gdanmitchell wrote:
Scott, that may be your definition, and I can understand your logic, but the term HDR came into existence recently (after exposure blending had been around for quite a while) specifically to refer the the technique in which the software does a sort of luminosity averaging across the scene based on algorithms that operate on the enter image to increase local contrast.
I\'m sure I\'ll get push-back from at least a few people, but I think that it makes the issue simpler to think of two things:
1. Exposure blending - which is a sort of super-charged version of what we used to do with GND filters.
2. HDR - which is an analytic software process that increases local contrast using data from multiple captures.
This is not meant as a judgment of the value or appropriateness of the techniques, but rather an attempt at clarifying something that often gets confusing.
Take care,
Dan
Whether or not we can all agree upon the deeper/truer/more accurate definition of HDR, what Dan has described is how most photographers with some experience in this area view things. That not to say it won\'t change over time as HDR technology advances. But I think this is the current way of differentiating and defining approaches. There are in fact many discussions, debates, etc... regarding Digital Blending vs. HDR techniques/tool. I might add that \'HDR\' normally also refers to a more \'automated\' process vs. \'manual\' blending.
One thing new which changes the playing field a bit at least is the new HDR function built-in to some higher end cameras like the new Canon 5DIII. I haven\'t really seem the results yet. There was some initial joking about just pressing the \'HDR Button\' instead of needing to perform manual blends. But I don\'t know how effective this new feature actually is. Someone did mention it looks more natural than what current post processing HDR tools produce. It will be interesting in the coming years to watch this stuff evolve. I think advances in sensor technology will be the greatest improvement as greater DR will be captured natively.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Scott, that may be your definition, and I can understand your logic, but the term HDR came into existence recently (after exposure blending had been around for quite a while) specifically to refer the the technique in which the software does a sort of luminosity averaging across the scene based on algorithms that operate on the enter image to increase local contrast.
I\'m sure I\'ll get push-back from at least a few people, but I think that it makes the issue simpler to think of two things:
1. Exposure blending - which is a sort of super-charged version of what we used to do with GND filters.
2. HDR - which is an analytic software process that increases local contrast using data from multiple captures.
This is not meant as a judgment of the value or appropriateness of the techniques, but rather an attempt at clarifying something that often gets confusing.
Take care,
Dan
Whether or not we can all agree upon the deeper/truer/more accurate definition of HDR, what Dan has described is how most photographers with some experience in this area view things. That not to say it won\'t change over time as HDR technology advances. But I think this is the current way of differentiating approaches. There are in fact many discussions, debates, etc... regarding Digital Blending vs. HDR techniques/tool. I might add that \'HDR\' normally also refers to a more \'automated\' process vs. \'manual\' blending.
One thing new which changes the playing field a bit at least is the new HDR function built-in to some higher end cameras like the new Canon 5DIII. I haven\'t really seem the results yet. There was some initial joking about just pressing the \'HDR Button\' instead of needing to perform manual blends. But I don\'t know how effective this new feature actually is. Someone did mention it looks more natural than what current post processing HDR tools produce. It will be interesting in the coming years to watch this stuff evolve. I think advances in sensor technology will be the greatest improvement as greater DR will be captured natively.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Scott, that may be your definition, and I can understand your logic, but the term HDR came into existence recently (after exposure blending had been around for quite a while) specifically to refer the the technique in which the software does a sort of luminosity averaging across the scene based on algorithms that operate on the enter image to increase local contrast.
I\'m sure I\'ll get push-back from at least a few people, but I think that it makes the issue simpler to think of two things:
1. Exposure blending - which is a sort of super-charged version of what we used to do with GND filters.
2. HDR - which is an analytic software process that increases local contrast using data from multiple captures.
This is not meant as a judgment of the value or appropriateness of the techniques, but rather an attempt at clarifying something that often gets confusing.
