bwcolor
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point | |
chiron wrote:
aCuria wrote:
chiron wrote:
aCuria wrote:
 7IV07279-HDR-SDR by acurian, on Flickr
Image A: Multi-image "HDR" stacking, what I intended the shot to look like.
 7IV07279-SDR by acurian, on Flickr
Image B: Single image "highlight recovery" test. Foreground exposure was correct in camera, and Highlights set to -100 in lightroom (max slider) to "recover highlights" as much as possible. Highlights have been clipped and cannot be fully recovered. Foreground looks correct.
 7IV07278-SDR by acurian, on Flickr
Image C: Single image "shadow recovery" test. Scene exposed to as to preserve highlights. Overall exposure raised in POST so the sky looks correct. Highlights set to -100 to undo raised exposure in sun area. Shadows +100 to brighten foreground.
Differentiation in light / dark areas of foreground cannot be recovered from this raw file. They have been crushed to a similar brightness.
The difference in exposure between images B and C is 2 2/3 stops.
It's an interesting problem. The lighting ratio in the actual scene is vast--I can't even guess it--and is way beyond what any sensor or the human eye can record. For example, if one comes from a dark room into sunlight (as in the old days, from a movie theater into afternoon sun), you can't see for a bit until your eyes adjust to the light. And if you then go back into the darkened room, you again can't see there until your eyes adjust. We can't see bright and dark at the same time.
So, you are trying to render the scene in a way that in fact it is never seen by human eyes, by compressing the lighting ratio after the fact. Painters do this all the time and make it look natural, in part through the varying colors and the varying intensity with which they depict colors in the painting. My own experience is that it is very hard to do this in photography without the result looking artificial and unnatural--because it is artificial and unnatural for our eyes to see it that way.
One solution is to have the dark areas go dark and be intrinsic to the composition as shadows, as in a Rembrandt or a Caravaggio painting. Another solution is not to photograph scenes with such a large lighting ratio. But for some photographers, that may mean giving up too much.
I actually have a HDR workflow... Compression was needed because I think few people here have a HDR monitor
The HDR variant is here, copy and paste the link because FM does not handle the link properly. Use a HDR monitor, turn HDR on and use chrome to view. Firefox cant handle HDR.
https://eu.zonerama.com/acuria/Photo/15185111/635719080
That is a very good rendering of a very nice image, but for my taste the HDR version still has way over-the-top highlights that hit you in the eye and become the center of attention in a way that distorts the perception of the image, like looking at a lightbulb. It is the same problem that I have with virtually every HDR image that I see. I believe that I would like the processing of your image better if you took the highlights down by 30 or 40 points. Obviously, you may see the image very differently and have different preferences than I do, which is obviously fine.
For me, the final version of a still image is the best version that can be printed. What would you do with this image if you were preparing it for printing? What would your "soft-proof" print version of the image be?
This summarizes the reason why members on this board respond poorly to HDR images. Prior to this post, it was stated that few likely had HDR capable monitors and I suggest this is unlikely. Most smartphones and tablets can handle HDR. The older members grew-up with SDR monitors and printing was/is the ultimate resting place of their image. The print is considered at the time of exposure. Decades ago, everyone could recognize that there was something special/different about projected slides, but relatively few photographers owned slide projectors. So, when we look at an HDR image, it demonstrates everything that we have spent decades trying to avoid. I believe that it takes continuous use of an HDR workflow before a person’s personal preferences can be tamed a bit and weened off their preference for what they habitually view. HDR is not appropriate for many images, but for those that are more HDR/SDR agnostic, it can be a great creative component of some images. For most, after many decades of photography, it just doesn’t look right. Maybe this is why color photography as an art form took so many decades to be accepted. BTW.. I liked the HDR rendering of the image being discussed.
|
