# Why Bother?



## superhornet59 (Jul 28, 2010)

Hey all, I don't want to create an uproar from all you HDR lovers out there, but seriously, what exactly is the point of using multiple exposures? The only thing I can imagine is lower noise in shadows.

See, if you shoot jpeg, you have an 8-bit-per-channel image x 3 (RGB) for a total of 24 bits.. now people will tell you 'Well that gives you 16 million colors, what more do you need?' well the problem is that you only get 256 brightness levels. In terms of tonal range (dynamic range) that sucks. Now, if you shoot RAW, and have a lower end SLR you have 12 bits per channel, or 4096 brightness levels (and 4 TRILLION colors!). If you've gone the extra mile and bought something high end, you're getting 14 bits per channel, or 16384 brightness levels (for a whopping 281 TRILLION colors!).

my point is, say you try and capture the shadows, the midtones, and the highlights with 3 jpegs, you have 256 brightness levels to work with. lets say you go with the best case scenario, where the images have ZERO overlap (the highlights cover all 256 of one photo and everything is flat black, the shadows cover all 256 of another and everything else is white, and you capture the midtones in between with the 3rd) you still only have 768 brightness levels.. that's not even a quarter of the brightness levels the single 12-bit RAW captured. 

Details are changes in luminosity in each color channel channel. By using more bits per channel, you get a wider range, allowing you to capture more shadow detail and highlight detail.

That's why we see these 'HDR from one photo' images.. because there is so much data in that one single RAW photo. You might say combining 3 RAW files is 'even more' quality, but what kind of color space are you going to handle the final file in? All those extra tones just going to go to waste as there is no medium to view/print it on, so you have to compress in he end anyway.

The only problem with a single image HDR is noise in the shadows when they are brightened... but.. if you're in a situation where you need to use a high ISO (ie: moving subjects/camera), you probably don't have the luxury of taking multiple exposures anyway.

So my question, why does everyone still bother? Pop a photo into Photoshop RAW and play around with the exposure.. look how much you *really* have in the highlights and shadows that your MONITOR can't display all at once (that's when 'recover highlights' and 'fill shadows' comes into play, compressing the dynamic range into one that you can display/print).

Make the most of your camera's amazing sensor.. technology has come a long way and can capture all the detail you will ever really need (unless you are trying to photograph the surface of the sun and the stars around it at the same time.) Multi-exposure HDR should be a thing of the past... just a 'look what I can do in photoshop' novelty.


----------



## MohaimenK (Jul 28, 2010)

A lot might (maybe most) like your post but yeah, I've read in many HDR tutorials that 1 RAW file will do the trick for HDR shot. Although I've read not to use 1 jpeg as it won't give half as good result.

Come to think of it, here's a video of it: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkVozL3QEx4&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Arch (Jul 28, 2010)

You are missing the point for what HDR is for. It is meant to capture the range *outside* of what 1 or even 2-3 exposures can give you.
This range of light is too large for an image sensor to capture, RAW or otherwise, but is only needed for situations where the contrast is so large.. .ie. the inside of a church.

'Hdrs' made form 3 images or a RAW file don't usually need to be HDR in the first place.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 28, 2010)

If the shadows/dark areas go to black or the bright areas go to white there will be no information to recover. In those situations you will need to create additional exposures to capture that information.  Situations where you can get all of the information from one exposure are shots that don't require HDRi in the first place.  No amount of PP work will bring detail back to a sky that was rendered pure white or a tree that was rendered black.


----------



## Overread (Jul 28, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> The only problem with a single image HDR is noise in the shadows when they are brightened... but.. if you're in a situation where you need to use a high ISO (ie: moving subjects/camera), you probably don't have the luxury of taking multiple exposures anyway.


 
Even if you have a low ISO if you have dark shadows you will get noise in them when you try to brighten them up. Digital (even in RAW) even has less dynamic range than film does (at present at least, its improving over time) so there is even more reason for digital shooters to use either filters like ND Grads as well as methods like HDR to capture scenes that contain wide dynamic ranges.

Arch's example is a great one to show you this effect - if you expose for the dark indoor shadows the stained glass windows will overexpose far beyond what RAW can pull back - similarly if you expose for the windows the shadows will be very dark to black. And where the camera records total over or under exposure it records only black or white data - no contrast changes, no details - just white or black. 

So you need RAW still - of course there are those who will shoot and work with multiple exposures who don't need to (no harm in a little insurance though) and those who will use the HDR method in ways and for situations that others would not - but the method is still very valid. Heck you don't even have to use it "perfectly" and often the best uses are where its there to give a little edge, but is subtle enough to blend in and not "look like an HDR cartoon"


----------



## Bynx (Jul 28, 2010)

Superhornet, have you tried making an HDR? If you have, why not post it? If you never have then why the concern whether its a thing of the past or not? It seems to me you've read a few articles, got a few numbers in your head, and interpreted them all wrong. While there are many advantages from taking a single shot HDR image, it just isnt possible at this time. So multiple shots are still necessary.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 28, 2010)

I'd be glad to upload some images sometime, I've been doing this for a long time (but haven't been, I admit, visiting TPF). I have images back on my home computer (from which I am temporarily away) that I will gladly display. But, in the meantime I will appeal to your logic:

Let me put it this way, when you take the multiple shots for your HDR image, what do you bracket? Shutter speed? Aperture? well.. what about ISO? would that work? But what is ISO? well, the amount of signal amplification the sensor does to capture a said image? but, what does that mean in a RAW file? well it means about as much as white balance: nothing. See, if you were to single out a single photoreceptor on your sensor, and say during a given photo it detected 18 photons. Whether you are at ISO 100 or 1600, you still only detected 18 photons. The brightness you see in the RAW viewer is caused by the same thing a contrast settings and tonal curves (whether you shot 'VIVID' or 'PORTRAIT'). It is not actual RAW data, just an additonal 'filter' which results in the image you see on your screen. Yes, signal amplification in camera is often an anologue process, but there is much information out there on ISO settings vs Post Capture 'Pushing', and the final result is actually very similair. In other words, adding exposure, or amplifying RAW signal post capture to parts of the image is the same as using 3 different images with different ISO settings.


