cputeq wrote:
I'm not a huge HDR fanatic, but I don't understand why more than 3 shots would be required for almost any HDR.
Something like a -2,0,+2 spread always worked fine for any HDR I've done. I dunno, maybe I'll try one of these 5 or 7 shot spreads just to see what the fuss is about.
edit - Holy crap, I just read the link...that's a heck of a lot of work for 1 HDR shot.
edit 2 - Oh, the fun part comes when they've not updated Photomatix yet, so you have to use...TIFFs generated from RAWs
Given that Nikon's software - on the two bodies I own, anyway (D200, D700) - give a maximum interval of 1 stop for the bracketing, the scenario you suggest requires 5 shots, not 3 although the intermediate exposures can be discarded. Unless you manually adjust the s/s. Which isn't a good idea if you're shooting HDR and want the shots congruent at the level of pixels, even off a tripod. Have you discovered a method that I haven't?
On the bulk data issue, I shoot HDR architectural interiors, mostly VR panos and a 5 shot 5 stop spread isn't always enough. I usually shoot 7 if there's any doubt and/or I'm pushed for time. So, assuming a 16mm FE lens (on FX) and a fully patched nadir I need to shoot 10 positions. That's 70 shots per pano... This already takes a lot of space even at 12 Mp. Luckily storage is still pretty cheap.
Roy
Thanks, Tom - great link and I appreciate you sharing it. You raise an interesting concern but perhaps another way to look at it is to imagine the detail increase that you will derive from the D800. It is potentially spectacular. To me, it seems like almost an ideal camera for your work (which I really like) in terms of end product. Sure there are costs involved in terms of processing time and storage but they are really only a magnification of the costs you have already decided to bear by doing HDR in the first place. That doesn't mean they are affordable but it is really only a difference in degree and not in kind.
Hrow wrote:
Thanks, Tom - great link and I appreciate you sharing it. You raise an interesting concern but perhaps another way to look at it is to imagine the detail increase that you will derive from the D800. It is potentially spectacular. To me, it seems like almost an ideal camera for your work (which I really like) in terms of end product. Sure there are costs involved in terms of processing time and storage but they are really only a magnification of the costs you have already decided to bear by doing HDR in the first place. That doesn't mean they are affordable but it is really only a difference in degree and not in kind. ...Show more →
I agree completely. The only impediment to the size of the D800 files is storage and the ability of your computer to "handle" the files efficiently. The upside of the gorgeous quality of the D800 files outweighs the other issues in my mind.
theSuede wrote:
They are the same, no difference. The target for both exercises is to arrive at a linear response image file with as many object target Ev's as possible contained within the file, with as good SNR as you can possibly achieve.
The "artistic" HDR file just maps the same data into a presentable image file in a different way. You start from the same linear data.
I guess in theory it might sound good to you, but from my experiences, I will never shoot just 3 shots for HDR. The results I get are a lot better when shooting 5-7. It seems to me like the people actually shooting HDR get much different results than the HDR theorists in this thread.
As for storage, I am not concerned about the actual space required to store the shots, I am concerned about processing the shots as I would wish to have all my shots on an SSD so as to not kill my memory bandwidth and completely bottle neck my system.
It's not just HDR but shooting panos, action shots, and focus stacks where I work on 20 TIFs at a time can really drag your computer. I only have a D700 and my Mac REALLY lurches when I export 10 or more files to be stitched together.. and that's only 12MP. Nikon would have already released an AFS 80-400 by the time I finish stitching 10 x 36MP files.
DontShoot wrote:
It's not just HDR but shooting panos, action shots, and focus stacks where I work on 20 TIFs at a time can really drag your computer. I only have a D700 and my Mac REALLY lurches when I export 10 or more files to be stitched together.. and that's only 12MP. Nikon would have already released an AFS 80-400 by the time I finish stitching 10 x 36MP files.
Tom K. wrote:
That's pretty insane. For the HDR shooters out there wanting a D800..........two things come to mind.
1) Better get massive amounts of external HD space.
2) You might need a new computer with enough balls to process the files.
