# Bad HDR



## The Barbarian

Tried overcooking one.   Now I know why I don't do that...


----------



## kap55

There is a time and place for everything and I think this may one of those times that HDR works - I like it.


----------



## astroNikon

I like it too.
I have a friend who takes his cell phone pics and overcooks them all the time.  ALL THE TIME.  Far more than what you have.


----------



## ronlane

It's got a painting effect. Normally I would agree with over cooking an HDR but I like this one.


----------



## Braineack

This process is intersting, but it's not hdr and it doesn't fix the technical flaws with thr image...

using tapatalk.


----------



## DarkShadow

I like this one to but isn't  this really tone mapping.


----------



## Desert Rose

Yeah. Don't do that. Ugh.


----------



## unpopular

not hdr when taken from a single exposure. it's just overcooked.


----------



## Desert Rose

At least he got the 'bad' part right. 


unpopular said:


> not hdr when taken from a single exposure. it's just overcooked.


----------



## Rick50

Agreed but once you except that you can then find interesting things in it. Sort of strange in it's own right.


----------



## 407370

Whatever process was used it produced an interesting image.

I like it.


----------



## Braineack

unpopular said:


> not hdr when taken from a single exposure. it's just overcooked.


says who?

using multiple is a simply one technique in achieving HDR.


----------



## Fred von den Berg

Wow!


----------



## unpopular

Braineack said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> not hdr when taken from a single exposure. it's just overcooked.
> 
> 
> 
> says who?
> 
> using multiple is a simply one technique in achieving HDR.
Click to expand...


I am not even sure how to respond to this. HDR isn't an "art" thing. It's a technical thing. According to Wikipedia:



> a high dynamic range (HDR) technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques.



Taking a single exposure using a DSLR is about as "standard" as it gets.

HDR is not tone-mapping, rather tone-mapping is the means by which to compress the data recorded in an HDR image so that it resembles natural perception. Such "over-cooking" is a result of improperly configuring the algorithms to accomplish this goal in a deliberate or artistic way in order to get a "painterly" effect.

You CAN tonemap single exposure (LDR) images, but this does not impact the *D*ynamic *R*ange captured.

You are free to dispute this if you want, but I'm simply not in the mood to keep arguing over something that is _by definition _not the case or is really even up for debate. Until we have cameras that can record in a single exposure 32-bits of dynamic range and spit out an OpenEXR file, I'll stand by what I wrote here. The technology exists, but I doubt that it was used here.


----------



## Braineack

What's the next sentence in that quote?

If "standard" digital imaging techniques, like shooting RAW and extending the DR of the final image results in an image that "present a similar range of luminance to that experienced through the human visual system", is that then not HDR?

If I process a single image using "standard" digital imagine techniques, vs. arbitrarily taking 3 images and combining them, but the end result in each is very very similar, is one not HDR simply but the method in which it was processed?

today's sensors are good enough that capturing a single image is ultimately like capturing multiple +/- 3EV shots.  all the information is there, but it needs to be processed in order to display it correctly.


My comment had nothing to do about "art" or "tone-mapping"  I just reject the idea that HDR must be done using multiple exposures.  That's all.


using tapatalk.


----------



## Derrel

ronlane said:
			
		

> It's got a painting effect. Normally I would agree with over cooking an HDR but I like this one.



Yeah...I do not care how it was processed--I like "the picture".


----------



## The Barbarian

The important thing is that a raw image will capture more data than can be shown in a normal jpeg.    So you can process the raw file to make three images showing different information, that can be then processed to make an image with more visible detail than would otherwise be possible.   

I don't care what people want to call it; it works and often allows one to show an image that looks more like the original scene than would be otherwise possible.

And my intention was to have a little fun with the image.


----------



## The Barbarian

unpopular said:


> I am not even sure how to respond to this. HDR isn't an "art" thing. It's a technical thing.



Yep.   It's a tool, not an aesthetic or a set of standards.


----------



## unpopular

Braineack said:


> If I process a single image using "standard" digital imagine techniques, vs. arbitrarily taking 3 images and combining them, but the end result in each is very very similar, is one not HDR simply but the method in which it was processed?



Arbitrarily, then no, not necessarily. Though this has more to do with how people "do" HDR than it is about HDR. People often don't meter when they expose for HDR, they just, as you point out, arbitrarily choose a range and go with it.

Personally, I don't consider anything HDR unless the data occupies a significant portion of the 32-bit float space and is processed through a 32-bit pipeline. Though I will concede that this definition probably isn't about photography, but rather visual effects.


----------



## unpopular

The Barbarian said:


> The important thing is that a raw image will capture more data than can be shown in a normal jpeg.    So you can process the raw file to make three images showing different information, that can be then processed to make an image with more visible detail than would otherwise be possible.
> 
> I don't care what people want to call it; it works and often allows one to show an image that looks more like the original scene than would be otherwise possible.
> 
> And my intention was to have a little fun with the image.



This is an entirely valid way to process an image, but it is not true that the data cannot be recovered any other way. The camera typically sameples at 12 or 14 bit, and yet are processed in a 16-bit pipeline. So there is plenty of headroom. Tone-mapping a 16-bit TIFF from a 14-bit camera will provide no greater dynamic range provided that there is no clipping performed in the raw conversion. But it's really just that, an LDR image being passed through a tone-mapper, and detail can be just as easily compressed using a curve adjustment.

Maintaining SNR is where the problem is here, but can be mitigated through careful ETTR.


----------