You know, most LCD monitors (crt's are only a bit better) only display 8 bit's of information. If you read my OP you know that is less than 1/5th of what your 12 bit sensor captures, let alone a 14 bit sensor. While on the cameras LCD/ on your monitor the highlights may seem blown out and the shadows flat black in high contrast photos, it's only because the monitor cannot display the full range, but that data is there.. in the RAW file, all you need to do is 'compress' the curve back down to 8 bits by brightening the shadows and darkening the highlights so it can 'fit' in the 8 bits the monitor shows. All of which can be done in any good RAW editor.


Like I said, you're only seeing 1/5th of the available data at any given exposure... now tell me... do you really think bracketting the exposure by 1 or 2 Stops is going to make a difference in real life shooting? You must be kidding, that's sheer ignorance.

The multiple exposure HDR technique may be neccessary but only in *extreme* examples which many photographers will never face. I'm reffering to something like photographing the star's and a spot-lit subjet at the same time. You will almost never need THAT wide of a tonal range. The only reason I can image is if you need extremely low noise in the shadows, but if you need that kind of extreme accuracy you should be using a medium format camera anyway.


Don't believe me on all this, search 'HDR from single RAW' in google images.

Let's face it alot of the 'established' guys arent familiar with digital technologies (and likely get headaches talking about bits-per-channel) and who do the new, young photographers learn from hmm? I'm posting this because I come from an engineering background and know my way around these technologies.

If you like the novelty of messing around with photoshop, go ahead. But, I hate to see great potential moving-subject HDR shots get missed because the photographer didn't think he had the tonal range available that he needed, which is completely untrue!


----------



## MohaimenK (Jul 28, 2010)

Here's a link you can rant about http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/211871-schwettylens-presenting-ihec.html


----------



## rallysman (Jul 28, 2010)

Why bother indeed!

Why bother bitching about it? Certain people like certain things. 
Some people like automatic transmissions while others prefer manual.
Some like blue while others like pink. 
Some use filters and others use software.
Some even *gasp* use different methods of processing!

At the end of the day, who really gives two peanut decorated ****s how the image was created? If you like it, awesome! If not, move along. Give your 2 cents on why you like it or why you hate it.

When I send something in for repair I really don't care what they did to fix it. As long as it works I'm cool with it. I apply the same thought to an image. 

If you disagree, I really don't care. I'll consider what you have to say and we can agree to disagree


----------



## Overread (Jul 28, 2010)

No one is disagreeing that producing a fake HDR from a single RAW file is possible - heck many times its as you say - an action shot with a high dynamic range benefitting from processing the same RAW two or even three times to pull the best data out of the darks and the whites so as to give a final improved version of the shot.

However you appear to be ignoring any situation where there is a scene before the camera that cannot be recorded with the full tonal range. Also you are ignoring the noise generated by adding light to the darker shadows of a shot - RAW or JPEG you will get noise there and if you don't want that noise you have to expose for  that area - that means a second shot for those darker spots that might well blow out brigther areas far beyond RAW files abilty to store this data. 

Remember full over or full under exposure is white or black only on sensor and thus only on the RAW file. No data to restore, no details to uncover.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm not sure how you would refer to those as "fake" hdr if they do indeed pull more detail from both the shadows and the highlights than was *visible* (but not recorded in the RAW) beforehand. That sounds like increasing the perceived dynamic range.

Anyway it's a courtesy things. I can capture images of very high contrast which you would often dare not, simply because I know how to manipulate my images better. I'm only trying to broaden your knowledge of image capture techniques. If you would like to stick your nose up high, then feel free to press the "Back" button of your browser and never look back at this thread. I deal with enough ignorance in my line work, and get paid a healthy salary to know better than naysayers and improve old ideas. The 'why bother nagging' technique goes both ways, the difference is i provided data and supported my argument with proof, whereas you can only criticize. It's an engineering thing.

I posted this to inform open minded photographers about the capability of the camera they have, not argue with old fools who don't know how to create an excel spreadsheet let alone understand the difference between floating point vs interger color data storage on computers. 

There certainly are situations where multiple exposures are required, but what i am saying is you underestimate the capability of your camera and take such measures when they are not necessary, and are therefore missing out on opportunities for fantastic photographs.

As for the 'noise in shadows argument' I already went over that earlier. If noise is a large concern you likely are using a very low ISO which means speed, therefore motion capture, is not your biggest priority, and yes you might as well take multiple exposures.

EDIT: There is no 'lack' of detail, just excessive signal to noise ratio. Never will your sensor record a pixel having ZERO photons hit it. It's only the noise generated that interferes, and that's where post processing is also important. only highlights can be blown when the recorded data (in the form of voltage) exceeds what the sensitive electronics can measures.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 28, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> I'm not sure how you would refer to those as "fake" hdr if they do indeed pull more detail from both the shadows and the highlights than was *visible* (but not recorded in the RAW) beforehand. That sounds like increasing the perceived dynamic range.
> 
> Anyway it's a courtesy things. I can capture images of very high contrast which you would often dare not, simply because I know how to manipulate my images better. I'm only trying to broaden your knowledge of image capture techniques. If you would like to stick your nose up high, then feel free to press the "Back" button of your browser and never look back at this thread. I deal with enough ignorance in my line work, and get paid a healthy salary to know better than naysayers and improve old ideas. The 'why bother nagging' technique goes both ways, the difference is i provided data and supported my argument with proof, whereas you can only criticize. It's an engineering thing.
> 
> ...


