (although one is created in the process).
2) Lots of semantics; I'm a writer in addition to a photographer, so everything I do is semantics. It's fun! I'll argue with you about what a salad is, if you want. Seriously. Get a beer first; it'll be easier on everyone. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming
I purposely went there an hour before sunrise to avoid people. The extra benefit was some pretty terrific early morning light. What HDR did for me on this shot was enable me to use a long exposure to capture the night's light, a shorter exposure to keep from blowing out the christmas and city lights and a normal exposure to retain the midtones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maloner
Took me a bit to see the quote button - which appears after you've pressed the reply button to a message, just below the one you reply to - assuming that you don't quick reply (I assume!).
Ok 1) I understand the bit about the resulting image that gets displayed as being not HDR - however, I thought the whole point of programs like Photomatix was that they created a HDR from multiple (For what is traditionallly a true HDR) exposures and then was tone mapped to keep the extremes of the range back into an image that can be displayed properly.
2) Bit early for a beer now (Its 5:15am as I write this!) But I'm game. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg J.
Thanks Greg, I have a few others from the bean here, http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/the_bean if your interested.
I keep going back to Jeff's and Angelfire's shots that got this tread moving along. They are terrific photos and wonderful examples of how to use HDR to improve a shot without going over the top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anglefire
Ahh, there we go!
1) That is what Photomatix does -- the image it shows you after you load all of your exposures (which will surely show some ugly scene with massively blown "highlights" (in areas that aren't even highlights) and "shadows" (in areas that aren't even shadows). That's your real HDR image right there -- your screen can't show it, but that file has all the image data from the darkest shadows you recorded up through the brightest highlights. And it has them at their actual values! So it's more the way your eye would actually see it -- and if you view it through the little floating window in photomatix, it will show you an actual localized image based on wherever you point, which lets you see through the blown highlights/shadows. This is how 3d gaming and animation works, too -- they use HDR images to simulate real vision; if your character walks into a bright area, then the highlights come into view; if you walk into a dark area, then the highlights get blown and the shadows come into view.
What we often call an HDR image now, the tone mapped version of an actual HDR photo, actually has much LESS dynamic range than one of these real HDR images. But that's what makes them so interesting to look at (and sometimes offensive).
2) Ha -- maybe I'll just drink your beer instead, since it's still early over here? Well, early NIGHT, that is. Still, if you want to join, by all means! :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Burkett
Well thank you. I do like the more real looking HDR images, rather than the painterly ones. Although certain situations can lend itself to one way over the other. I hope to do more HDR work soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Thanks for the kind words.
I must admit that I too generally prefer the results that are more true to life - but I have a few on my website that are a bit more striking!
Such as this one.
http://www.mark.colston-online.co.uk...des/Castle.jpg
This is actually Dover Castle on the south coast of England.
Mark
That's a nice image too, angelfire. The sky plays such a big role in it. Very well done.
The only thing I dont care for is the parking lot. But the path leading the eye in is a nice touch.
Thanks Jeff, I do agree the carpark is a bit of a distraction - but I liked the sky!
Just to add another to the mix, is this one, taken in Paris - its actually 6 shots - to create the pano and the HDR.
Oh, I should also say that I rarely use a tripod when I do the HDR shots. Aught to do it a bit more!
http://www.mark.colston-online.co.uk...ides/Paris.jpg
This is my first HDR picture.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.16/IMG_5F00_4935_5F00_6_5F00_7_5F00_tonemapped.jpg[/img]
HDRI is pretty much the only way I shoot/edit.
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/ima...coastimage.jpg
This one is probably my favorite interior shot
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7s..._living_fs.jpg
My favorite night shot (HDR, not a long exposure)
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7s...1_pools_fs.jpg
And finally, my favorite bedroom shot...
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7s.../01_bed_fs.jpg
O.K... one more...
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7s...02_dine_fs.jpg
really, really, really, last one. I love this one too! I can't choose one!
http://www.digitalcoastimage.com/p7s..._living_fs.jpg
Dude, those images are great! You have to write a tutorial for us on how you make your HDRs... really amazing pictures you've got there [H]
Here's a couple of mine during my Utah/Arizona trip last fall
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/...ff4720dabf.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3427/...3835c7807b.jpg
Also amazing... great HDRs!
Michael, the interior shots are super. Look to be very subtle HDR.
I also love the Utah/Arizona ones too - makes me almost want to come over to America!
This isn't my best HDR but it's the most recent one. [H]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.88/_5F00_MG_5F00_8395.jpg[/img]
Thanks [:D]
I'm still fighting to get it more realistic and less "stylized" as they tend to look. Interiors are a bitch. Tungsten inside and daylight outside with color spill through the windows. It is toughest dealing with 5000-6000 temps flowing into interior spaces with 2800-3600 temps. Those color spills are rough!
