HDR

Im not sure what cameras do In Camera HDR . Most do, do bracketing. I know that Canon 5D mark3 has the HDR facilty but not sure what others do.
 
Mike Warburton said:
I use Dynamic HDR for my high contrast landscape work such as sunrises etc and then finish off in CS2.I stopped using filters years ago as I didnt like the way the hard edged grad would put a definitive dark shadow along the tops of the mountains whilst trying to hold back the sky.
This is how I processed this shot a few years back from three different images.


Llyn Gwynant by Mike Warburton Photography, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Now this is more like the blending I prefer. I wouldnt call this hdr personally.
 
barratt1988 said:
Because unlike 90% of hdr it doesnt look like a butchered mess :)
Click to expand...
Then I think you're confusing "high dynamic range" (which is what is stands for after all...) with local contrast and heavy sharpening.

HDR is just the range of the image, it doesn't have a definitive answer to how it needs to be processed after that, just that the range is enough to show good detail in the highs and lows of an image.

"This looks/doesn't look like HDR" is a bit of a silly statement since there's no 'way' of describing HDR apart from exactly that" (H)igh (D)ynamic (R)ange.
 
Phil Young said:
Then I think you're confusing "high dynamic range" (which is what is stands for after all...) with local contrast and heavy sharpening.

HDR is just the range of the image, it doesn't have a definitive answer to how it needs to be processed after that, just that the range is enough to show good detail in the highs and lows of an image.

"This looks/doesn't look like HDR" is a bit of a silly statement since there's no 'way' of describing HDR apart from exactly that" (H)igh (D)ynamic (R)ange.
Click to expand...
Right.. so the programs people use to butcher shots are called local contrast and heavy sharpening ? No there called hrd programs.

People generally say a shot is hrd if it is a blend of for example 3 images. People say a picture has a high dynamic range if a shot has a high level of stops from light to dark. Despite these sounding very similar they are not. A HDR processed image more often than not looks awful.

There is no need to be pedantic about the use of a word when we all know the meaning of the stated words and abbreviations.

And regardless im entitled to my own opinion of images and if you like using hdr programs then good for you. I personally feel they ruin shots and people use them to cover up poorly shot photos
 
barratt1988 said:
Right.. so the programs people use to butcher shots are called local contrast and heavy sharpening ? No there called hrd programs.

People generally say a shot is hrd if it is a blend of for example 3 images. People say a picture has a high dynamic range if a shot has a high level of stops from light to dark. Despite these sounding very similar they are not. A HDR processed image more often than not looks awful.

There is no need to be pedantic about the use of a word when we all know the meaning of the stated words and abbreviations.

And regardless im entitled to my own opinion of images and if you like using hdr programs then good for you. I personally feel they ruin shots and people use them to cover up poorly shot photos
Click to expand...
It's not pedantic and "what is HDR" isn't an opinionated subject. I suspect you have falling into a group of people that know HDR as a specific type of image and wrongly call that method of processing "HDR". HDR isn't a method of processing, it's a description of the exposure coverage of an image.

And that's not up for opinion, that's what HDR means.
 
Phil Young said:
It's not pedantic and "what is HDR" isn't an opinionated subject. I suspect you have falling into a group of people that know HDR as a specific type of image and wrongly call that method of processing "HDR". HDR isn't a method of processing, it's a description of the exposure coverage of an image.

And that's not up for opinion, that's what HDR means.
Click to expand...

How would you like me to phrase is to please you? If you shoot 3 images and blend them youself the results are often pleasing, if you allow a "hdr program" to do it the results are very often fake and crap. I dont really care for the explanation of what dynamic range is im ok for that thanks phil.
If you enjoy using hrd programs then good for you but I aswell as many people feel that it looks dreadful.

Im affraid your falling into a group of people who think a single shot taken with highlights and shadows is HRD. But infact its called a well exposed shot.
 
barratt1988 said:
Right.. so the programs people use to butcher shots are called local contrast and heavy sharpening ? No there called hrd programs.

