I'm sure everyone has seen some horrible sharpening jobs - should we avoid sharpening?
There is a certain irony to this comment. Here's how Photoshop CS2 merge to HDR works:
First you merge multiple exposures to a high dynamic range 32 bit file. As long as the exposures all align properly with no subject movement between frames there is fundmentally nothing wrong here; you are just simulating a higher dynamic range sensor. However, the image looks flat on your screen because you are compressing 32 bits of dynamic range to an 8 bit output device.
The next step is where things can go horribly wrong. Most people convert the 32 bit file to 16 (or 8) bits using local adaption. How does local adaption work? The idea is to compress the global dynamic range while preserving local contrast and it does it by an algorithm which is essentially identical to USM with a large radius. Give or take, it creates local contrast by exaggeraging the difference between the original and a blurred version of the image.
So then, what's the irony? Most HDRs look bad because they are over (or poorly) sharpened.
There is a certain irony to this comment. Here's how Photoshop CS2 merge to HDR works:
First you merge multiple exposures to a high dynamic range 32 bit file. As long as the exposures all align properly with no subject movement between frames there is fundmentally nothing wrong here; you are just simulating a higher dynamic range sensor. However, the image looks flat on your screen because you are compressing 32 bits of dynamic range to an 8 bit output device.
The next step is where things can go horribly wrong. Most people convert the 32 bit file to 16 (or 8) bits using local adaption. How does local adaption work? The idea is to compress the global dynamic range while preserving local contrast and it does it by an algorithm which is essentially identical to USM with a large radius. Give or take, it creates local contrast by exaggeraging the difference between the original and a blurred version of the image.
So then, what's the irony? Most HDRs look bad because they are over (or poorly) sharpened.
Thanks for the information - very interesting. I had no idea.
HDR is just another tool available to us - one that I haven't used yet.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
you either use it or you dont, you either like it or you dont.... funny ... I NEVER see anyone post a shot like.. "Here is a Black and white of my car" and then followed by a few "Ewww, I HATE Black and white" posts..
Its just strange to me that instead of commenting on the photo its self, folks seem to think your supposed to comment on wether or not you like the technique. I mean, we can just as easily say that using an IS lens is cheating, or a tripod or monopod.. hell, even using a zoom lens is cheating, its not what our eyes see..
I have to agree with the HDR naysayers. Who needs computers and Photoshop anyway?
While we're at it, what's the deal with HD Television? Back in the 60's we had a 19 inch black and white TV, and weee liked it. We watched that television in the snow, on a mountain, with the wind blowing, and weee liked it.
Remember what Harry Chapin said, "Flowers are red and green leaves are green."
I have to agree with the HDR naysayers. Who needs computers and Photoshop anyway?
While we're at it, what's the deal with HD Television? Back in the 60's we had a 19 inch black and white TV, and weee liked it. We watched that television in the snow, on a mountain, with the wind blowing, and weee liked it.
Remember what Harry Chapin said, "Flowers are red and green leaves are green."
/sarcasm off
lol.. yeah, and Who needs digital when B&W Film will work just as good? Pfffft.. while we're at it, who the heck needs a camera? whats the matter, you cant draw or even just use your memory?
lol,lol,lol...
Hating a technique in of it's self tells me a lot about the person...and it's not good. Utter nonsense.
One small point that I have not read here is that due to the very attributes of an HDR image it should look different...if it does not then what is the point? By different, I mean different from a standard contrasty image but closer to our human perception. Someone earlier mentioned that the best ones are the ones that he can't tell anything let alone HDR has been done. Well I am not sure you can have both, if it doesn't look any different, then either the scene did not require the HDR technique to help increase the dynamic range or possibly the technique is not being employed to attain this result.
So my point is really two fold, one as mentioned above is that HDR images are inherently going to look different and secondly we as the viewer of these images must become accustomed to seeing an image that can more accurately represent any given scene before now. The normal human eye currently can discern more DR than most camera's, so making up for this deficit and allowing a scene to be rendered closer to what we can perceive is going to make the final image look different. Up until the last few years most of our images were of the contrasty film or even digital variety with a few ND filters that could help with more DR or with a few who could do blending in the darkroom....but the vast majority of photographs all suffered from the same limitations of low dynamic range. So now that the majority of folks can enhance the limitations of their camera's sensor and produce true toned/natural or realistic imagery what a great advancement.
So we the viewers have a learning curve which will evaporate once all next-gen camera's/monitors reach the human eye capability and the images then become the norm rather than today's low DR offering less than realistic imagery. We will look back at our pictures from the past and realize how much better the higher dynamic images can capture real life. Although I am trying to enjoy this benefit today with our software work-arounds such as Photomatix and CS3.
Hating a technique in of it's self tells me a lot about the person...and it's not good. Utter nonsense.
One small point that I have not read here is that due to the very attributes of an HDR image it should look different...if it does not then what is the point? By different, I mean different from a standard contrasty image but closer to our human perception. Someone earlier mentioned that the best ones are the ones that he can't tell anything let alone HDR has been done. Well I am not sure you can have both, if it doesn't look any different, then either the scene did not require the HDR technique to help increase the dynamic range or possibly the technique is not being employed to attain this result.