Take care,
Dan
Whether or not we can all agree upon the deeper/truer/more accurate definition of HDR what Dan has described is how most photographers with some experience in this area view things. That not to say it won\'t change over time as HDR technology advances. But I think this is the current way of differentiating approaches. There are in fact many discussions, debates, etc... regarding Digital Blending vs. HDR techniques/tool. I might add that \'HDR\' normally also refers to a more \'automated\' process vs. \'manual\' blending.
One thing new which changes the playing field a bit at least is the new HDR function built-in to some higher end cameras like the new Canon 5DIII. I haven\'t really seem the results yet. There was some initial joking about just pressing the \'HDR Button\' instead of needing to perform manual blends. But I don\'t know how effective this new feature actually is. Someone did mention it looks more natural than what current post processing HDR tools produce. It will be interesting in the coming years to watch this stuff evolve. I think advances in sensor technology will be the greatest improvement as greater DR will be captured natively.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Scott, that may be your definition, and I can understand your logic, but the term HDR came into existence recently (after exposure blending had been around for quite a while) specifically to refer the the technique in which the software does a sort of luminosity averaging across the scene based on algorithms that operate on the enter image to increase local contrast.
I\'m sure I\'ll get push-back from at least a few people, but I think that it makes the issue simpler to think of two things:
1. Exposure blending - which is a sort of super-charged version of what we used to do with GND filters.
2. HDR - which is an analytic software process that increases local contrast using data from multiple captures.
This is not meant as a judgment of the value or appropriateness of the techniques, but rather an attempt at clarifying something that often gets confusing.
Take care,
Dan
Whether or not we can all agree upon the deeper/truer/more accurate definition of HDR what Dan has described is how most photographers with some experience in this area view things. That not to say it won\'t change over time as HDR technology advances. But I think this is the current way of differentiating approaches. There are in fact many discussions, debates, etc... regarding Digital Blending vs. HDR techniques/tool. I might add that \'HDR\' normally also refers to a more \'automated\' process vs. \'manual\' blending.
One thing new which changes the playing field a bit at least is the new HDR function built-in to some higher end cameras like the new Canon 5DIII. I haven\'t really seem the results yet. There was some initial joking about just pressing the \'HDR Button\' instead of needed to perform manual blends. But I don\'t know how effective this new feature actually is. Someone did mention it looks more natural than what current post processing HDR tools produce. It will be interesting in the coming years to watch this stuff evolve. I think advances in sensor technology will be the greatest improvement as greater DR will be captured natively.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Scott, that may be your definition, and I can understand your logic, but the term HDR came into existence recently (after exposure blending had been around for quite a while) specifically to refer the the technique in which the software does a sort of luminosity averaging across the scene based on algorithms that operate on the enter image to increase local contrast.
I\'m sure I\'ll get push-back from at least a few people, but I think that it makes the issue simpler to think of two things:
1. Exposure blending - which is a sort of super-charged version of what we used to do with GND filters.
2. HDR - which is an analytic software process that increases local contrast using data from multiple captures.
This is not meant as a judgment of the value or appropriateness of the techniques, but rather an attempt at clarifying something that often gets confusing.
Take care,
Dan
Whether or not we can all agree upon the deeper/truer/more accurate definition of HDR what Dan has described is how most photographers with some experience in this area view things. That not to say it won\'t change over time as HDR technology advances. But I think this is the current way of differentiating approaches. There are in fact many discussions, debates, etc... regarding Digital Blending vs. HDR techniques/tool. I might add that \'HDR\' normally also refers to a more \'automated\' process vs. \'manual\' blending.
One thing new which changes the playing field a bit at least is the new HDR function built-in to some higher end cameras like the new Canon 5DIII. I haven\'t really seem the results yet. There was some initial joking about just pressing the \'HDR Button\' instead of needed to perform manual blends. But I don\'t know how effective this new feature actually is. Someone did mention it looks more natural than what current post processing HDR tools produce. It will be interesting in the coming years to watch this stuff evolve. I think advances in sensor technology will be the greatest improvement as more DR will be captured natively.
Derek
Jun 25, 2012 at 02:12 PM
Previous versions of dereksurfs's message #10752758 « ND Grads VS digital blending »