You seem to be ignoring a point made often in this thread, that if the sensor records pure white due to something being overexposed or pure black due to something being underexposed there is no data to be recovered, adjusting the exposure levels will only change the shades but will not "recover" the image. Even though you may not be able to "see" the full tonal range of the image on your monitor the colors are represented by numerical values. Once you've hit that numerical value that represents pure white it doesn't matter by how much or little you have clipped that highlight, it is gone.  You can argue and be pompous about it but I have just provided you (for the second time) with exactly the reasoning why HDRi is still in use. If you are bracketing  a single exposure in post then there are other ways to bring back the detail without going through the effort of making a single exposure into an HDR image (although for some it may be easier).


----------



## Bynx (Jul 28, 2010)

If anyone is interested in this I suggest you look up the definition of troll and trolling. Superhornet hasnt got a bloody clue what he is talking about and encouraging him to babble on will only encourage him to keep trolling.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 28, 2010)

Scatterbrained said:


> You seem to be ignoring a point made often in this thread, that if the sensor records pure white due to something being overexposed or pure black due to something being underexposed there is no data to be recovered, adjusting the exposure levels will only change the shades but will not "recover" the image. Even though you may not be able to "see" the full tonal range of the image on your monitor the colors are represented by numerical values. Once you've hit that numerical value that represents pure white it doesn't matter by how much or little you have clipped that highlight, it is gone.  You can argue and be pompous about it but I have just provided you (for the second time) with exactly the reasoning why HDRi is still in use. If you are bracketing  a single exposure in post then there are other ways to bring back the detail without going through the effort of making a single exposure into an HDR image (although for some it may be easier).



In that case I am afraid I will have to explain for the third time that I understand there are situations where multiple exposures are necessary, but I maintain that based on many of the HDR images I see, it was not necessary in the situation it was employed in. Obviously no sensor can capture the infinite dynamic range that exists in the universe, but the detail is there, but again, cannot be displayed on a monitor with a more limited range.

I challenge you to go pop an image into Photoshop RAW and move the exposure slider around and see how much you can recover from the highlights and how much you can bring out of the shadows. just because the highlights are blown out/shadows blacked out on your screen does not mean they are so in the RAW file, and playing with that exposure slider will show you that.

and of course i do not play with exposure to create 3 versions of one image, i just use the functions in the raw workspace I use.

Here is one example why: 16-Bit Vs. 8-Bit Workflow

see how much more shadow detail the 16-bit? now look at the original photo and see if you can see that same detail. You cant, your screen cannot simply cannot show it. i would have sworn it's 'lost, just flat black' as well, but surpringly it's there, in the RAW, which is why it was brought out in the 16-bit not the 8-bit.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 28, 2010)

Bynx said:


> If anyone is interested in this I suggest you look up the definition of troll and trolling. Superhornet hasnt got a bloody clue what he is talking about and encouraging him to babble on will only encourage him to keep trolling.



I've been a member here twice as long as you. That should say enough.


----------



## Overread (Jul 28, 2010)

Its fake HDR because you are not doing an HDR since the sensor has captured the image data - HDR is for when (correctly) the exposure range exceeds the level of cameras ablity to capture the full data range - or for when one wants to get improved levels of detail (especailly in the darker areas of the shot).

The single shot "fake HDR" is correctly called tone mapping and its a method I do use:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

Again you do seem to be responding to no one in this thead and simply targeting a rant at anti tonemapping people when there are none present in the thread countering the use of tone mapping.


----------



## Overread (Jul 28, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone is interested in this I suggest you look up the definition of troll and trolling. Superhornet hasnt got a bloody clue what he is talking about and encouraging him to babble on will only encourage him to keep trolling.
> ...


 
It says you've not been around much for 4 years  
At least on the question asking/contribution/sharing side of the forum.

Edit: It also says that you are new to photography (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/77481-proffessionalism.html ) and that this is most likley not a case of trolling, but more over stating and estimating the abilty of the DSLR camera body in certain conditions. I see a chance to further learning here rather than to argue or troll


----------



## Bynx (Jul 28, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> I've been a member here twice as long as you. That should say enough.



hahahahaha ya that tells me a lot. Youre an idiot. Youre only point in starting this thread is stated in your first sentence. You're here to create an uproar.


----------



## ghpham (Jul 29, 2010)

Overread said:


> Its fake HDR because you are not doing an HDR since the sensor has captured the image data - HDR is for when (correctly) the exposure range exceeds the level of cameras ablity to capture the full data range - or for when one wants to get improved levels of detail (especailly in the darker areas of the shot).
> 
> The single shot "fake HDR" is correctly called tone mapping and its a method I do use:
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html
> ...


 
Tone mapping is used for "true" HDR as well since our monitors are not capable of viewing a HDR image.


----------



## jubbin2001 (Jul 29, 2010)

Couldn't we say that HDR reguardless of if it is pointless or not is just another venue for people to express their creativity? Reguardless of it the situation "needs" multiple exposures or not is irrelevant. Just because someone doesn't feel that the image warranted multiple exposures, doesn't mean that the person taking the image didn't. People enjoy it and that should be enough. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I guess that is the nature of creativity. That would be like asking why bother using colored images. If the end result is the same, then B&W should be good enough. It's all a matter of personal preference, and reguardless of what data you throw at people they will continue to do what they feel they need to in order to best represent their work. I am not trying to start an argument, just saying, why not let people express themselves they way they feel they need to be expressed? It might be pointless to you, but to them it's what they want, and we should encourage and embrace that fact. The argument about the whole 8-bit jpg thing (wich seems to be the main point of all this), well we could do 16-bit files to best show the tonal ranges and yadda yadda, but then someone would probably be bitching about files size and d/l times. Just can't make anyone happy these days :lmao:. 



