Full Version: Do you hate HDR too?
That's a nice looking result, very natural and shows how good HDR can be - when used well.
QUOTE (GLuijk @ Jan 1 2009, 06:50 PM) 
(so far no HDR tool has effective anti-ghosting capabilities for example).
What do you mean by "anti-ghosting"?
John
QUOTE (button @ Jan 2 2009, 09:29 PM)
What do you mean by "anti-ghosting"?
Hi John, try to blend the two linked RAW files using any HDR software and look at the legs of the guy in the picture.
BR
Hey All,
My first post.
I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.
I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?
I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.
Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.
I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".
-Ed-
My first post.
I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.
I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?
I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.
Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.
I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".
-Ed-
Hey All,
So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...
Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.
-Ed-
So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...
QUOTE
Does HDR sound like a magic bullet for photography? It may well be... ...HDR will open upen up new subjects and a level of control that far exceeds even the techniques of Ansel Adams -- and in color."
Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.
-Ed-
QUOTE (EasyEd @ Feb 23 2009, 07:17 PM)
Hey All,
My first post.
I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.
I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?
I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.
Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.
I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".
-Ed-
My first post.
I read through all 8 odd pages as I'm extremely (as in like I actually want to take pictures again) interested in these HDRs.
I realize that ultimately it comes down to what you like to photograph and what you like the end product to - generally speaking - look like. In my case what I like to photograph is machinery and landscapes particularly agriculture and logging - not so much people or cityscapes or seascapes although like most people who carry a camera lots of different subject matter(s) get photographed. What I want a picture to look like is simple - Ansel Adams style photography in colour - not so much in terms of subject matter - but in terms of his ability to capture composition, detail, texture and light - without being distracted by colour or having colour "flatten" the whole image - the biggest problem I had with colour film. I tend to like real to in some cases slightly overdone HDRs. Is it so much to ask to be the Ansel Adams of colour?
I was very much "into" black and white when I had access to a darkroom - but without that ability to do "post processing" my interest waned. Colour film gave you almost no ability to post process so my interest waned further (I go back 30 years). HDR processing appears to give me back the potential to do what I am the most interested in without the constant "watching and waiting" for the "right" light. We have technology now - we can fool mother nature and sleep late! Sure you can be a purist but hey why? You go ahead and be a purist and head out at dawn for the light - I'll sleep late get the same picture through post processing and maybe we'll meet for lunch - if your not asleep - who really is more "right" or "honourable"?.
Anyway I think of Ansel Adams as the HDR guy of black and white - he used a darkroom not a computer. Intense post processing that clearly showed more than the eye could take in at once just like good HDR. I think he would have loved HDR. I've often wondered about the technique(s) of two of my other favorites Yousuf Karsh and Diane Arbus - also I believe heavily into "post processing" although I don't know.
I think HDR has been around a long time - just in "disguise".
-Ed-
HDR is a nice technique to tackle a certain problem in photography, and can yield gorgeous results if mastered properly. But now I am indeed beginning to hate it. Recently I started seeing poor HDR images everywhere ... in magazines, newspapers, advertisements ... all of sudden they are ubiquitous. Browse any arbitrary illustrated magazine, and they will jump out at you. Maybe some of them are not really HDR technically---but they sure look like bad HDR, with entirely unnatural tones and contrasts. Usually they're just rotten ... screaming 'digital' all over 
-- Olaf
-- Olaf
QUOTE (gordonsbuck @ Dec 16 2008, 10:53 PM)
So this post should be entitled "Do you hate overdone tone mapping too?".
Of course, I also dislike overdone tone mapping but my definition of "overdone" might be different from that of others.
Of course, I also dislike overdone tone mapping but my definition of "overdone" might be different from that of others.
I think this quote sums up my opinion on this topic very well
Btw, I also don't like overdone level and curve adjustments, overdone shadow/highlight, overdone saturation/vibrance adjustment, overdone clarity...... overdone "you name it".
All picture tools can be put to good use and misused. For me the most successfull HDR images are those where the tool is used to bridge DR in a scene that cannot be captured in a single shot but still the use of HDR is not apparent when viewing the picture. I've seen examples of those that I really like (unfortunately I have seen more examples where I judge it overdone, but all freedom to people who like it).
QUOTE (EasyEd @ Mar 4 2009, 12:16 AM)
Hey All,
So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...
Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.
-Ed-
So a week after I posted this I picked up Michael freeman's Book "Mastering HDR Photography". Let me quote from the introduction...
Seems I'm not the only one. I find it curious that people put this methodology down so much and only look at Photomatix when they consider it. Manipulating images digitally is absolutely nothing but math. Hence different programs do the math differently. From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Ansel would likely have been burning the "midnight oil" coming up with some kind of new zone system had he access to this stuff.
-Ed-
Ed,
Thanks for bringing up "FDR Tools" After reading all 8 pages of this, I can't believe nobody has mentioned this software. Its totally different than Photomatix and the results are much less over the top.