People generally say a shot is hrd if it is a blend of for example 3 images. People say a picture has a high dynamic range if a shot has a high level of stops from light to dark. Despite these sounding very similar they are not. A HDR processed image more often than not looks awful.

There is no need to be pedantic about the use of a word when we all know the meaning of the stated words and abbreviations.

And regardless im entitled to my own opinion of images and if you like using hdr programs then good for you. I personally feel they ruin shots and people use them to cover up poorly shot photos
Click to expand...

I don't think Phil Young is being pedantic. He is simply correcting your misunderstanding. :-)
 
barratt1988 said:
How would you like me to phrase is to please you? If you shoot 3 images and blend them youself the results are often pleasing, if you allow a "hdr program" to do it the results are very often fake and crap. I dont really care for the explanation of what dynamic range is im ok for that thanks phil.
If you enjoy using hrd programs then good for you but I aswell as many people feel that it looks dreadful.

Im affraid your falling into a group of people who think a single shot taken with highlights and shadows is HRD. But infact its called a well exposed shot.
Click to expand...
Processed with 'a HDR program':
523749_531316680225704_1964158908_n.jpg


Same program:
64102_596118437078861_884577576_n.jpg


Same program:
263073_233839599973415_5345155_n.jpg


They are all HDR, all processed in photomatix and used multiple shots blended together. I conclude that your argument is based largely on ignorance, which gets a bit annoying.
 
Phil Young said:
As expected but based on previous posts, you would regard #3 as the only HDR, which would be wrong (not my opinion, how it is).
Click to expand...
No I regard them all as HDR I unfortunately regard the 3rd the only one to be over cooked in my opinion.
I quite like the 1st image haha must be in the 1%

I just regard a blended image with highlights and shadows a normal range as you would see from your eyes and HRD as something your eyes wouldn't be able to see, and I know that's what other people believe it to be. Clearly not all but a good amount of photographers
 
kestral said:
It depend what you want.I don't like HDR via photomatrix.In camera on the low setting only the trained eye can tell.It's quick and easy for increasing the dynamic range.I don't want the horrible garish stuff that Photomatrix and adobe produce it looks horrible to me.:cool:
Click to expand...

Suggest rather than slagging off a piece of software you learn to use it first....
 
kev2010 said:
Any process can butcher an image. This is not unique to HDR.
Click to expand...
Yes any process can BUT the chance off it happening using "hrd programs" is significantly higher. I myself am just not a fan of unreal looking shots :s
 
barratt1988 said:
Yes any process can BUT the chance off it happening using "hrd programs" is significantly higher. I myself am just not a fan of unreal looking shots :s
Click to expand...

Well that is simply not correct. As posted earlier the same 3 bracketed images put through photomatix can give real / unreal (repulsive) results. I hate overdone HDR myself, but I like more real HDR.

It is the user that butchers the image. It is not the fault of HDR software:

Real


non garish by 2010kev, on Flickr

Unreal (repulsive)


garish by 2010kev, on Flickr

Do mono shots look real? I don't see in black and white. :D I note you take longer exposures of waterfalls. Does blurry milky water look real? :D But I thought you are not a fan of unreal looking shots? :D
 
Last edited:
barratt1988 said:
I just regard a blended image with highlights and shadows a normal range as you would see from your eyes and HRD as something your eyes wouldn't be able to see, and I know that's what other people believe it to be. Clearly not all but a good amount of photographers
Click to expand...
We see in HDR, camera sensors don't. The day one is announced will be a VERY profitable one indeed.

You've got 3 images I posted there - all mine and all in the same software. As you can see, the only difference is how I felt about processing them, they are all as easy to achieve.

Suggest you change the error of your ways in what you think HDR actually is otherwise this silly myth that HDR is a type of processing will be fuelled by those misunderstandings.
 
Phil Young said:
We see in HDR, camera sensors don't. The day one is announced will be a VERY profitable one indeed.

You've got 3 images I posted there - all mine and all in the same software. As you can see, the only difference is how I felt about processing them, they are all as easy to achieve.

