Control on HDR: by chance or by style?

[mastamak]

In fairness to Photomatix I think they actually warn, somewhere, that the first pass is oversaturated and has to be toned down. But, can I suggest for anyone who is interested that you try Oloneo. You can download and use the Beta version free. Also, it has a really useful and responsive histogram that gives you a clue as to what is actually going on when you move those pesky sliders. As a newcomer to HDR I reckon it is a lot more intuitive than Photomatix and a lot easier to visualise and to control the adjustments. In short, in answer to the question posed in the original post there is still a fair element of "chance" with Oloneo but I feel that in the hands of a more experienced user than me, there would be more opportunity to impose "style" on the image.
Grant

[Eric M]

Delboy, I took the liberty of trying an edit on your Photomatix image. I have Dynamic Photo-HDR, but find the either program produces images that are tough to color correct. This shot took a significant amount of time, and honestly, still has the "cartoon" look to me eye.

To me, HDR programs have a limited usefulness because of their color issues. They can be fun in certain situations and some folks really like the images they produce. For my personal use, they are used very sparingly. The bottom line is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[delboy]

Yes - It's quite amazing how much info is actually tucked away in those shadow areas.

PS: I keep forgetting to ask ... what's your first name?

My name is Derek, and please before we go any further don't ask how I got the nickname of delboy. It is a long story.

I had a go this morning using ACR as you suggested. I am quite impressed. I don't like my photo's over saturated so the saturation was wound down. apart from the rocks being overexposed, quite pleased with the result. Thanks Colin for sharing some of your idea's. See image attached.

Going off at a tangent, my wife and I went to Auckland last Tuesday to see the International Exhibition of Press 2010 hosted by the Rotary Club of NZ. Highly recommended the photography was out of this world, I admire these people I find it difficult to take a decent photo any time, but these people are up the sharp end not only having to worry about light, speed, DOF etc but also having to get their heads down so it wont get shot at or broken with a club. Some photos were not appealing but could not fault the photography. One particular photo was of a policeman pepper spraying a rioter who was coming at him with a club, the photographer was so close he has captured the spray coming out of the can. He must have been a victim of the spray himself.

If the exhibition comes your way Colin a visit is highly recommended

Delboy

[delboy]

Delboy, I took the liberty of trying an edit on your Photomatix image.

Hi Eric

Go for it, I have no problems with people showing good idea's or showing me the error of my ways with regards to photography.

In my reply to Colin I have posted an image I have edited as he suggested in ACR quite pleased as I don't like over saturated photos.

I have bought Photomatix anyway, as we want to photograph the interior of our local church where my mother-in- law was the organist's. This is the type of area I can see the use of this programme.

Regards

Delboy

P.S If one of you good people could tell me how I can get multiple quotes in a reply,it would be appreciated.

[Colin Southern]

P.S If one of you good people

could tell me how

I can get multiple quotes in a reply,

it would be appreciated.

Just type the _[_quote_]_ and _[_/quote_]_ tags (without the underscores) around whatever text you want to quote.

[lynck49]

I've tried HDR and Photomatix a few times and any reasonable outcome was mainly by chance. I've never really got to grips with understanding tone mapping and all those sliders. However, I was recently pointed towards a series of articles by a photographer called John Paul Caponigro on the subject of XDR - Extended Dynamic Range, which (for me) shed some light on what all those sliders do. For what it's worth the articles are on digitalphoto.com

start=9"]http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/revolution.html?start=9[/URL]

If the link doesn't work, on the Digital Photo site go to the Technique drop down tab and click on (R)evolution and then on page 2. There are 6 (short) articles,

Intro to XDR; XDR Part I; XDR Part II; XDR Part III; XDR Part IV; XDR Part V and Aesthetics of XDR. The last two have the info about HDR and Photomatix/sliders etc.

Apologies if I've bored anyone.

