August 27, 2014, 07:01:13 PM

Author Topic: My kind of HDR  (Read 8116 times)

Hendrik

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2014, 05:20:59 PM »
I like the HDR a bit more natural, as in the attachment.
It depends on the subject, of course.
Best regards
Hendrik

JustMeOregon

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2014, 08:31:10 PM »
Quote
...wide aperture. Blurry pixels tend to get halos...

+1 Bingo! You just nailed one of the more subtle issues I've experienced with "canned" tone-mapping HDR methods like Photomatix. I've long felt that shallow depth of field HDR bracket-sets should be combined by layering luminosity masks (or simply hand-blended) in Photoshop, or developed in Lightroom via one of the 32-bit merging methods as described here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19058.msg357002#msg357002.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 08:33:53 PM by JustMeOregon »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4048
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2014, 09:53:20 PM »
Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..


Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

This "classic" HDR "look" is effectively the result of a mistake, or a mistaken understanding of proper HDR processing when converting from "HDR" to "LDR". It is entirely fine if you are purposely doing this for the sake of art...but just to be correct here, calling it HDR is technically incorrect. The images here actually have very low contrast, and therefor very low dynamic range.

High Dynamic Range means exactly that. That the actual data in the image contains enough precision and information to represent a high dynamic range.

Personally, I find these kind of "HDR" images to be...well, not my kind of thing. They have issues all over the place that rub me the wrong way. They are relatively "flat"...no real contrast curve...and the lack of contrast actually means there is very little dynamic range in the results themselves. Terrible color in the bright sun highlights is common...I mean, it this case it turns PINK because of the processing. Unusual and unnatural color gradients are common, not just in the bright highlights, but also in the shadows and around areas that would normally have higher contrast. Halos exist around all edges, kind of like a "glow". These kinds of images tend to have this "soft noise" effect to them, which just feels a little weird.

From an artsy standpoint, these kinds of images certainly have artistic flare. I have no problem with people being artistic, and if this look is your artistic goal, more power to you! I just wish we could stop calling it HDR. It really isn't. :P
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

pdirestajr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2014, 09:29:06 AM »
So HDR is just increasing saturation right to the edge of garish, and pumping midtone contrast so everything has the same  extreme "texture"? What an interesting technique!
7D | 5DII | EOS-3 | Nikon F3 | Mamiya 645 Pro-TL

mycanonphotos

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2014, 04:49:32 PM »
Here is another done about the same time frame...one of my favorites..Again in print its amazing as well..this is how I saw the scene in my head before I shot it...going with a more "Natural" look woud have not done it justice in my opinion..


Technically speaking, and not to be callous, but this isn't HDR. It is actually the result of improper tonemapping during conversion from HDR (which in the truest sense is an image that stores 32-bit floating point values for each RGB subpixel) to a lower integer bit depth (such as 16-bit or 8-bit). It is the use of high precision 32-bit floating point numbers that makes things "high" dynamic range.

This "classic" HDR "look" is effectively the result of a mistake, or a mistaken understanding of proper HDR processing when converting from "HDR" to "LDR". It is entirely fine if you are purposely doing this for the sake of art...but just to be correct here, calling it HDR is technically incorrect. The images here actually have very low contrast, and therefor very low dynamic range.

High Dynamic Range means exactly that. That the actual data in the image contains enough precision and information to represent a high dynamic range.

Personally, I find these kind of "HDR" images to be...well, not my kind of thing. They have issues all over the place that rub me the wrong way. They are relatively "flat"...no real contrast curve...and the lack of contrast actually means there is very little dynamic range in the results themselves. Terrible color in the bright sun highlights is common...I mean, it this case it turns PINK because of the processing. Unusual and unnatural color gradients are common, not just in the bright highlights, but also in the shadows and around areas that would normally have higher contrast. Halos exist around all edges, kind of like a "glow". These kinds of images tend to have this "soft noise" effect to them, which just feels a little weird.

From an artsy standpoint, these kinds of images certainly have artistic flare. I have no problem with people being artistic, and if this look is your artistic goal, more power to you! I just wish we could stop calling it HDR. It really isn't. :P

That's fine if this is not your "kind of thing". But you are dead wrong to say this is not high dynamic range. In this shot the original 4 images contain the one photos single image range. Being able to tone map the image while in Photomatix then further in Photoshop is an added plus for this kind of artsy shot. HDR is widely abused but when it comes down to it the final output was produced through HDR processing weather you enjoy the final outcome or not is in the eye of the beholder.

mycanonphotos

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: My kind of HDR
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2014, 04:53:56 PM »
I don't do very much HDR anymore but when the scene warrants I'll process it accordingly