> As for the 'noise in shadows argument' I already went over that earlier. If noise is a large concern you likely are using a very low ISO which means speed, therefore motion capture, is not your biggest priority, and yes you might as well take multiple exposures.


 

I have a question. Can someone PLEASE contact Nikon for me and tell them my camera is broken? All this talk about noise on low ISO and I only get noise when I shoot high ISO....I think they wired something in backwards :mrgreen:. I wanna shoot ISO 1600 with no noise...man that would be awesome. No flash for this guy.

I always thought that the higher the ISO speed, the more sensitive the camera sensor is, ergo iky noise effect. Or in a film case, the higher ISO the film the faster it exposes, but yields poor image results. I always thought (and was told by many many a profession photographer) noise was always a direct result of increased sensitivity to light...But I am not an engineer, so I might be completely off my rocker here....please help .


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 29, 2010)

Frankly I didn't post here to be attacked personally. I haven't been on TPF but what the point I have made is that no i have not been kicked out for trolling and I have been practicing photography for quite a while now (and long before joining). Frankly the information in my profile is outdated. Bynx i think you ought to re-read the definition of trolling then re-read your posts in this thread. as you have contributed zero information, zero data, zero samples, zero anything: just flaming and rude remarks. If you have nothing to say (because you know nothing on the topic i speak of) please find a different thread to express it on. This isn't a rant thread, this is a"guys.. the technology we have is amazing.. why arent we making the most of it?" thread. 

Granted some of you agree tone mapping has many benefits, but the point I am making is *not* that HDR imaging cannot exceed the sensors dynamic range (because yes, of course it does) *but* rather that the sensor's dynamic range is high enough that there are very few situations that justify 'true' HDR, and therefore unnecessary in many circumstances when you know how to make the most of your RAW files. I've been processing my RAW's for years, and I'll be honest I have almost never found that I did not have enough data in the shadows/highlights in a single exposure.


----------



## Overread (Jul 29, 2010)

I guess then your output medium is affecting your views in comparison to others I know myself that noise in the shadows leads to noise and loss of overall quality in those areas - of course if you are just outputting to the internet at 1000pixels or less or outputting to smaller print sizes you might not be seeing the problem as much as those also cropping or producing larger size output mediums. 

Again you can add only so much light to an underexposed area before the quality lacks and suffers - if you want the ideal perfect dark areas brigther then HDR is the only way to get them like that


----------



## Arch (Jul 29, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> Granted some of you agree tone mapping has many benefits, but the point I am making is *not* that HDR imaging cannot exceed the sensors dynamic range (because yes, of course it does) *but* rather that the sensor's dynamic range is high enough that there are very few situations that justify 'true' HDR, and therefore unnecessary in many circumstances when you know how to make the most of your RAW files.



No, as i said before you are still missing the point.

The problem is you are suggesting that most peoples fake HDR images don't need to be HDR.... well of course, we know that. You can get a similar look from a 3 exposure HDR to a single RAW (except you will have more noise) but if you have all the highlights and shadows captured then you probably don't need to 'HDR it' in the first place.

However you are confusing the people that 'do HDR' just to get the tonemapping effect with the real reason for HDR, which CANNOT be done with a RAW file. Yes the situation does exsist.

This is fact, you can dispute it all you want, but to be honest this thread will go nowhere because it has been discussed before mutliple times, all you have to do is use the search function and we can avoid another pointless arguement.




superhornet59 said:


> I've been processing my RAW's for years, and I'll be honest I have almost never found that I did not have enough data in the shadows/highlights in a single exposure.



Then you have never taken an image of a scene which a true HDR is needed.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 29, 2010)

Arch said:


> Then you have never taken an image of a scene which a true HDR is needed.



Send me one of the three (the "correctly" exposed of the three) RAW file of a landscape scene and the resulting HDR Image, and we will see wha I can do.

Frankly, you can pull details out of shadows around 4-5 EV below the 'correctly exposed area' (a 12-bit camera has a dynamic range of about 8-9 EV). 

Unless you bracket by 5 EV, all the extra details in the shadows are going to be of the same luminosity as the ones captured and brightened in the tone-mapped image. Do you bracket 5 full stops? Even then you would need to tone map each of THOSE images to make the most (not just 'capture', but SHOW) the details.

I am not arguing that taking multiple exosures is NEVER necessary, I am arguing that it's not necessary for most situations in which it is employed.

Upload a reasonable high contrast photo which you bracketed and later made an HDR image out of, merged using standard HDR merging techniques (so not tone mapping each exposure to extract even MORE useable data, because while it is a good idea, i have yet to seen someone commonly make HDRs out of tone mapped photos) and I'll show you I can capture the same details. Don't send me ISO 3200 photos of a black object in front of the sun, because that's not what I mean by 'most scenarious'. But trees infront of the sun, cities at night, etc... the details are all there when you use a reasonably low noise ISO setting. I'll glady do it because I support my comments instead with proof and data.. not flaming.


----------



## Arch (Jul 29, 2010)

I don't know how to write it any other way... you have your blinkers on to prove a point and are not reading my posts properly...





superhornet59 said:


> Send me one of the three (the "correctly" exposed of the three) RAW file of a landscape scene and the resulting HDR Image, and we will see what I can do.