So my point is really two fold, one as mentioned above is that HDR images are inherently going to look different and secondly we as the viewer of these images must become accustomed to seeing an image that can more accurately represent any given scene before now. The normal human eye currently can discern more DR than most camera's, so making up for this deficit and allowing a scene to be rendered closer to what we can perceive is going to make the final image look different. Up until the last few years most of our images were of the contrasty film or even digital variety with a few ND filters that could help with more DR or with a few who could do blending in the darkroom....but the vast majority of photographs all suffered from the same limitations of low dynamic range. So now that the majority of folks can enhance the limitations of their camera's sensor and produce true toned/natural or realistic imagery what a great advancement.
So we the viewers have a learning curve which will evaporate once all next-gen camera's/monitors reach the human eye capability and the images then become the norm rather than today's low DR offering less than realistic imagery. We will look back at our pictures from the past and realize how much better the higher dynamic images can capture real life. Although I am trying to enjoy this benefit today with our software work-arounds such as Photomatix and CS3.
I agree with this...dimissing something completely from possible progression in any type of medium is pure ignorance...One does not have to like something but to dimiss it completely is a very scary thing to practice.
Comments
Why?
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
There is a certain irony to this comment. Here's how Photoshop CS2 merge to HDR works:
First you merge multiple exposures to a high dynamic range 32 bit file. As long as the exposures all align properly with no subject movement between frames there is fundmentally nothing wrong here; you are just simulating a higher dynamic range sensor. However, the image looks flat on your screen because you are compressing 32 bits of dynamic range to an 8 bit output device.
The next step is where things can go horribly wrong. Most people convert the 32 bit file to 16 (or 8) bits using local adaption. How does local adaption work? The idea is to compress the global dynamic range while preserving local contrast and it does it by an algorithm which is essentially identical to USM with a large radius. Give or take, it creates local contrast by exaggeraging the difference between the original and a blurred version of the image.
So then, what's the irony? Most HDRs look bad because they are over (or poorly) sharpened.
Thanks for the information - very interesting. I had no idea.
HDR is just another tool available to us - one that I haven't used yet.
Its just strange to me that instead of commenting on the photo its self, folks seem to think your supposed to comment on wether or not you like the technique. I mean, we can just as easily say that using an IS lens is cheating, or a tripod or monopod.. hell, even using a zoom lens is cheating, its not what our eyes see..
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
While we're at it, what's the deal with HD Television? Back in the 60's we had a 19 inch black and white TV, and weee liked it. We watched that television in the snow, on a mountain, with the wind blowing, and weee liked it.
Remember what Harry Chapin said, "Flowers are red and green leaves are green."
/sarcasm off
"Still of hand will never make up for emptiness of heart." -Rodney Smith
lol.. yeah, and Who needs digital when B&W Film will work just as good? Pfffft.. while we're at it, who the heck needs a camera? whats the matter, you cant draw or even just use your memory?
lol,lol,lol...
www.theanimalhaven.com :thumb
Visit us at: www.northeastfoto.com a forum for northeastern USA Photogs to meet. :wink
Canon 30D, some lenses and stuff... I think im tired or something, i have a hard time concentrating.. hey look, a birdie!:clap
One small point that I have not read here is that due to the very attributes of an HDR image it should look different...if it does not then what is the point? By different, I mean different from a standard contrasty image but closer to our human perception. Someone earlier mentioned that the best ones are the ones that he can't tell anything let alone HDR has been done. Well I am not sure you can have both, if it doesn't look any different, then either the scene did not require the HDR technique to help increase the dynamic range or possibly the technique is not being employed to attain this result.
So my point is really two fold, one as mentioned above is that HDR images are inherently going to look different and secondly we as the viewer of these images must become accustomed to seeing an image that can more accurately represent any given scene before now. The normal human eye currently can discern more DR than most camera's, so making up for this deficit and allowing a scene to be rendered closer to what we can perceive is going to make the final image look different. Up until the last few years most of our images were of the contrasty film or even digital variety with a few ND filters that could help with more DR or with a few who could do blending in the darkroom....but the vast majority of photographs all suffered from the same limitations of low dynamic range. So now that the majority of folks can enhance the limitations of their camera's sensor and produce true toned/natural or realistic imagery what a great advancement.
So we the viewers have a learning curve which will evaporate once all next-gen camera's/monitors reach the human eye capability and the images then become the norm rather than today's low DR offering less than realistic imagery. We will look back at our pictures from the past and realize how much better the higher dynamic images can capture real life. Although I am trying to enjoy this benefit today with our software work-arounds such as Photomatix and CS3.
www.flickr.com/photos/serrator
I agree with this...dimissing something completely from possible progression in any type of medium is pure ignorance...One does not have to like something but to dimiss it completely is a very scary thing to practice.
www.brandonperron.com