Too true. I love using HDR photography but sometimes some of the shots you see are like they were shot on Mars. For me the point of HDR photography is too mimic what the human eye can see in the shadows and highlights and not to turn the photo into one of those old hand coloured post cards like this
QUOTE (Digiteyesed @ Nov 7 2007, 08:11 AM)
I'm a firm believer in everything in moderation. (Especially moderation.)
Hehhh.
Hehhh.
QUOTE (EasyEd @ Mar 4 2009, 07:16 AM)
From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Photomatix, Dynamic Photo HDR, Artizen HDR,... why you don't even consider not using any of them? do you really think you need one of those tone mapping tools to achieve HDR? have you considered the possibility to investigate first:
1. What dynamic range really is
2. How to capture a high dynamic range with a low dynamic range digital camera
3. What's the problem to map a high dynamic range into a low dynamic range device or support (monitor, print, projector,...)
After you have done 1, 2 and 3, is when you are ready to decide whether you need (or prefer) assistance from specific software or you can do it just with basic postprocessing tools (basically any edition software allowing to do local level adjustments).
I am pretty sure this is what Ansel Adams would do today, because he was a scientist and a perfectionist. He would never try 100 pieces of HDR software designed by others, maybe efficient but black boxes to the user, to find out which one he liked best without mastering the underlying concepts first.
HDR is not a technique, HDR is above techniques, it is a concept. HDR is about mapping high dynamic range data into a lower dynamic range format. It's all about reducing global contrast at the same time local contrast is enhanced, and you don't need any specialised program to do it.
This is a very high dynamic range scene (about 12 f-stops from the ceiling to the chair shadows), it looks natural, and it was achieved just with 3 shoots of the camera and a couple of curves in Photoshop. No need for any piece of software containing the word 'HDR':
BR
Some of my bad examples HDR
QUOTE (GLuijk @ Apr 7 2009, 10:52 PM)
This is a very high dynamic range scene (about 12 f-stops from the ceiling to the chair shadows), it looks natural, and it was achieved just with 3 shoots of the camera and a couple of curves in Photoshop. No need for any piece of software containing the word 'HDR':
Nice shot.
Is that the 'old fashioned' way of masking off areas of the three images corrected to look the same?
This is a great thread with many spectacular illustrations, tips and a lot of technical nuances and software comparisons.
I hadn’t head of HDR before I started reading. It provides a means of getting a richer and more complete range of tones and enables pushing some limits of the media. It can be over used (easily, because it is so cool), but when used with restraint the end result is well worth the effort. It amounts to a great set of tools. I know of many instances of shooting snowy winter-scapes that this would help to keep the details of snow from being clipped while showing features in dense forest.
The article referenced b Jonathan Wienke (above) was an excellent read
Now to find time to experiment….
I hadn’t head of HDR before I started reading. It provides a means of getting a richer and more complete range of tones and enables pushing some limits of the media. It can be over used (easily, because it is so cool), but when used with restraint the end result is well worth the effort. It amounts to a great set of tools. I know of many instances of shooting snowy winter-scapes that this would help to keep the details of snow from being clipped while showing features in dense forest.
The article referenced b Jonathan Wienke (above) was an excellent read
Now to find time to experiment….
QUOTE (jjj @ Apr 13 2009, 03:13 PM)
Nice shot.
Is that the 'old fashioned' way of masking off areas of the three images corrected to look the same?
Is that the 'old fashioned' way of masking off areas of the three images corrected to look the same?
It was the same as you mention, but automated with Zero Noise. Then the resulting underexposed image had the shadows lifted and contrast enhanced using 2 curves in Photoshop.
This was the blending scheme:
And here is the resulting image with the 2 curves.
BR
Fascinating! But here's the kind of subject for which HDR really was designed. With LDR it simply wouldn't have been possible to hang on to important details like the smudges on the seats or the crusty-looking screen decaying at the back of the right stall. Used correctly, HDR can transport you to a whole new world of smudges and crusts.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I loved it so much that I was going to make an eBook on it but then the buzz got way to much and it wasn't unique anymore. Anyone with a point and shoot could take photos that looked like everyone elses.
Dusted off my Singh-Ray grad ND filters and never looked back.
Dusted off my Singh-Ray grad ND filters and never looked back.
I find your approach fscinating, but I was never able to figure out how to use your program. Heck, I can't even get your web link in your signature to work. Has Zero Noise gotten any easier to use?
QUOTE (GLuijk @ Apr 20 2009, 09:20 AM)
It was the same as you mention, but automated with Zero Noise. Then the resulting underexposed image had the shadows lifted and contrast enhanced using 2 curves in Photoshop.
This was the blending scheme:
And here is the resulting image with the 2 curves.
BR
This was the blending scheme:
And here is the resulting image with the 2 curves.
BR
Kirk,
I just barely got an image to work from Zero noise today and it was a big pain!
I almost gave up, but then finally after rereading the instructions a couple of times I was able to piece together the final workflow. I will try it on another image to see if I can come up with similar results and if I do, I will try to make out a little easier workflow tutorial than what has been seen so far.