Scroll up... I just said the range difference between 3 images and RAW is minimal... of course you can make them look similar, iv said that twice in this thread already.



superhornet59 said:


> Frankly, you can pull details out of shadows around 4-5 EV below the 'correctly exposed area' (a 12-bit camera has a dynamic range of about 8-9 EV).
> 
> Unless you bracket by 5 EV, all the extra details in the shadows are going to be of the same luminosity as the ones captured and brightened in the tone-mapped image. Do you bracket 5 full stops? Even then you would need to tone map each of THOSE images to make the most (not just 'capture', but SHOW) the details.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here, it is certainly not necessary to tone map each image in order to make a HDR.



superhornet59 said:


> Upload a reasonable high contrast photo which you bracketed and later made an HDR image out of, merged using standard HDR merging techniques (so not tone mapping each exposure to extract even MORE useable data, because while it is a good idea, I have yet to seen someone commonly make HDRs out of tone mapped photos) and I'll show you I can capture the same details. Don't send me ISO 3200 photos of a black object in front of the sun, because that's not what I mean by 'most scenarious'. But trees infront of the sun, cities at night, etc... the details are all there when you use a reasonably low noise ISO setting. I'll glady do it because I support my comments instead with proof and data.. not flaming.



OK, I'll explain what I think is going on here. You have seen X amount of HDRs (especially over the last few years) of landscapes.... someone's back garden... a statue in a park etc, and have concluded that these don't need to be multi exposure HDR's.... welcome to the club! I (and others) have being saying this for years. However by asking me to supply an image of a landscape would suggest that *you* think that is what HDR is used for.... what I have been trying to say to you is isn't not!

If I supplied you with a single image that I have used for a HDR it would probably be the inside of a church where, as I have said, you *will not* be able to get the range needed to create a balanced image. That is why HDR came about in the first place.



superhornet59 said:


> I am not arguing that taking multiple exosures is NEVER necessary, I am arguing that it's not necessary for most situations in which it is employed.



People who take images of average landscapes and say it's the height of their HDR technique are doing it wrong. You are trying to fix a problem that shouldn't exsist.


Please understand im not trying to have a go at anyone here, but just trying to point out that HDR doesn't mean to me what it does to you. To you, its people that use 3 exposure HDRs for everything... even if most of the range is already there... for me, the whole purpose of the technique is that of the original meaning, to go beyond that... and there, single RAWs will not help you.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 29, 2010)

I think we're making the same point except I am more optimistic about the capabilities of the RAW image. While I haven't done a church per say, I have done images of the inside of a vehicle with a window/opening outside (car with tinted windows, with the subjects window open for example) which to me is a very high contrast setting and years ago I would have thought it was impossible to capture the full range of shadows and highlights... then I started processing my RAWs instead of just batch converting them, and it's like a light bulb lit up. Photographs I had once thought were 'unusable' were suddenly full of detail I didn't know, simply because it wasn't in the jpeg/displayed on my screen. Once I got into tone mapping and practiced, I was astonished with what I could do.

My ultimate point is that camera users ought to see just how much contrast they can cram into a photograph and 'recover' (meaning, compress the DR into something a screen can actually display) and find their camera's limitation BEFORE they start merging photos into HDR Images.

My title 'why bother' is not to suggest 'why bother with multiple exposure blending at all?' but rather 'Why bother with it in sitations like most landscape shots' in which I see we can agree, it is unnecessary. I just think people don't give their camera the benefit of the doubt and underestemate its capability, and ought to explore tone mapping a bit and see if it suits their needs before they resort to the compromises inherent with shooting multiple scenes.

But of course there is a limit, quite possibly in such a church scenario, but I just find a lot of people use the technique when it is unnecessary, and I'd just like to shout out to said people and say 'hey, maybe good tone mapping enough 95% for your high-contrast needs'.

This was certainly NOT a 'rant' thread, though. :er:


----------



## Bynx (Jul 29, 2010)

Why does it concern you so much which technique people are using? If anyone wants to shoot 9 shots to come up with an HDR whats it to you? I think your only concern should be limited to what you see and not how it was done. And comments like....you could have done the same thing doing it my way is not appropriate unless the OP is asking for a way other than what he/she has done. Ive never seen a site with so many people concerned about what other people are doing. If you dont like HDR no one is forcing you to come here. I shoot a lot of HDR. Most of the time it works fine. Sometimes its hardly noticeable. I dont do the cartoony look but the realistic approach and I dont care how many HDR images you have shot there is no way a single RAW or single jpeg file can get the detail and range that I need when shooting in a varied lighting situation such as churches, which I shoot a lot. Ive even shot 7 shots for a single stained glass window. I am able to get so much razor sharp detail from the white or clear glass to the almost blackish blues and purples. You might call it unecessary but youre not going to tell me to stop. I dont think you are going to convince a single person here to stop so what is your point? To me shooting for HDR is just fun. When I get back to process the files I have a choice which I wouldnt have if I never took those extra shots. Maybe you would like to limit us shooters to limit ourselves to 5 or maybe 10 shots per day? Anything else you would like us to cut out?


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 29, 2010)

Bynx said:


> Ive never seen a site with so many people concerned about what other people are doing.



Then why are you here? 

A forum is a place to exchange ideas. Next time a newbie photographer who happened to take advice from one of your posts thinks to himself 'oh no, I'm watching a ballet with a dark stage and spotlit - and moving - subject, I can't take that shot! I would rather he also remember my side of the argument and make an attempt - and after tone mapping possibly end up with a beautiful photograph - instead of being discouraged by a bitter old man.