There is a third option - do HDR right. Most of the time you only need two images 3-4 stops apart and a manually painted mask to blend them. This whole tone-mapping business just produces garish (some call them "painterly") results.
GroovyGeek wrote:
There is a third option - do HDR right. Most of the time you only need two images 3-4 stops apart and a manually painted mask to blend them. This whole tone-mapping business just produces garish (some call them "painterly") results.
GroovyGeek wrote:
There is a third option - do HDR right. Most of the time you only need two images 3-4 stops apart and a manually painted mask to blend them. This whole tone-mapping business just produces garish (some call them "painterly") results.
All HDR images are tone-mapped to make viewable JPGs.
It is impossible to map the tones from 32 bit tones to 8 bit tones without doing tone-mapping.
Even when you use your masks, you are tone mapping from a higher number of bits (split over two or more images).
Even your Raw 12 bit and 14 bit images are tone-mapped to 8 bit.
Just because a lot of "HDR" and faux hdr are garish and semi-psychedelic doesn't mean that tone-mapped HDR (all HDR) has to be garish and semi-psychedelic.
I shot a D800 in RAW, full size, and the file sizes were in the mid 50s.
I didn't get to shoot the HDR mode since I was focusing more on the video features and was limited by subject matter, but I am looking forward to trying it out in the future.
I don't do much HDR so my opinions probably don't count for much. However I'll give them anyway.
HDR is probably not a linear process in most cases. While the individual shots may be linear the combination, if linear, generally looks pretty flat to me. Nonlinearities introduced in post is what saves it.
If you need +/- 3ev you have to do 7 shots on a Nikon, since they don't do anything larger than 1ev steps when bracketing. If you do the 7 shots, I would have thought that since the individual shots are linear, the 2 extreme shots and the center would have sufficed, but since I haven't tried your technique, nor compared it with the 3-shot HDR, I'll shut up now.
Personally, I only consider HDR when the dynamic range is really large, and is pushing the camera limits. However, I'll allow that you are entitled to artistic license to process your images the way you like. Some of your examples don't look as if HDR would have been required, but then you did say that you try to make them not look like HDR. I don't yet grasp the concept that HDR is required for all my shots, so I'll have to try it out and see for myself just what it does. Thanks for the link.
joshn wrote:
Tangent - it's pretty ridiculous that Nikon only allows the exposure range to be 1 stop in bracketing mode.
+1 (no pun intended)
I would think that is something that could be taken care of in a firmware update. But it's been that way for as long as I've owned Nikon DSLR's (7 years).
Am I the only one who uses the multiple exposure mode to create noiseless RAW file, from which I create the tiff files for HDR. At least with D7000 you can push/pull the exposure 3 or 4 stops in Lightroom with this method to create individual tiff files. No need for gazillion raw files with different exposures.
You ever heard of Joel Grimes, Tom? He's a buddy of mine... I just couldn't help but respond to the comparisons you two acquired. Especially how you both love f8, double raw conversions, and flattening when its not needed. I would lecture you the same I do him on how you could process those results without even needing hdr, but I'll allow the enjoyment of your tutorials to propragate.
innovis wrote:
You ever heard of Joel Grimes, Tom? He's a buddy of mine... I just couldn't help but respond to the comparisons you two acquired. Especially how you both love f8, double raw conversions, and flattening when its not needed. I would lecture you the same I do him on how you could process those results without even needing hdr, but I'll allow the enjoyment of your tutorials to propragate.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Am I the only one who uses the multiple exposure mode to create noiseless RAW file, from which I create the tiff files for HDR. At least with D7000 you can push/pull the exposure 3 or 4 stops in Lightroom with this method to create individual tiff files. No need for gazillion raw files with different exposures.
Hey Sami,
Now that's an interesting idea that I hadn't thought about... I shoot landscape, and almost always from a tripod, and I have used the Multiple Exposure mode with moving water, like a creek or the ocean and it will make it look like I had used a long shutter speed. But I hadn't thought about using it to increase the dynamic range... Hmm... Gonna have to try that.
