OT high dynamic range photos

"The Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As usual I'm way behind the times

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging"

Just noticed this, seems the sort of thing PS has been doing in PS for
a while. I'm just starting to look into it and would appreciate any
inputs. Seems just the ticket for landscape and my new Pentax K10 does
auto bracketing :-)

I find the whole concept a little bit strange - (not PS's photos, they're
superb) - but it seems to me that when taken to its extreme (as is the
current fad), having a foreground the same general luminosity as the sky is
just plain bizarre! Its just not natural and, in my opinion, not necessary;
the sky is supposed to be more luminous.

In message <[email hidden]>, The Reid
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

As usual I'm way behind the times

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging"

Just noticed this, seems the sort of thing PS has been doing in PS for
a while. I'm just starting to look into it and would appreciate any
inputs. Seems just the ticket for landscape and my new Pentax K10 does
auto bracketing :-)

Havw look at (Google) Photomatix Pro. - excellent little program.
--
Bill Grey

Woollyzone wrote

Quoted message said:

I find the whole concept a little bit strange

For me it only just on the photography side of the photo/art
divide but when done well it can be very striking. Also, it's
just an extreme and highly detailed version of gradient filter.

Chris

Woollyzone said:

I find the whole concept a little bit strange

The concept is good. The problem is that the implementation often isn't.

The key thing to understand is that an HDR image is one thing, but the
processing of that image is another. It's a two step process, first you
create the HDR image, then you process it to create a viewable image.

An HDR image is simply one with a very high dynamic range, created by
combining separate images with different exposures. Unfortunately an HDR
image is not actually viewable, since the dynamic range is much greater than
a computer monitor can display. So technically, talking about what an HDR
image "looks like" makes no sense, since you can't see it. It has to be
processed before you can see it.

The processing is the difficult bit. There's no single method of doing it.
Photoshop provides four different methods and Photomatix Pro provides two
different methods. Each method produces a very different looking result, and
some of these methods allow a lot of adjustment, which can drastically
change the end result. So the bottom line is that there's no single "look"
of an HDR image, it all depends on how it's processed.

Processing an HDR image is a skill. It needs to be learnt and it requires
practice. That's why there's a lot of horrible looking HDR images out there.
It's also why there are some very good HDR images out there. IMO, a really
well processed HDR image may not even look like an HDR image. So when people
say that they don't like the "look" of HDR images, what they really mean is
that they don't like the look of *badly processed* HDR images.

The usual method of processing an HDR image is called Tone Mapping (which is
not unlike contrast masking, or use of the shadow/highlight tool). The thing
is, tone mapping can be applied to any image, not just HDR, so it's quite
possible to create an image that "looks like HDR" but isn't (typically the
quality won't be as good). I can you show you some normal images that "look
like HDR" and some HDR images that look like normal images.

So the processing is the key thing, that's what determines what the final
image looks like. Unfortunately, many people are confusing the processing
with HDR itself. That, plus the fact that many people are processing HDR
images badly, is giving HDR something of a bad rap, which is a pity. Still,
that doesn't stop those in the know using the technique to produce realistic
looking images that many wouldn't recognise as HDR.

Quoted message said:

but it seems to me that when taken to its extreme
(as is the current fad),

That's what's causing the problem. But I guess it's just a novelty at the
moment, and amateurs have a habit of overdoing things, like over-sharpening
or adding too much saturation.

Quoted message said:

having a foreground the same general
luminosity as the sky is just plain bizarre!

Well not necessarily. There are situations where the foreground is as
bright, or brighter than the sky, say for example a snow covered scene with
a deep blue sky. But even in normal situations, a polariser can darken a sky
to the same level as the land, and graduated filters have often been used
for the same purpose. Just take a look at Galen Rowell's photographs!
Photographers have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. But of
course, such images look a lot more natural than an overprocessed HDR image.

Quoted message said:

Its just not natural
and, in my opinion, not necessary; the sky is supposed to be more
luminous.

I don't think that having the sky at the same brightness as the land is a
problem, in fact, there's a very good reason for doing that, because prints
(and computer monitors) have a much narrower dynamic range than reality, so
the contrast range between very bright sky and dark land needs to be
compressed to fit the viewing medium. The important thing here is "local
contrast". If done well, the result can look quite natural even though
technically it isn't.