You can fill up your whole memory card with incremental exposures of a single scene (stacking, if you didn't know, will greatly reduce noise far better than any NR software), but this thread is for people looking to expand their horizons in photography, not live in a bubble.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 29, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > Ive never seen a site with so many people concerned about what other people are doing.
> ...



No the point is, WHY ARE YOU HERE? This thread is for those intererested in expanding their knowledge or sharing their experiences with HDR technique. If you have some other technique you want to preach then start a thread. I dont think spouting anti-HDR is what this thread is looking for. As for being a bitter old man, this coming from a snotty nosed teenager?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 30, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> I think we're making the same point except I am more optimistic about the capabilities of the RAW image. While I haven't done a church per say, I have done images of the inside of a vehicle with a window/opening outside (car with tinted windows, with the subjects window open for example) which to me is a very high contrast setting and years ago I would have thought it was impossible to capture the full range of shadows and highlights... then I started processing my RAWs instead of just batch converting them, and it's like a light bulb lit up. Photographs I had once thought were 'unusable' were suddenly full of detail I didn't know, simply because it wasn't in the jpeg/displayed on my screen. Once I got into tone mapping and practiced, I was astonished with what I could do.
> 
> My ultimate point is that camera users ought to see just how much contrast they can cram into a photograph and 'recover' (meaning, compress the DR into something a screen can actually display) and find their camera's limitation BEFORE they start merging photos into HDR Images.
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is that you finally had an epiphany and for some reason you think the rest of the world doesn't know what you recently discovered?  What did you think the "fill light" and "recovery" sliders were for in Lightroom?  Why do you think we have "dodge" and "burn" tools?  Meanwhile it is easy to encounter a situation where, when properly exposed for the highlights you will render the darkest areas as absolute black (that would be 0,0,0 in you RGB indicators). Simply taking another exposure a few stops higher would bring back the dark areas but would blow the highlights out (that would be 250,250,250, in the RGB indicators). What do the think the highlight warning is for?  If you properly expose an image but still get a few areas that are blinking (assuming you have the highlight priority turned on) that is the camera telling you that there is no data being recorded in that area. Therefore no amount of work in raw will bring any detail back.   I shot the image below shooting directly into the sun.  Properly exposing for the sky rendered the foreground as a silhouette.  Bumping the exposure on the foreground only brought back the brightest parts of the image, leaving the darker areas gray.  This shot could not be achieved without multiple exposures, despite that it only required exposures over a 4 stop range.  Properly exposed for the background much of the sky is absolute white (250,250,250 on the RGB indicator) while properly exposed for the sky much of the foreground is pure black.   Granted an GND (graduated neutral density) filter could also achieve much of the same results but that is another piece of kit to carry around when i could just take a few exposures and fix it when I get home.  With a GND filter I would have to be out specifically to take shots like this or it isn't worth carrying it around.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 30, 2010)

BTW, learn to use the histogram and the highlight priority warning as well as the highlight and black clipping warnings in ACR/lightroom.  Maybe you'll see in your images what we are talking about.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 30, 2010)

Why are YOU telling ME what the thread I STARTED is about. And frankly I did not spout anti-HDR, I simply said that in many cases (hello, I look at other peoples galleries) are employed in situations where it is simply not needed, sometimes by old fools  who need 7 exposures to get a photographright because they can't set their camera up properly to get it in one or three.

Why do you have no gallery hmmm? show me your HDR shots. Justify yourself. Add CREDIBILTY to your statements. Where do you use HDR's, to capture both the surroundings and inside of cave  on a sunny day (definitely need HDR) or more like 'capture the details' of the shadowed side of a barn (in which tone mapping is all you need). Because I'm going to get a good laugh out of you if you are using HDR merging only as a crutch for an inability to use Adobe RAW / Capture NX.

And you got me, I'm a snotty nosed teenager working as an Automotive Engineer. You must estimate my age to be around, what, 12? clearly you have not remembered a single word I have written in any of my posts and yet you continue to bicker and argue. I made an informative thread full of data and examples, and you CONTINUE to troll this thread and do nothing but flame and you have STILL not added one piece of information to it. I get it, you disagree. we know. so why are you still here? The only thing a reader reading your posts would learn is that you are narcissistic and antagonistizingly pompous, but they would learn nothing of photography. Get off of my thread if you have nothing to contribute, or start a separate rant thread about me elsewhere. This is a forum is for education and sharing of idea's, not 'my way or the highway' bafoons who can only insult others. What do you come here for? clearly not to learn, and you obviously have nothing to teach, so quit trolling me.

Where are the moderators!? I have nothing but fond memories of this forum discussing interesting potential photographs (time lapse merging, etc) with fascinating and vibrant photographers... how did a insolent know-it-all like yourself find his way here??

And Scatterbrained I can clearly see you have not learned from the data I posted (am I the only person left who isn't afraid of a little math?). You suspect all the highlights would be blown because the regions would be 250,250,250, but the point that I have been making from the start is that a 12 bit image contains 4096 levels, not 250. What may be blown on an 8-bit screen (all screens are in that bit depth if not lower) or in an 8-bit (standard) jpeg is not actually blown, you simply cannot display it because the details in the highlights and shadows are outside the range of levels it can display. They are, though, in the raw file (or another 12+ bit format), and by using your 'recover highlights' option it suddenly appears.

The reason you do not see this effect with your DODGE tool is because you are exporting your RAW files as 8-bit jpeg's, not 12-bit. Look through your raw editor's settings. I once had this problem too. I am not having an enlightening moment, as everything you know and are telling me now I knew half a decade ago. Since then I have learned more and you seem to be impervious to such knowledge and experience. 0-4096 is a bigger range than 0-256. It's unfathomable that any more should have to be said, but here I am.