Suggest you change the error of your ways in what you think HDR actually is otherwise this silly myth that HDR is a type of processing will be fuelled by those misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

We dont see in hdr though do we because our eyes are the STANDARD we just see more range than a cameras sensor. And dont tell me to change the error of my ways and that im silly because your opinion is just that. It doesnt actually make you correct.

Anyways this bickering is boring me so im out
 
A HDR image processed in Photomatix from 5 shots bracketed -2 to +2:



There are a huge number of variables in Photomatix ranging from subtle exposure blending through to the hideous painting effect. The unnatural looking shots typically have the detail enhancement turned up to the max, which removes all shadow detail.
 
Another natural HDR from a set of 3. I was just messing around with my knew 7d for this handheld HDR taken at iso 5000. Photomatix used to get a natural result.


Butler Please by 2010kev, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I think barrat is confusing tone mapping with HDR ?
 
Phil Young said:
"This looks/doesn't look like HDR" is a bit of a silly statement since there's no 'way' of describing HDR apart from exactly that" (H)igh (D)ynamic (R)ange.
Click to expand...


Ironically, an HDR image is actually a low dynamic range image. A high dynamic range scene is compressed into the low dynamic range of the print or monitor it is being viewed on.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Ironically, an HDR image is actually a low dynamic range image. A high dynamic range scene is compressed into the low dynamic range of the print or monitor it is being viewed on.


Steve.
Click to expand...
If you apply HDR term to the contrast of the range then yes, but it also applies to the exposure as well.

I guess they are both correct by definition.
 
MarkLG said:
A HDR image processed in Photomatix from 5 shots bracketed -2 to +2:



There are a huge number of variables in Photomatix ranging from subtle exposure blending through to the hideous painting effect. The unnatural looking shots typically have the detail enhancement turned up to the max, which removes all shadow detail.
Click to expand...

I like that mark, where was this taken. (y)
 
bobleeuk said:
I like that mark, where was this taken. (y)
Click to expand...

It's from the top of a hill called West Nab, just off the A635 Holmfirth - Manchester road, at the Holmfirth end. Sadddleworth Moor in the distance.
 
MarkLG said:
It's from the top of a hill called West Nab, just off the A635 Holmfirth - Manchester road, at the Holmfirth end. Sadddleworth Moor in the distance.
Click to expand...

I thought recognised it mark, I was wondering if it was on wesendon head road, I live in Holmfirth.
 
Steve Smith said:
Ironically, an HDR image is actually a low dynamic range image. A high dynamic range scene is compressed into the low dynamic range of the print or monitor it is being viewed on.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Screens like Dolby Vision can easily hit 5000 cd/m2 allowing display of HDR with no dynamic range compression.
 
Phil Young said:
If you apply HDR term to the contrast of the range then yes, but it also applies to the exposure as well.

I guess they are both correct by definition.
Click to expand...

The dynamic range of a signal is the ratio of maximum signal level to the noise floor.

It is not a measure of contrast or brightness. These are both subjective interpretations of signal level.
 
Really excellent images on this thread
I must admit I tried photomatix and got quite garish results so gave up and used layers in Photoshop to blend exposures looking at this thread I ought to give photomatix another try:)
 
Phil Young said:
Fair enough.

What's your interpretation of HDR then??
Click to expand...

HDR in it's truest sense is using software and multiple exposures to create an image where the dynamic range of the original scene exceeds that of the camera's sensor.
Most sensors will have a DR of around 12 stops. Anything too dark gets lets in noise and shows as black, and anything too bright shows as blown out highlights with no colour information (i.e. red, green and blue are all maxed out).
By taking a series a shots from -2 to +2 you're effectively giving yourself an extra 4 stops to work with, which means you can bring the shadows up and reduce the chance of blowing out the bright parts of the picture.
Strictly speaking the DR of the final image is reduced overall, but if it's done properly it should be close to the way you saw the scene originally - if you're watching a sunset your eyes will instinctively adjust to whatever part of the scene you're looking at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top