I think the real problem is not when the land is as bright as the sky, but
when it's brighter. Extreme processing (tone-mapping, contrast masking,
shadow/highlight) can often result in the land being brighter than the sky.
This can look very dramatic, but also very silly if you overdo it. There's a
fine line between drama and silliness, and it's not always that easy to see
where that line is when you're processing an image.

I think it's important to decide what kind of image you're trying to create
in advance, either a natural looking image or a dramatic one. I don't think
there's anything wrong with extreme processing, if done well. The problem is
that a lot of extreme processing isn't done well.

Many great monochrome images have been heavily processed yet are still
acceptable, even though technically they don't look natural. I think the
same is true of HDR. Extreme processing *can* look good when done well, even
if it doesn't look natural. But I'd class such photos as "art" and wouldn't
put them on the same page as natural looking images.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

The Reid said:

As usual I'm way behind the times

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging"

First a comment about this remark: "This composite technique is ...
generally of lower quality than, the production of an image from a single
exposure of a sensor that has a native high dynamic range."

This is nonsense! A carefully taken and well-processed HDR image is usually
of higher quality than a single image (I assume the author is talking about
a normal high quality sensor and a RAW image). The lower quality that is
often seen in HDR images is due either to bad processing or lack of care
when taking the original images, or both.

Let's take a look at some of these example images.

This is a good example of bad processing. Obvious halos around the bridge
and dark, desaturated patches of sky. Halos in the sky are the biggest
giveaway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tower_Bridge_Sacramento_edit.jpg

This is a good example of extreme processing. Obviously unrealistic, but
it's been done quite well. Personally I think he's just crossed the line
between dramatic and silly. The sky is a bit too saturated and contrasty for
my liking. A little less of each would have produced a far more natural, but
still dramatic image IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colour_Explosion.jpg

This one has been done very well on the whole, but with one small problem.
The halos are minimal and the sky/land balance is good. The problem is that
the sky is very grainy/blotchy, suggesting that it's been over-processed (or
over sharpened, or taken at a high ISO, or maybe it was just a [censored] camera).
This is therefore a good example of an HDR image being of lower quality than
a single image. It's been taken carelessly or poorly processed or both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dupont-HDR.jpg

This is an interesting one. It's been done very well and looks pretty
natural. However, it doesn't look like a typical city at night shot, and I
think in this case, the usual high contrast night images with deep blacks
actually look better. HDR shots don't always look better than reality!
Sometimes high contrast narrow dynamic range images look better (as in a
silhouette shot). Having said that, this image is very low in saturation and
looks almost monochrome. It's currently on my desktop!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_York_City_at_night_HDR.jpg

This is a good example of a shot taken straight into the sun. It's also a
good example of a very flat looking HDR image. One of the problems of
compressing the dynamic range is that you get a very flat result. This
really needs a contrast boost to put some life back into it (but a local
contrast boost using USB rather than a global contrast boost). Another
interesting point about this image, if you scroll down the page, is that he
took 6 exposures, each about a stop or a fraction of a stop apart. This was
quite unnecessary, he could easily have got the same result with just 3
exposures two stops apart. He just wasted card memory. He also claims that
"the overexposed sun and spot on the water was both intentional and
unavoidable with my camera." I'm not sure I really believe this. I can avoid
it with my camera. And if it was unavoidable, why does he say it was
intentional? Sounds like he's making excuses to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Victoria_Inner_Harbour_HDR.png

This is fairly well done, but again suffers from a grainy sky. I also think
the sky is a little too dark and the brightness levels in the building are
too varied. A bit too strongly processed this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RomanianAthenaeumHDR.jpg.jpg

This is probably the best example of good processing. A very natural result
with the shadows still quite dark. Most people would never guess that this
is HDR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grand_Canyon_HDR_imaging.jpg

Horrible over processing with nasty halos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:463px-CornellLawTower1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ladder_and_Cherry_tree_08077.jpg

This is a strange one. It hasn't been over-processed, and it isn't lacking
in contrast or saturation. It looks quite normal in fact, and yet, there's
something odd about it. Actually, if you load up the high res version you
can see the problem. Obviously the foliage was moving and the multiple
images haven't blended properly. This is one of the problems of HDR
photography, you really need a stationary subject (unless the images are
taken in rapid succession).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Derekoy_07851_hdr.jpg

This is an excellent example of a dramatic image that looks natural.
Processed version on the right hand side. Download the full size version to
see it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunset_hdr_combined.jpg

Way over-saturated! Sometimes images turn out like this in Photomatix Pro,
even without increasing the saturation. Really should be toned down a bit I
think. Grainy sky too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:San_Francisco_HDR.jpg