Cheers,
*steve
I just barely got an image to work from Zero noise today and it was a big pain!
I almost gave up, but then finally after rereading the instructions a couple of times I was able to piece together the final workflow. I will try it on another image to see if I can come up with similar results and if I do, I will try to make out a little easier workflow tutorial than what has been seen so far.
Cheers,
*steve
QUOTE (Kirk Gittings @ Jun 15 2009, 06:15 PM)
I find your approach fscinating, but I was never able to figure out how to use your program. Heck, I can't even get your web link in your signature to work. Has Zero Noise gotten any easier to use?
Thanks I would appreciate that.
QUOTE (semillerimages @ Jun 15 2009, 07:08 PM)
Kirk,
I just barely got an image to work from Zero noise today and it was a big pain!
I almost gave up, but then finally after rereading the instructions a couple of times I was able to piece together the final workflow. I will try it on another image to see if I can come up with similar results and if I do, I will try to make out a little easier workflow tutorial than what has been seen so far.
Cheers,
*steve
I just barely got an image to work from Zero noise today and it was a big pain!
I almost gave up, but then finally after rereading the instructions a couple of times I was able to piece together the final workflow. I will try it on another image to see if I can come up with similar results and if I do, I will try to make out a little easier workflow tutorial than what has been seen so far.
Cheers,
*steve
I use Photomatix as part of my workflow regularly. I expose very similiarly to how GLuijk works then run an exposure blend of two or three exposures. It serves as a base for my imaging. Here's the result of the three exposures posted earlier using Photomatix. I really like how Gluijk's program looks but I work on Mac's and unless the program has evolved it's my understanding that it's a Windows based application. Jim
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I tried my best to duplicate the fantastic results that have been shown by zero noise's author and I was able to see the benefits of the technique, but my photoshop skills just are not up to creating the final image as well as has been shown.
I was hoping for a little less photoshop work, but alas that does not seem to be the case here with zero noise.
*steve
I was hoping for a little less photoshop work, but alas that does not seem to be the case here with zero noise.
*steve
QUOTE (Kirk Gittings @ Jun 16 2009, 12:46 AM)
Thanks I would appreciate that.
QUOTE (semillerimages @ Jun 25 2009, 06:31 PM)
I tried my best to duplicate the fantastic results that have been shown by zero noise's author and I was able to see the benefits of the technique, but my photoshop skills just are not up to creating the final image as well as has been shown.
I was hoping for a little less photoshop work, but alas that does not seem to be the case here with zero noise.
I was hoping for a little less photoshop work, but alas that does not seem to be the case here with zero noise.
In fact Zero Noise does not any post processing at all, it's just an optimum (in terms of noise and sharpness) RAW merger. But all the tone mapping PP work has to be done by the user or other application.
I do it with curves, and it doesn't take too long to obtain good results. But you must preserve in the use of curves, people usually give up quickly (not knowing what they are loosing when doing so).
Find here some samples of images straight from ZN with the curves in layers to process them:
- Meeting room
- Office
- Rest room
They don't intend to be perfect, just samples of the use of curves done from a laptop.
Regards.
Hate is kinda harsh. I see HDR growing but I dont think we have realized its potential yet. Most people are a bit hamfisted with the controls and it takes out the microcontrast in the pictures making them look flat.
For me...not viable yet as an option, but I eagrly await advances as it is a very promising idea.
Roman
For me...not viable yet as an option, but I eagrly await advances as it is a very promising idea.
Roman
Photomatix does HDR but also exposure blending. The "HS Adjust" method they have uses the same algoritms as enfuse, and will usually bring the most natural results.
I use exposure blending or HDR routinely for 360 panoramas, where the dynamic range of the full pano is way over the dynamic range of a DSLR. Jacques Joffre, the inventor of Photomatix is a talented panoramist, and created it out of his frustration with manually blending exposures in Photoshop (that was before CS2 of course).
Also, in real estate photography, exposure blending is usually required when there's a nice vista you want to show along with the interior - either that or spend 45mn adjusting strobes to light the room to the level of the outside without creating too many tell tales shadows.
I use exposure blending or HDR routinely for 360 panoramas, where the dynamic range of the full pano is way over the dynamic range of a DSLR. Jacques Joffre, the inventor of Photomatix is a talented panoramist, and created it out of his frustration with manually blending exposures in Photoshop (that was before CS2 of course).
Also, in real estate photography, exposure blending is usually required when there's a nice vista you want to show along with the interior - either that or spend 45mn adjusting strobes to light the room to the level of the outside without creating too many tell tales shadows.
QUOTE (RomanJohnston @ Jul 13 2009, 01:12 PM)
Most people are a bit hamfisted with the controls
It's like a lot of things these days; a little goes a long way. Whether it is HDR or a plugin like Nik Color Efex, there's always going to be people who "punch it to 11".
I still prefer the "old" method of digital blending. Layer masks offer incredible flexibility and control once you get the hang of it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.