There isn't a good way to show photos in HDR on web unless you painstakingly do up a video slideshow and export to HDR YouTube. Now AI can help with the video editing, and I think the quality is actually than what I can do by hand.
What do you guys think? Some of the photos are taken with OLD nikon DSLRs to stay in topic.
Going to do this more often as claude cowork is very easy to use. I just pointed it to my old raws/psd and it edited everything using photoshop and da Vinci pro by itself.... generated 16 bit tifs and mapped it to HLG.
Does it look good on your HDR screen? the colours and brightness looks great on my iPad Pro, MacBook Pro and LG G5
The problem I've found with HDR for stills is that I'm not satisfied with how HDR uploads look on SDR screens. White shifts to grey in a way that a typical SDR edit doesn't. Almost no website supports HDR stills.
It's extremely niche and only enhances a small % of my photos, so I'm not convinced it's worth the effort yet.
RoamingScott wrote:
The problem I've found with HDR for stills is that I'm not satisfied with how HDR uploads look on SDR screens. White shifts to grey in a way that a typical SDR edit doesn't. Almost no website supports HDR stills.
It's extremely niche and only enhances a small % of my photos, so I'm not convinced it's worth the effort yet.
yes. the problem with website is like there is no fixed standard for various browsers.... so the results are so bad and inconsistent.
however for HDR video, the standards are followed across MANY displays and pretty consistent. I think HDR enhances a LOT of photos... to me it is more like a small % of photos that doesn't benefit from HDR, those where low contrast is intentional. Any photo that benefit from contrast will gain from HDR. and to me SDR and HDR is like night and day.
I did my first HDR video slideshow like 4 years ago below and it took like many days of work, aligning the transitions, figuring out the settings etc. nowadays with claude cowork, it is like 5 minutes of my time and maybe 1 hour machines time. And I would say the results is BETTER than what I did for many days as the brightness and contrast seems to be much better controlled and natural across more displays.
seriously, I used to read books on photoshop many years ago, later watch videos on davinci and photoshop when education videos became more widespread.
AI is like a HUGE game changer. I think nobody needs to learn how to use software anymore. Cowork know how to solve things by itself. The first draft has judder issue with one of the pan, it solved it by blurring the individual frames... all I did was to point out the problem, Like crushed blacks, it lifted it up.
Ross Martin wrote:
I’m not sure my MBP is HDR capable, but overall the images looked good to me and I enjoyed your presentation. Most importantly, congrats on 20 years!
Thanks.
My m1 mbp is hdr capable. I think most of the apple silicon mbp are hdr capable. We have so many hdr screens, like tablets, phones, tv and yet we share most of our photos in sdr which is a shame.
wind30 wrote:
yes. the problem with website is like there is no fixed standard for various browsers.... so the results are so bad and inconsistent.
however for HDR video, the standards are followed across MANY displays and pretty consistent. I think HDR enhances a LOT of photos... to me it is more like a small % of photos that doesn't benefit from HDR, those where low contrast is intentional. Any photo that benefit from contrast will gain from HDR. and to me SDR and HDR is like night and day.
I did my first HDR video slideshow like 4 years ago below and it took like many days of work, aligning the transitions, figuring out the settings etc. nowadays with claude cowork, it is like 5 minutes of my time and maybe 1 hour machines time. And I would say the results is BETTER than what I did for many days as the brightness and contrast seems to be much better controlled and natural across more displays....Show more →
The HDR works (on iPhone) and many of the photos are great. But I didn’t feel any of them really needed or even benefited from the extended highlight range.
Producing quality HDR images is an acquired skill. I know, because I’ve yet to master the process. I believe that appreciating HDR also requires some level of exposure to quality images where HDR is appropriate. Many devices will display HDR images, but few websites will host HDR images.
A great photo will still be great on sdr. But if you look at the stuff people argue about in forums, like bokeh, sharpness, vignetting, etc. The difference in sdr and hdr is many orders more.
I do feel the impact of hdr is bigger on a large screen like tv or MacBook pro
wind30 wrote:
But if you look at the stuff people argue about in forums, like bokeh, sharpness, vignetting, etc. The difference in sdr and hdr is many orders more.
To some degree regarding sharpness and vignetting, but definitely not when it comes to lenses with actual character - those impact the image a lot more. E.g. take a picture with the Voigtländer 75mm f1.5 vs TTartisan 75mm f1.5 with its swirly bokeh and they will look very different.
The brighter highlights can also be distracting in some images and take the focus off the subject. Maybe because we are used to photos being rather low DR things. Or because finding the right balance between mid-tones and peak highlight brightness is just something that will take years of practice to get right consistently.
So even if it had a bigger impact than some other things, for me the question remains whether it has a practically relevant impact (e.g. sharpness is largely irrelevant beyond a minimum threshold). It reminds me a bit of the hunt for max DR at sensor level: there are very few scenes where one "needs" the DR improvements from e.g. the new Sony A7V and typically those scenes have such harsh lighting that results will look bad or unnatural regardless. So I remain unconvinced
I do agree, however, that everyone should finally agree on a common standard so we can properly display those files. JPG + brightness map or HEIF seem like the best options imo.
fjablo wrote:
To some degree regarding sharpness and vignetting, but definitely not when it comes to lenses with actual character - those impact the image a lot more. E.g. take a picture with the Voigtländer 75mm f1.5 vs TTartisan 75mm f1.5 with its swirly bokeh and they will look very different.
The brighter highlights can also be distracting in some images and take the focus off the subject. Maybe because we are used to photos being rather low DR things. Or because finding the right balance between mid-tones and peak highlight brightness is just something that will take years of practice to get right consistently.
So even if it had a bigger impact than some other things, for me the question remains whether it has a practically relevant impact (e.g. sharpness is largely irrelevant beyond a minimum threshold). It reminds me a bit of the hunt for max DR at sensor level: there are very few scenes where one "needs" the DR improvements from e.g. the new Sony A7V and typically those scenes have such harsh lighting that results will look bad or unnatural regardless. So I remain unconvinced
I do agree, however, that everyone should finally agree on a common standard so we can properly display those files. JPG + brightness map or HEIF seem like the best options imo....Show more →
HDR to me is a bit like color... it is an aspect of the image that you can utilise. it is not as important as color though.
Character lens are kind of lens with huge flaws.... most modern lens bokeh are pretty similar. I know there are slight differences that you can see if you know what to look for, but even a layman can tell a SDR and HDR pic in 1 second, just like they can tell the difference between a color and B&W photo.
to stay in topic.