Multi-shot overkill. This was created from 9 separate images taken at 1/3rd
stop intervals. Totally unnecessary, and he's covered a much smaller
exposure range than a typical 3 shot HDR (2.66 rather than 4 stops). In
fact, it's not even a particularly high contrast image. He could have
produced the same result from a single image IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDRToneMap.jpg

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

The Reid said:

Just noticed this, seems the sort of thing PS has been doing in PS for
a while. I'm just starting to look into it and would appreciate any
inputs. Seems just the ticket for landscape and my new Pentax K10 does
auto bracketing :-)

It's "just the ticket" for certain kinds of landscape shots, not all. In
fact, many don't need it. When I first started experimenting with it I went
a bit crazy and took multiple exposures of every high contrast scene I could
find. Of course, it didn't take me long to realise that I was creating a lot
of extra work for myself and that many shots really didn't need it.

Many high contrast scenes actually look better as silhouettes, and doing HDR
versions of them can actually reduce their impact.

Also, a well exposed RAW image can often bring out all the detail you need
through processing alone, so taking multiple exposures and combining them
later creates a lot of unnecessary extra work, not to mention filling up
your memory cards much faster. Multiple exposures can give better quality
results of course, but it really depends on just how much contrast there is
in the scene. You need to differentiate between a "normal" high contrast
scene that can be captured with a single RAW exposure and an "extreme" high
contrast scene where multiple exposures are the only way of capturing it.

Obviously, it's good to experiment in order to learn when you really do need
it and when you can get away with not using it.

Two very important points about HDR photography. They may be obvious, but
they're worth stressing.

1. Ideally the scene needs to be completely static. Moving images are a big
no-no! As obvious as this sounds, don't forget that clouds move (faster than
most people think) and tree branches and plants sway in the slightest
breeze. The sea can also be a problem, especially waves on the shore, and
even moving water on lakes and ponds if there are lots of ripples or
changing reflections. If the scene contains clouds, take the shots fairly
quickly. A few seconds won't matter, but don't hang about. Swaying foliage
is a real swine. Waterfalls and rivers are usually okay. Other types of
moving water such as waves can be handled if the shots are taken in rapid
succession (see below).

2. You should use a tripod. Although this might seem obvious, the reason I
mention it is because you can take multiple exposures hand-held. Both
Photoshop and Photomatix Pro have an option to "align" the images during
blending, so it is possible to get away with it. However, from my
experience, tripod shots blend better. The aligning doesn't always work
perfectly, partly because the borders don't match up, partly because of lens
distortions not matching up, and partly because of parallax errors if you
change position slightly. So you can get away with hand-held shooting if
you're in a rush, but it really is worth setting up the tripod if you want
the best possible results. Presumably you do, otherwise why are you
bothering to do all that extra work?

Taking the shots.

1. You can either adjust the exposures manually and take the shots one at a
time, or use the auto-bracketing feature. The latter is much better. If you
take the shots one at a time it's possible to move the camera position
slightly between shots as you alter the exposure. This happens easily with a
flimsy tripod or even with a heavier tripod on soft ground (wet sand,
springy foliage). Obviously you can "align" later, but it's better just to
get it perfect in the first place. So use auto-bracketing so that you don't
have to touch the camera in between exposures. Obviously this isn't possible
if you need wider than a +2/-2 range, but that will suffice for most scenes.

Another advantage of using auto-bracketing is that the shots are taken in
rapid succession, which is very important for scenes with some movement,
like clouds and water.

2. Optimising the exposures. As you're probably aware, the key to a good
digital exposure is to "expose to the right" (of the histogram). In other
words, make it as bright as possible but without over-exposing. To a certain
extent this is less important for an HDR shot. For many scenes it will
suffice to take an average exposure and simply turn autobracketing on
(+2/-2). This will usually cover the range you need.

However, if the contrast is particularly extreme (especially when shooting
into the sun) it's important to optimise the exposures. You could simply
take more shots of course, covering a wider exposure range, but that's just
wasteful IMO. It takes longer to do, consumes more memory, and it will take
longer to combine them later.

The process is quite simple. Start by taking a few test shots to determine
the optimum *highlight* exposure, i.e. the brightest exposure that doesn't
overexpose. Use the usual "expose to the right" histogram technique. Once
you've done that, lighten the exposure by two stops, set auto-bracketing to
+2/-2, then take the shots. The highlight exposure won't overexpose and the
shadow exposure will be 4 stops overexposed, enough to give excellent
quality shadow detail in all but the most contrasty of scenes.