I believe that shot of yours was not well manipulated. shadows turning grey over a few stops exposure is a common occurrence in 8-bit jpegs, not RAW's. I bump that high regularly and have yet to run into this problem (I will,though, if processing an 8-bit jpeg). Send me the that RAW file and we will see what I can pull out of it.


You know, I'm not just here to argue, I'm trying very patiently to teach you something you can't quickly wrap your head around, because its based around bit-depth, something not everyone understands well. Hell, it took me a while to get it to, and I was equally stubborn (I have been doing HDR for a long time, and still do from time to time). If you really don't think tone mapping is worth a shot, don't do it. I'm providing data and expanding peoples horizons, not trying to change anyone's style.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 30, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> Why are YOU telling ME what the thread I STARTED is about. And frankly I did not spout anti-HDR, I simply said that in many cases (hello, I look at other peoples galleries) are employed in situations where it is simply not needed, sometimes by old fools  who need 7 exposures to get a photographright because they can't set their camera up properly to get it in one or three.
> 
> Why do you have no gallery hmmm? show me your HDR shots. Justify yourself. Add CREDIBILTY to your statements. Where do you use HDR's, to capture both the surroundings and inside of cave  on a sunny day (definitely need HDR) or more like 'capture the details' of the shadowed side of a barn (in which tone mapping is all you need). Because I'm going to get a good laugh out of you if you are using HDR merging only as a crutch for an inability to use Adobe RAW / Capture NX.
> 
> ...


First, I do all of my exposure manipulations in raw, if I must export an image to do other work it is usually as a TIFF file. Second, you are the one who clearly isn't paying attention, the numbers I posted are the values given to the RGB color scale (each color individually).  Open an image up in lightroom and you will see these numbers as you move your cursor around the image. Or you can just look at the histogram; if it goes off to the right there are areas overexposed/blown out, if it goes off to the  left there are areas recorded as pure black.  I'm sorry that you haven't learned to read a histogram yet, but you're really starting to show your ignorance on the subject.  You're starting to behave like the petulant schoolkid you are.
 BTW: I'm a CPA, so no, I'm not afraid of math, but I know an arrogant college kid when I see one.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 30, 2010)

Example photos:

I picked the highest contrast photograph I could find in 2-3 minutes of browsing. It's no Ansel Adams shot, but very simple image I used to test a theory. Pay attention to what can 'appear' from the shadows. The image was exposed to properly catch the clouds, not a 'compromise' between shadow and highlight (though, you really don't to overexpose by anything more than 1 stop, because the digital format (even at 12/14 bit) will capture lots of detail in the darker shadows, but not as much in the lighter highlights. This is, as we know, completely opposite to film.) 
My point is look at how much more data I can extract by manipulating the 12-bit raw BEFORE exporting to jpeg, instead of using photoshops tools on an 8-bit jpeg. This is about as high contrast as I would go before resorting to multiple exposures.. but seriously.. on my screen, the shadows of the original raw look almost flat black! how much more of a dynamic range do you need on a day to day basis. This is a pretty much 'worst case scenario' photo.


First is the original RAW image converted straight to jpeg as is: 

Next the RAW converter straight into an 8-bit jpeg and put through 'Shadow/Highlight' in Photoshop with no other changes:




and finally the 12-bit RAW file tone mapped then converted to *16-bit jpeg* and further enhanced with shadow/highlight:





Grains of wood recovered, the switches on the right, and (although  noisily) some details under the cockpit (and frankly my eyes have  trouble adjusting through all that, it get's DARK back there). I would normally perform further processing to get rid of that ugly grain (The shadows have been pushed some 6-7 stops here... WOW) and enhance colors and everything else you would do to make it artistic. This is approaching the limit of what a camera like mine can record in dynamic range / signal-to-noise, and I think one should be impressed.. try this kind of thing with film! with something like a D3s' noise levels and 14 bit sensor, I wouldn't be surprised if you could push those shadows up another few stops.. you have a huge dynamic range in RAW, but don't know how to make the most of it. 

Yes there are time's when it's just not enough.. but good tone mapping can do a lot more than most of you think.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 30, 2010)

Oh goodness a self righteous accountant. Last time I was a 'college kid' was before I got my B. Eng. 

Histograms are natively 0-255, because there are 256 levels in an 8-bit (the worldwide standard) jpeg/tiff/etc. The whole point of a 12 bit image is that it has 4096 levels, so what happens to all those extra levels when you pop open your histogram then?

Nothing, they are compressed back into a 'standard' 0-255 RGB histogram because nobody needs a histogram that takes up the full width of their screen. Otherwise I look forward to your explanation on why a 12 bit image only contains 8 bits of data per channel (2^8 is 256... guess what 2^12 is)?

I paid for my education with my photography, whether you agree with it or not, I know - and have known - what I've been doing for years.

I'm just a very abrasive person, that's all 

EDIT: Your dog may also be wiser than you, Mr. Bynx. If I was comfortable having my name known online I would have put it in my username. By the way I saw your shoddy 'HDR' gallery on photo.net.. I really hope that was a joke. Anyway, I could have rendered 90% of that church photograph from a single raw, only the stained glass would give me trouble (and yes I would create a separate exposure for that). I learned on an old Russian Zenit camera which I inherited. I wonder how well your photographs would come out with no metering


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 30, 2010)

Just over 3yrs ago you were 16


> Hey everyone, I haven't been around in a while so you probably dont remember me, I'm Matt and I'm 16,