Keith

[Colin Southern]

I've tried HDR and Photomatix a few times and any reasonable outcome was mainly by chance. I've never really got to grips with understanding tone mapping and all those sliders. However, I was recently pointed towards a series of articles by a photographer called John Paul Caponigro on the subject of XDR - Extended Dynamic Range, which (for me) shed some light on what all those sliders do. For what it's worth the articles are on digitalphoto.com

start=9"]http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/revolution.html?start=9[/URL]

If the link doesn't work, on the Digital Photo site go to the Technique drop down tab and click on (R)evolution and then on page 2. There are 6 (short) articles,

Intro to XDR; XDR Part I; XDR Part II; XDR Part III; XDR Part IV; XDR Part V and Aesthetics of XDR. The last two have the info about HDR and Photomatix/sliders etc.

Apologies if I've bored anyone.

Keith

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your post

Just for the record, John Paul Caponigro is one of the instructors on www.kelbytraining.com where he and others have a LOT of video footage on everything photography, incluing HDR.

[Policar]

There is still much to be done to have real control on a high dynamic range.

But why is that something to aspire to? One can always use strobes to light a scene or wait for better light in which to shoot a landscape. I'm not saying it's bad to be able to capture a wide range of tones or that hdr is pointless, but if you're constantly seeking out scenes with ridiculous amounts of contrast you have to ask yourself if you're using hdr to solve a legitimate problem or simply looking for excuses to use tone mapping.

I think the issue that you've arrived at is that most prints only have about five stops of contrast, most monitors only about eight to ten. It's convenient that digital cameras usually compress just over eight stops of information into an 8-bit jpeg for monitors with a 500:1 (nine stop) contrast ratio. But hdr has to cope with WAY more information.

And that's why tone mapping applies so much local contrast: you're putting an image with as many as twenty stops of information onto a medium that can't handle half as many. So a "true" accurate hdr image, without tone mapping, is very flat and looks "wrong." So then you either live with a very flat image or add local contrast to compensate, but neither method accurately emulates a wide dynamic range image delivered on a wide dynamic range viewing medium. It's true across media: C41 film stocks for cinema may have exposure latitude in excess of twelve stops, but the majority of that is either compressed into the shoulder or thrown away into shadow on the final print or dvd. The viewing medium is the limiting factor in virtually every case.

This isn't to say hdr is bad. It's a powerful extension to a system that's been around forever: first with the zone system (dodging/burning), then with grad filters for color film, and finally...with hdr. The only issue is that hdr is extraordinarily powerful but not really transparent to the user. Using the zone system or even just nd grads in tandem with a spot meter, you know where you're placing every tone, exactly. With hdr, you're taking a bunch of shots almost at random and then adjusting sliders with relatively ambiguous functions. The measure of a good shot then becomes how much better it looks after hdr, rather than how it was meant to look when visualized by the artist. Maybe I'm being unfair. I can look at a scene and imagine how it will look on film with relative accuracy. Maybe it's just because I don't do hdr, but I can't look at a scene and have any idea how an hdr version will look beforehand.

I may just have weird eyes. I am in the unfortunate position of never having seen a single hdr image I liked beyond the point of indifference but also of having never taken a photo that impressed anyone else as much as even the simplest hdr usually does. I'd wager that hdr is the future of all photography, but its ridiculous power and relative ease of use make it way too easy to abuse. Personally I think yours are the right questions when approaching the medium, but I'm also one of the few diehard tone mapping haters (in terms of personal taste only) so maybe they aren't. Again this is personal opinion only; I see galleries of "stunning hdr" and the author writes how scenes finally look accurate to how the human eye sees them but they look artificial and heavily processed to me... Meanwhile, I shoot something on "velveeta" (the most artificial and low dynamic range of all color film) and the results look at least psychologically (if not scientifically) accurate to me. Straight digital looks the most naturalistic to me of any medium.

I think people are just wired differently. Some people see things like hdr, others don't. Make things how you see them.