3. Movement. This often ruins an HDR image, so if there's anything moving in
the scene you really need to ask yourself if it could be better handled with
a single well-exposed RAW image. If not, you'll need to take the shots in
rapid succession.

Waterfalls and rivers are not a problem. Even though the water is moving,
it's moving "in the same place", and different shutter speeds will make the
water look very different anyway. Combining such images can create very
interesting results.

My first HDR tests involving waves were a big disappointment, because I was
changing the exposures manually. Using auto-bracketing gave excellent
results though. I felt sure that the different wave positions in each shot
would prevent them from blending properly, but I was wrong. Obviously using
a DSLR with a fast burst rate helps, as does using fairly fast shutter
speeds. But even when I tried it with quite slow shutter speeds and blurry
water, I still got good results, to my surprise.

The big problem with using auto-bracketing is that either you have to press
the shutter yourself, which can cause camera shake on a flimsy tripod, or
you have to use the self-timer. The latter is not a problem for most shots,
but it is if you're trying to photograph waves. It's impossible to choose
"the decisive moment" to photograph a wave crashing on the shore if you have
to press the button 10 seconds in advance!

There's also the issue of using mirror lock, which may be necessary for long
exposures on a flimsy tripod. Usually this acts as a brief self timer, but
it doesn't work with auto-bracketing! The solution is to use a cable
release. After some experimenting I think I found a particular combination
of shutter mode that worked with auto-bracketing and mirror lock, although I
can't remember the settings offhand. This would probably work differently
with different camera models anyway.

Suffice to say that with a cable release and auto-bracketing, it's possible
to choose the decisive moment to press the shutter and get three shots in
rapid succession, which makes it possible to capture an HDR image of a
moving subject. Well it works with waves anyway, I'm not so sure it would
work with other kinds of movement.

FINALLY

For processing, I wouldn't bother with Photoshop. The conversion options are
difficult to use. The resultant image is usually extremely flat and requires
fancy local contrast adjustment.

Photomatix Pro (PP) is much better, and I'd highly recommend it. It's
specifically designed for HDR and does an excellent job. It's the program
that's responsible for all those stunning dramatic HDR shots that you've
seen, as well as the disgusting ugly ones!

As mentioned in a previous post, the skill is in the processing. While PP
can produce dramatic but unrealistic images, it can also produce very
natural ones. The default tone mapping settings tend to produce a dramatic
unrealistic image, but if you reduce the effect you can get a very natural
looking image indeed. It does take a while to get used to what all the
different settings do though.

There's also an option to combine multiple exposures without applying any
tone mapping, and this gives a pretty realistic result without any
processing at all.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Reid said:

As usual I'm way behind the times

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging"

First a comment about this remark: "This composite technique is ...
generally of lower quality than, the production of an image from a single
exposure of a sensor that has a native high dynamic range."

I've got to be honest; there's not many of those I like at all - except
perhaps the New York skyline at night one, that's very nice, if a little
artificial looking.

Woollyzone said:

I've got to be honest; there's not many of those I like at all -

Pretty poor selection, wasn't it? Not the sort of thing that would convince
you of how useful HDR is.

Quoted message said:

except perhaps the New York skyline at night one, that's very nice,
if a little artificial looking.

I'm not sure it is though. I think we're just so used to seeing photos like
that with lights against a black background, that we've come to expect night
photos of cities to look like that, rather than how we see them with our
eyes.

Could we see those dark rooftops in the foregrounds with our eyes?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Woollyzone said:

I've got to be honest; there's not many of those I like at all -

Pretty poor selection, wasn't it? Not the sort of thing that would
convince you of how useful HDR is.

Quoted message said:

except perhaps the New York skyline at night one, that's very nice,
if a little artificial looking.

I'm not sure it is though. I think we're just so used to seeing photos
like that with lights against a black background, that we've come to
expect night photos of cities to look like that, rather than how we see
them with our eyes.

Could we see those dark rooftops in the foregrounds with our eyes?

Possibly - maybe we're conditioned to expect photographs to look like....
well, photographs, with all of their inherant shortcomings. Anyway, thanks
for your lengthy reply to the other post again Paul, it's food for thought;
although I still wonder why people are so reluctant to have areas of solid
black in their photos. Put it this way, I think I know which colour ink I'll
be replacing first in my new printer!