And of course the DR is insane between the interiors and glaring sun coming off the ocean.
The realtors, builders, and such love it though. Especially the builders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael James
Don't, that's why they are so amazing and different - IMO at least.
I know it may look amazing and cool to us... but my clients hate it. They want realism. The worst case scenario has already happened. They show a property that someone from out of town viewed online and then they got there and it didn't look as surreal and cool to them in person. I lost business with certain realtors because I was having a hard time making them more photo real. Tonemapping does some weird things to colors, etc.. and it is a work in progress to get to where I am now. My clients demand realism.
I've gained back lost clients (realtors) because I'm getting more photoreal now. All that I posted is older work of mine. The stuff I've done recently captures the full DR, but looks far more real and less "stylized".
You know, aside from this whole thread having some really, really cool images, I was thinking.
I'm assuming that HDR means 'High Dynamic Range'. Please tell me if it's otherwise.
Multiple exposures makes sense if the camera can't capture the dynamic range of the image. If you look at the histogram of a single shot, and it's clipping the top or bottom, or you want to push the noise floor down, multiple exposures makes sense. However, what the defining parameter is, is the dynamic range.
Correct me gently, if I'm wrong, but as I understand it,
'8 bit' images 256 possible levels for each channel. With A/D and D/A converters, each bit doubles the dynamic range, or in photography terms, increases the dynamic range from lowest to highest by one stop. So, a 12 bit A/D converter is already going two stops up, and two stops down. But that's kind of beside the point.
If the image itself actually has content which exercises extreme dynamic range (night time with lights, direct sunlight and heavily shaded areas, etc.), then regardless of what you're able to capture, there is one relevant issue. The display medium, be it a monitor, or the print medium, doesn't have nearly the contrast ratio to actually make use of that image if it's 'accurate' by any objective measure. It then becomes a matter of a technical art, to take that HDR original content, and massage it into an image that looks, in the intended output medium, as we'd like to represent the experience. If you mess with the curves, they can look surreal and very cool, or plain ridiculous, or, if you are very careful, still 'realistic' even if you're sacrificing the accuracy of the linearity to maintain the detail of the experience.
The experience itself can open up a whole other can of nightcrawlers. The fact that the eye, and the way that we see, isn't really like a camera, but rather weird scanner that uses a camera, outside of the whole color space issue, makes the job of the camera, and the presentation of an image, technically kind of ridiculous. Luckily, our brains are really good at filling in.
But, as for the important stuff, I'm really glad that Bryan opened this up. I've seen some truly inspiring images. I hope to see more!
varok - beautiful images. That first one is done really nicely.
And Brian - haha thanks for putting me on the spot on your News page LOL. [H] This type of thread has taken off on another forum I am part of. Over 1,000 replies and the last I looked, some 130,000 views.
Michael - your architectural work is gorgeous too! It's awesome to be able to see what's outside. The beach front home on the last page is really nice. The wood work in that home is stunning.
Thanks Jeff :)
And yes.. that beach home is gorgeous. Working in locations like that is a treat. Then I have to go back to my little townhome (reality check) LOL! But it is nice to be able to frequent such beautiful homes for a living. I just try to create images that capture their beauty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Jeff, the lighting on this is tremendous. If you hadn't told me it was HDR based, I wouldn't have known. I tend to prefer staying away from surreal looks with tonemapping and to keep it as real as possible. This is a gorgeous image!
Michael, these interior shots are gorgeous. As someone who photographs mainly hotels and restaurants, I really appreciate seeing this done well. Are you using a tilt shift lens, or just correcting the perspectives in CS? I'd be curious to know what gear you are using for these shots. Are you using purely natural light, or supplementing this with strobes, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John
John, I do corrections in Photoshop for lens distortions. I wish I had a TS, but opted for various primes to cover a range of focal lengths.
Gear? Various. Depends on situtation.
Canon 5D, 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Nikon D3, 14-24mm f/2.8G; 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s; 35mm f/2.0D, 50mm f/1.4 Ai-s; 85mm f/1.4D
Sigma SD14, 10-20mm f/4-5.6; 30mm f/1.4; 50-150mm f/2.8
I mostly use the D3 - 14-24mm combo. But you can't put a filter on that lens so when I shoot interiors at night with tungsten I use the 5D - 16-35m combo so I can use blue filters and custom white balance to feed the blue channel rather than losing DR and increasing noise otherwise.