So at most you're 20 now. I'm not impressed. 
Second, I can see all of the detail in the first image you posted on my screen, so I would have known that it could be recovered, as I've had to do similar with images before. Throwing it in LR doesn't set off a shadow or highlight warning. Sliding the fill light adjustment yields a clean but slightly underexposed image that looks quite normal. The "fixed" image you posted looks like some overcooked cartoon, and is why so many people dislike tonemapped and HDR images; because so many of them end up looking like what you posted.   The point that you seem to keep missing is that the technology is there to tell you when the data can be recovered and when it can't.  Most of us here know that. There are some who do HDR just for ****s and giggles (or they have a lower end camera that can't cleanly cover the range) but_ most_ of us here are very well aware of what our cameras can do and we utilize those capabilities. 
On a side note, you full name is available in your EXIF data. I will not post your last name as you have stated you aren't comfortable with it being out there, but you should know that many people who frequent photography forums have EXIF readers in their browsers so your name is just a right click away.  If you want to avoid that you should remove you EXIF before posting images to the internet.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 30, 2010)

Ouch, I see there is amateur left in me yet. I appreciate the tip, and your respect towards peoples privacy. I haven't ever tried reading exif off a jpeg, I simply didn't think the data would be kept through the conversion process. On a side note, those of you who put your names and personal information on the internet are either brave or unaware of what people can do with it. I used to throw some basic info around, and then I recieved a call that one of my bank accounts was compromised. That taught me a thing or two. 

And yes, I am 20 and you know, 3 years of year-long study and I have a good job already.. I feel quite happy to be 'ahead of the game' among many of my peers. That's not being snot-nosed, it's being smart.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but I cannot see those details, and I have my brightness set rather high. Of course the image does look cartoonish post processing (I'll be honest: HDR is often art, not realistic. I try and make them my tone-mapped images or ocassional HDR's as subtle as possible.. and keep a reasonable amount of contrast) but of course this was a 'lets see how much info is down there on the low end of the histogram' test, not a work of art.

I don't think HDR is useless, just unnecessary many time's you want to get a 'salable', not for "s***'s and giggles" photograph. I have plenty of high contrast images I have tone mapped to retrieve details that which look quite real and eye pleasing and certainly don't looked 'overcooked', it's a matter of moderation. I like to have some black *somewhere* in the photo.

But I see your point, and oddly enough, now bynx's as well (though he has a rather headstrong-assault-like approach of trying to make a point) : HDR is often an artistic thing, not always directly related to image quality (plenty of high contrast images look fantastic). You can argue about data and facts, but you cant convince people when it comes to art.

If that 'look' pleases you, by all means (though I cant recall ever seeing a professional portfolio or magazine with HDR photographs) multi-expose, but it's not necessary a lot of times.

I'm looking to upgrade to a D300 sometime. I look forward to seeing how much I can do with a 14-bit camera. Everyone marvels at digital's low noise, but I think the great dynamic range of a RAW is something that needs to be better respected as well.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 30, 2010)

superhornet59 said:


> Ouch, I see there is amateur left in me yet. I appreciate the tip, and your respect towards peoples privacy. I haven't ever tried reading exif off a jpeg, I simply didn't think the data would be kept through the conversion process. On a side note, those of you who put your names and personal information on the internet are either brave or unaware of what people can do with it. I used to throw some basic info around, and then I recieved a call that one of my bank accounts was compromised. That taught me a thing or two.
> 
> And yes, I am 20 and you know, 3 years of year-long study and I have a good job already.. I feel quite happy to be 'ahead of the game' among many of my peers. That's not being snot-nosed, it's being smart.
> 
> ...


I don't know if it's in the EXIF on that particular image, but it came up on my screen. I'm using a calibrated NEC Multisync PA241W that I bought specifically for editing. My screen isn't "bright" but it can render an amazing level of contrast and nuance.  As far as HDR being used professionally; real estate and architecture.   The point of HDR is that if it is done right no one can tell.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 30, 2010)

See when I kept saying HDR wasn't necessary in "most situations" I was thinking of two major scenarios: Landscape and Architectural.

I admit I don't go around photographing building on a day to day basis, it's not my field of photographic work, but there have been a couple times here and there when I pulled the details out from the shady side of a building and it looked fine.

I'd just like to add, as I forgot earlier, that the problem with most tone mapped images which makes them look cartoonish is oversaturation that comes from messing with the RGB values, but the worst part is the highlighted 'halos' around shadows. These are dead giveaways. I would gently use the burn tool to remove said highlights, and pull saturation back a bit. That often gets me the best result.

I checked out your monitor... 1000:1 contrast ratio... nice. 

I think that might be why you're not seeing the same dramatic difference I am. The contrast ratio of an 8-bit jpeg is only, for obvious reasons, 256:1 hence my plea to avoid it in tone mapping, or any kid of photography for that matter as long as memory size isn't very limited. Depending on what kind you're buying, photographs offer a contrast ratio of between 100:1 to 200:1. When looking at RAWs through such a low dynamic range medium, tone mapping seems to make details just 'appear'. That great monitor of yours may be taking the 'magic' out of it :mrgreen:

I think people looking at physically printed before/afters or looking at it through a run-of-the-mill consumer LCD would be a bit more impressed at how much the 12 bit RAW is 'hiding' down there in the shadows.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 30, 2010)

superhornet59, you've trolled long enough. Time to move along.


----------



## superhornet59 (Jul 30, 2010)

We come to an agreement and civilized discussion, and you just had to  toss an unnecessary, uninformative flame in here?


----------



## Arkanjel Imaging (Jul 31, 2010)

You dont think National Geographic prints HDR processed pics? :lmao:

Because you quote and throw around a bunch of numbers (typical of an engineer) doesnt make you knowledgeable. You obviously know much less about photography than you lay claim to. Thats not an attack. Just saying the more you say... the more you _say._



Silly rabbit. :hugs:


----------