Woollyzone said:

Possibly - maybe we're conditioned to expect photographs to look
like.... well, photographs, with all of their inherant shortcomings.

Exactly! If Colour came first and black and white were invented now, do you
honestly think anyone would use it? Everyone would complain that it was
unnatural and unrealistic. It's only acceptable to us because of tradition.
At one time it was the only option, and everyone got used to it. Even now,
in this modern colour world, we're all familiar with old black and white
film in documentaries, so somehow it's still acceptable, even if it is
blatantly unrealistic.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, thanks for your lengthy reply to the other post again Paul,
it's food for thought; although I still wonder why people are so
reluctant to have areas of solid black in their photos.

Are they? With the exception of silhouettes, for which solid black is
compulsory, I thought that a well exposed photograph needed a balanced range
of tones, with nothing over or under exposed. Even a black object doesn't
look pure black in real life, so it shouldn't in a photo either.

Quoted message said:

Put it this
way, I think I know which colour ink I'll be replacing first in my
new printer!

Yeah, light magenta!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Following up to 'Woollyzone said:

the sky is supposed to be more luminous.

I think if you get it right, you just see the detail in the sky you
see with your eyes, which adjust to the brightness.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

IMO, a really
well processed HDR image may not even look like an HDR image. So when people
say that they don't like the "look" of HDR images, what they really mean is
that they don't like the look of *badly processed* HDR images.

thats the impresion im getting, unless you want it to, its shouldnt be
obvious its been done. As the images that make up the final pic are
all from life, I dont see how its any more artificial than recrding
different coluurs on different layers. Or *any* photography really!
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

Photomatix Pro (PP) is much better, and I'd highly recommend it. It's
specifically designed for HDR and does an excellent job. It's the program
that's responsible for all those stunning dramatic HDR shots that you've
seen, as well as the disgusting ugly ones!

I''l look at it, (thanks for all the info).
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Following up to 'Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

except perhaps the New York skyline at night one, that's very nice,
if a little artificial looking.

I'm not sure it is though. I think we're just so used to seeing photos like
that with lights against a black background, that we've come to expect night
photos of cities to look like that, rather than how we see them with our
eyes.

exactly!!!
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Paul Saunders said:

Many high contrast scenes actually look better as silhouettes, and doing HDR
versions of them can actually reduce their impact.

As the saying goes "Art is born of restriction and dies of freedom" or
something like that anyway.

I envy stills photographers who have these tools. With video it is
definitely a case of being creative with the exposure and going for the
most dramatic effect.

With stills photography noise isn't much of an issue, but with video
(and I know this thread wasn't originally about video...) dark to very
dark subjects are often best made black due to noise and compression
issues. This might also be the case with some stills cameras, and
especially with JPEG compression (not that you'd want to use that of
course).

All that said I have to constantly adjust my camera for the range that
it has. A decent mid-high end video camera can usually be made to
capture around 11.5 stops, sometimes 12. This is achieved generally by
adjusting the black gamma (low level gamma curve in the shadow regions),
the knee point (the point at which the highlights can be made to 'roll
off'😉 and the knee slope (how sharp a roll off it is).

Now the key here is that CCD's and CMOS chips in both video cameras and
stills cameras have the same problem. The CCD can only capture a given
range at any one time. By adjusting the knee point and knee slope in my
camera what I am effectively doing is compressing the extra range that
the CCD is capturing into the limited tonal range of video (in an 8-bit
colour system that's 256 tonal graduations) that would otherwise be
clipped. On a 2/3" CCD it can usually capture 600% (over expusure) input
at 100% output. On a standard linear gamma 'curve' the ratio would be
1:1 (100% signal input 100% output). Smaller CCD's are not capable of
capturing as much over exposure range (usually only 450% for 1/2" chips,
and much less for smaller chips)

Now we start to get to the simularities between HDR and the adjustments
I mentioned above. When I compress the tonal range using such
adjustments I end up with a very flat image. It MUST be graded in post
production. But the rub here is that because I have compressed more
exposure into the tonal range subtle graduations run the risk of
becoming 'stepped'. So I perhaps don't want to push things too far.

So what does getting the extra range do for me? Much like an HDR image
the key isn't to capture an image with a mind to using the entire
exposure range in the final image. The idea is to capture as much
information as possible so that when you are editing the picture you can
make an artistic choice in the comfort of your editing suite/photostudio
as to the artistic presentation of the final image, instead of having to
make a decision in the wilderness somewhere.