The lighting question is where this all began. It took every penny I had to buy the 5D - 16-35mm. I had nothing left for lighting. Hence why I looked into HDRI. The rest is history. I'd still like to be able to use lighting, but when I was ready to start purchasing really good high end lighting, I fell in love with the D3 and that sharp as hell 14-24mm combo. So I sold all my video equipement to buy it and had nothing left for lighting!!!! So I just kept shooting brackets and pushing it through a HDRI pipeline and I'm still wanting to get good lighting someday when I can afford it.
My wife has been looking for work for almost a 9 months now so I haven't been able to save any money for lighting and keep using HDRI workflows in the time being. My clients like the look though. There are times though when lighting would really enhance a shot, but I can't tell them that I have no lighting so my mantra is "Well, I really think it looks better just using natural light." LOL!
Hope that helps a bit to answer questions. (off to shoot... bbl)
Michael, thanks for the in-depth reply! Interesting that you use both the 5d as well as the D3...
Seeing as the widest TS lens that I know of is only about 24mm, using the 14mm and correcting the perspective in CS should work just fine, and looks like it does.
Do you run into noise issues with the shadows at all using the HDR?
Also, do you blend exposures manually, or do you use a dedicated HRD software?
So I haven't been playing with HDR much, but here is one from the Arenal Volcano in Costa Rica:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.21/40D_5F00_IMG_5F00_1626.jpg[/img]
It is an HDR composite of 3 images with my Canon 24-70 on a 40D. The scene didn't need much help in dynamic range, but the extra was appreciated in the sky and the trees.
John, I'm about to shut down and head out to shoot, but real quick...
The HDR tonemappers pull the shadow data from the over exposures and there is less noise there... unlike attempting to pull up shadows from a normally exposed image which does reveal noise in the shadows.
And I mostly use software to tonemap the HDRs created from multiple exposures, but there are times and situations where it is far faster to just use one, two or three of the exposures and either mask in/out or paint in/out areas of the frame. That is only really possible when nothing is in front of windows (meaning interior objects are not sitting in front of a window such as a light fixture, etc).
I love the 5D. I prefer it's color rendition over the D3. I'd go on, but no time. I went to the D3 for two big reasons. I do some "run and gun" shoots for some realtors that don't need or want to pay for higher end work, but want better shots than they can get on their XTis. And the D3 fires off 9 bursts for AEB. 4 under, 1 at, 4 over. The 5D only has 3. I would have bumped up to the 5D markII if they would have at least allowed it to do 5 AEB. The 3 AEB sucks. When shooting with cars passing, wind moving trees/leaves, and such... I really need at least 5 and often 7 exposures one full EV apart.
Gotta run!!!!
damn.... the second reason I forgot to mention. The 14-24mm f/2.8G is the sharpest beast. I had to get the D3 for that thing. I've tripoded off from the same location with the 5D - 16-35mm f/2.8 L II against it and was unable to beat the D3 - 14-24mm combo. And the 14-24mm is amazing at handling glare compared to canon's. And when I am shooting into windows overlooking the ocean... it destroys the 16-35 in comparison tests.
That said. I prefer the 5D for landscapes, weddings and portraits.
Really gone now. Got a 5/5 overlooking the gulf to shoot today and it's sunny.
~~~poof~~~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
I think there's some non-linearity in the bit-mapping, such that the top half of the possible levels are used to represent the brightest stop of dynamic range. Therefore, 12-bit conversion doesn't really add as much dynamic range as you might otherwise suspect if you're thinking of binary numbering. I think camera histograms tend to display a four-stop range; assuming that's the case, 12-bit conversion (4096 values) puts the top 2048 values in the brightest stop, another 1024 in the next darker stop, another 512 in the next darker stop, and the last 512 values in the darkest areas. Changing to 14-bit would mean 2048 values in the darkest areas, a significant improvement; 8-bit JPEG means you'd have only 32 values in the darkest areas.
Here's one of mine from last year. I don't shoot a lot of HDR photos for pleasure, but this was one situation in which the only real way to make it work was an HDR...
here's a smaller version!
http://www.pbase.com/johnhudson/image/108354603.jpg
Hi,
lots of great pictures here
I like to use HDR with a B&W compositions as you can see in these pictures from a shoot in Paris
This is great to capture clouds details too
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.24/IMG_5F00_2928_5F00_7_5F00_9_5F00_tonemapped-_2D00_-pro-contrast-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.24/IMG_5F00_1675_5F00_6_5F00_7_5F00_tonemapped-_2D00_-Version-3-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.24/IMG_5F00_1621_5F00_2_5F00_3_5F00_tonemapped-_2D00_-Version-2-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg[/img]