Dynamic Range Increase Technique

fatheroftwo

[FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana][FONT=arial,helvetica,verdana]Has anybody else used the Dynamic Range Increase Technique (DRI) using the blending of different exposures of the same shot? (It is also known as Digital Blending.)

One of the problems we have found with HDR is the ghosting especially on trees and their leaves. DRI involves taking two exposures (one over exposed and the other under exposed) and blending them digitally together to get an exposure with good exposure all over it. It seems to work very well so long as the images are aligned perfectly, though the resulting image seems drab and lacking in saturation.

DRI Pro seems to offer a good option for producing DRI images and is a plug in for Photoshop CS.

What seems to work well is producing an image using DRI and then tone mapping the resulting image in Photomatix Pro.

Just wondered if anybody else has used this technique and if so how they have got on with it?[/FONT][/FONT]

wxwax

Your result with HDR is something one sees a lot.

Myself, not crazy about the technique. Often looks artificial and grey.

Do you have examples of DRI Pro you can link to? Why do you believe it's better than HDR? It's the same concept.

fatheroftwo

There are differences between HDR and DRI. With HDR you need at least three separate exposures or Photomatix Pro will not process them into a HDR image which allows subsequent tone mapping. With DRI you can process the same image at different settings to take advantage, for example, of darkening the sky while not underexposing the rest of the image.

But, personally, my main usage of DRI over HDI is ghosting which is a pain in the neck for images involving moving parts like leaves on trees. Take as an example this scene, which is an unprocessed exposure straight off the card:



If I tried to take three images of this scene to produce an HDR image the ghosting on the leaves would ruin everything. On the other hand being a high contrast scene trying to take a single image and tone mapping it would result in lots of problems including grain levels in the shadow areas going through the roof.

With DRI I can produce an image which is very similar to HDR but without the ghosting and that is what makes the difference. Here is the image above processed:



With this image I have put the first image into Photoshop CS produced two 16 Bit images from it - one underexposed and one over exposed - and then put them through DRI Pro. Following this I tone mapped it in Photomatix Pro and then finished things in Photoshop CS. Granted with more time devoted to it things could look even better, but for a throw away image like this I didn't see the point.

But, the important thing is elements of this image are comparable to HDR - without the problems! I'm not turning my back on HDR at all but this is an alternative when the situation calls for it.

Here is a link to a gallery on flickr where somebody who has obviously been using DRI much more than I have, with some interesting examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/sets/72157600510432549/

Icebear

What am I missing
I like the first image better. What am I supposed to see?

Giphsub

So it does it with one shot? That is easily enough done in PS using layers and just bumping the different settings on the layers and blending. I have used that effect before. I have also used HDR with the odd shot, but with longer distance shots where those minute details don't matter so much (you can't actually see them).