An HDR image, or a RAW image doesn't suffer from the same tonal
restrictions as a video camera. But the artistic grading process still
remains very similar. Images, unless going for a special effect, need to
look natural. Many of the images Paul linked to showed a case of using
the features of a tool for the sake of it.

Take what Paul mentioned about black objects. It is true that objects
aren't truly black very often (the same with white, but don't get me
started on how many people insist on white balancing all the time!). In
grading, if you have a very low noise picture, grading such dark areas
can be done very subtly. It gives the ability to be able to make them
almost black with subtle detail. With a high ISO this may not be
desirable though.

I used to be a big advocate of cramming as much exposure range as
possible into a shot. However I found that it takes the artistic element
out of exposure. Many people become lazy and let the capabilities of the
equipment carry them through, before adjusting things afterwards.

Getting a great image on location is paramount. If you have a great
image on location then any additional capabilities such as HDR or camera
that can cope with more exposure ranges will just help you make them
better. Unless a situation has a really high contrast range, such as
some snowy landscapes, or a contrasty interior shot that also has a
large window that looks out onto a bright and sunny view, or if you are
using the HDR image as a lighting map for a 3D renderer, there is not
much advantage to using HDR other than creating work for yourself.

Every tool has a use, and every tool has a misuse :-)

Simon
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Simon) said:

Unless a situation has a really high contrast range, such as some
snowy landscapes, or a contrasty interior shot that also has a large
window that looks out onto a bright and sunny view, or if you are
using the HDR image as a lighting map for a 3D renderer, there is not
much advantage to using HDR other than creating work for yourself.

I disagree. I find, with single exposure images, that I frequently have
to decide whether to allow shadows to pool or highlights to blow out when
shooting pretty average UK landscapes in pretty average, sunlit
conditions. It's usually the sky that loses out.

By creating HDR images I don't have to make that choice. I can have
shadow and highlight detail. HDRI has given my digital photography a new
lease of life.

Jon.

Quoted message said:

I disagree. I find, with single exposure images, that I frequently have
to decide whether to allow shadows to pool or highlights to blow out when
shooting pretty average UK landscapes in pretty average, sunlit
conditions. It's usually the sky that loses out.

It all depends on the effect you are after. Usually such things are
dictated by the position of the sun in relation to the direction of the
camera. Certainly HDR can make an okay scene look better, but it can
often be used as a crutch. As Paul mentioned, shooting RAW and, say,
bracketing over 3 stops or so should get you most of the range that you
need.

But going back to what you were saying about letting shadows to pool or
highlights to blow out is exactly what I was getting at when talking
about creative exposure.

Simon
--
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Simon) said:

It all depends on the effect you are after.

I'm usually after an accurate record of the scene.

Quoted message said:

...shooting RAW and, say, bracketing over 3 stops or so should get you
most of the range that you need.

I do shoot RAW and I bracket over four stops (two each way) - I then use
the three exposures to create an HDR image!

Quoted message said:

But going back to what you were saying about letting shadows to
pool or highlights to blow out is exactly what I was getting at
when talking about creative exposure.

Personally, I can't see what's 'creative' about landscapes with blown
skies or large areas without any detail in them when they're the result
of lack of dynamic range, rather than a deliberate choice.

Jon.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I can't see what's 'creative' about landscapes with blown
skies or large areas without any detail in them when they're the result
of lack of dynamic range, rather than a deliberate choice.

Simple. Its about being choosy about the light and knowing the
equipments limitations and working within them. If you shot video you'd
have no choice. IMHO an image that is an exact reflection of reality is
rather dull. Is such an image REALLY capturing what you are actually
seeing, or is it capturing what you technically figure is an accurate
picture? An image is two dimensional and cannot convey to a viewer the
feelings you were getting at the time. Being selective about exposure is
something that can enhance the mood of a landscape. Light not right?
Then wait until it is, or go at a time when it will be, or try a
different angle. Or experiment with exposure more. DSLR's have far, far
more exposure range capability than any video camera when used in RAW
mode. With video unless I am shooting into the sun I rarely have an
issue with getting a decent exposure on the land and the sky. If I can
manage it with video I'm sure that in most situations a DSLR will be
fine. In fact most times I have issues with exposure is when the sky is
flatly overcast, or very white hazy, in which case the light is flat and
the landscape not very interesting to look at anyway.

I'm not saying HDR is useless. Just that it is often used as a crutch.
Pretty soon cameras will be able to take a great enough range to render
such methods obsolete anyway.

Simon
--
http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk