Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?

  
 
superduckz
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


Someone commented on this photo on my FB page and said " Nice HDR?". I had to scratch my chin on that one. While is ONLY ONE single edited frame that started out very sharp to begin with and got sharpened and clarified and de-shadowed in LR, my understanding of dedicated HDR usually involves 3 images to improve dynamic range (or focus range). But I've also seen HDR tools applied to single images and I do "get" how this has that look..

Shooting extremely sharp images is something I enjoy but I don't "personally" consider them to fall under the HDR category. Other critiques notwithstanding, am I off base on that assumption?



Here's another that was considered HDR but I don't see it in this one.



Oct 01, 2013 at 08:21 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


I think people are picking up on the clarity, which is indicative of HDR. Also, in the first photo, you raised the shadow area under the bridge to the point that it is lighter than one would expect when viewing the scene in person. It's a fun image but it does not look "realistic". That's neither negative or positive, it's just an observation.


Oct 01, 2013 at 08:48 AM
superduckz
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


Oh I agree. It's (the first one) the image I intended to create when I shot it but it is certainly NOT the image I saw with the naked eye. I enjoy taking advantage of what a camera can see that I can't and incorporating that into an image. I suppose I'm somewhere in between? Interesting conundrum on what to call it.


Oct 01, 2013 at 09:08 AM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


My understanding is that true HDR requires expansion of the dynamic range beyond what is possible with a single digital capture, as you have described.
The HDR "look" is sometimes created by heavy use of shadow and highlight recovery, often with some loss of contrast in these ranges, and with other unrealistic appearing effects on shadows in particular. I understand why you got that comment from the first image.
I love your first shot!! No reason not push the saturation, shadows, etc with such a great and wild angle/perspective. You werent going for realistic, and it works for me in spades! Excellent!!

Scott



Oct 01, 2013 at 09:19 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


Imo, the term HDR is not relegated to whether it was a multi-image or single image technique, but rather an unnatural, false looking, lightening of the shadow tonal values, etc..

In the case of your pier shot ... we know it is not possible for the shadow (underside) side of the pier to naturally have the same level of luminance/exposure as the clouds above. In that regard, the tonal values have been adjusted to compensate for the high dynamic range that the scene inherently has. Whenever the adjustment is to the degree that it has the viewer noticing "hey, that ain't how it really is" ... it gets labeled "HDR Look" because it becomes apparent that an image should have naturally incurred a different tonal range/value.

This really has little to do with sharpness or clarity, per se (I totally dig sharpness too) ... but more about tonal value adjustments that look either natural or false to the natural eye perspective.

If you check the tonal values of the underside of the pier, you have values that are above 245 and a few areas near 255. These are values that represent, specular highlights. Kinda tough to have specular highlights in a shadow area where there is not specular light reflecting off of a surface. This is part of what lends to an image receiving a label as "HDR", i.e. it tells on itself as unnatural/impossible to have existed as such. That's not to say it isn't an enjoyable image to view ... just that it tells on itself as a product of creative pp adjustment to the tonal values beyond what some will construe as natural. But as a work of art, who says it is required to be constrained to a natural look.

As to the second one ... I can't explain it quite the same, but I see (albeit to a different degree) the HDR look here too. Any chance you can post up the original/sooc/raw to see where these came from to give a clue at possible pp direction options?

As to what to call it ... call it your rendering.



Oct 01, 2013 at 10:03 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


RustyBug wrote:
Imo, the term HDR is not relegated to whether it was a multi-image or single image technique, but rather an unnatural, false looking, lightening of the shadow tonal values, etc..


While too often your definition of HDR applies to images that result from tone mapping of single or multiple images, there's plenty of realistic HDR work being done.

I recently did some landscapes and shot multiple images at different exposures. Some of these images did exceed the dynamic range that could be captured with a single exposure. I decided to use HDR tools to combine images. I found getting the HDR look very easy, but getting a natural look was much harder. Here are the tools I tried and my observations:

PS6 - I used the HDR tools in PS6. It did render a natural looking image, but did not extend the dynamic range that much. Not enough of the darker of the three exposures was mixed in, rendering the sky brighter than my goal. I may have to futz around with it more, but I didn't get what I was after.

NIK HDR Pro - It produced the cartoonish results we often equate to HDR. There was not enough ability to tame it to give a realistic look.

Oloneo - I had great hopes for this software. The user interface is great and I was able to make adjustments to render a very natural looking image. There were two deal killers though. It's ghost reduction is severely lacking. I set my camera for auto bracketing, but because of the late dusk time of day, some exposures were over 1 second. Even firing off the three frames as fast as possible, there was some cloud movement. Oloneo did a poor job of fixing the ghosts. It also exaggerate the chromatic aberration of my 17-40.

Photomatrix - I evaluated it when it was in its infancy and hadn't revisited it. I tried it again and got the best results overall using it. I still wish I had more control of individual images, though and I wish the interface was better. However, it completely eliminated both CA and ghosts. It's the one I'll end up buying.



Oct 01, 2013 at 11:24 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


dmacmillan wrote:
While too often your definition of HDR applies to images that result from tone mapping of single or multiple images, there's plenty of realistic HDR work being done.


+1 @ realistic HDR (and the challenge to produce well) ... but the "HDR Look" term (not the same as the term "HDR", imo) is mostly applied to non-realistic looking outcomes.



Oct 01, 2013 at 11:31 AM
superduckz
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Is this "technically" an HDR image?


@RustyBug. Thanks for that. I'd say that is a very fair explanation of what I did and what I in fact intended to produce. And I think it's the difference between the popular impression of an HDR "look" AND what can be possible with a true multi-image HDR and all it's possibilities (INCLUDING more realistic looking work which I enjoy a great deal) that has muddled my notion of what to call my work. I think rendering is actually much closer to being accurate. I actually create a lot of 3D rendered images of assorted civil projects and the "unnatural" lighting is a common effect... At least until you apply specific lighting sources. Now that I think about it I'd say that this has a lot more influence on my photography than I previously realized. Interesting thought.

Thanks again.



Oct 01, 2013 at 01:27 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.