# Single Exposure HDR?



## mangtarn

So i was looking around on deviantart and saw this post Warmth by =IvanAndreevich on deviantART it looks absolutely amazing. in the description it said "Noise reduction + distortion correction + HDR techniques from a single jpeg exposure." any ideas how you can get an HDR from a single jpeg?


----------



## cgipson1

The most common way is to change the brightness level in a single photo, and save that as -1, -2 or +1, +2... and then run the saved set through the HDR process. Keep in mind, that you are just maximizing the detail that is present in the original photo... you are not actually gaining the extra detail that actual overs and unders would have had.

Also.. most HDR programs will allow running a single image through also.. mostly for tone mapping, rather than true exposure fusion. There are a lot of settings one can change when doing this... and you can achieve some really interesting effects.

Examples from a single image run through Photomatix using some of the presets they have

Original






Tone Enhancement





Compressor Enhancement


----------



## mangtarn

thank you for your reply.
it's sort of what i guessed it would be. I should definitely give that a try considering the results look quite nice. but i am sure that the normal 3 exposure HDRs look better than the one exposure HDR. maybe the guy only had one photo to work with for that one but he did a great job at it.


----------



## Bynx

You can tone map any file. You cant get an HDR image from less than two files.


----------



## Compaq

I'm not too steady on the definitions here, but if you can capture the entire dynamic range in one exposure, would that, then, be a high dynamic range image? It wouldn't be tone mapped, but tone mapping isn't a necessity for HDRI, yes? The way I've understood it thus far, is that HDR isn't a "verb". You can't "HDR" an image. You either captured the dynamic range with one exposure or you didn't. If you didn't, then multiple exposures can be merged in the appropriate software and you can tone map the merged result. This will then only be a reproduction of the dynamic range in the original scene, that one exposure wasn't able to capture. You're no longer working with the RAW information when you merge the exposures, and everything after that point will only be a reproduction of the dynamic range, from algorithms that your software is using.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## 480sparky

HDR is the process of extending the limits of a given camera/sensor to record the dynamic range of a scene.

If the scene has 7 stops of range between the shadows and the highlights, and the camera/sensor can record 7 or more stops of dynamic range, then you don't need to do any HDR at all.  The range will be captured provided the exposure is correct.

If, however, the scene has more range than what the camera/sensor can record, then you will end up with either totally black shadows (0:0:0), blown-out highlights (255:255:255), or both in a single image.  No amount of post-processing is going to magically recreate any details in those areas that were not recorded.  Any attempt to do so will result in noisy shadows and sickly gray highlights.


----------



## SlickSalmon

Compaq said:


> I'm not too steady on the definitions here, but if you can capture the entire dynamic range in one exposure, would that, then, be a high dynamic range image? It wouldn't be tone mapped, but tone mapping isn't a necessity for HDRI, yes? The way I've understood it thus far, is that HDR isn't a "verb". You can't "HDR" an image. You either captured the dynamic range with one exposure or you didn't. If you didn't, then multiple exposures can be merged in the appropriate software and you can tone map the merged result. This will then only be a reproduction of the dynamic range in the original scene, that one exposure wasn't able to capture. You're no longer working with the RAW information when you merge the exposures, and everything after that point will only be a reproduction of the dynamic range, from algorithms that your software is using.
> 
> Again, correct me if I'm wrong!



Good questions, and the answers are likely to produce some debate. 

Can you capture a high dynamic range image with a single JPEG?  Yes, if you use a graduated ND filter, as was used in the photos posted above.  But that's not the sense in which the term "HDR" is generally used, at least not in this Forum.  The posters here tend to refer to HDR as something accomplished with software, such as Photomatix.

Is "HDR" a verb?  Technically, no.  But, people tend to confuse tone-mapping with HDR.  Tone-mapping is one of the steps in the HDR process.  It can be applied to a single image or to multiple images.  Its overuse leads to the cartoonish effects that are often criticized in this Forum.

Is everything after exposure merger only a reproduction of the dynamic range of the original scene from algorithms that your software is using?  Yes.  Technically, any image taken with a camera is just a reproduction of the dynamic range of the original.  But HDR technique overtly adjusts that dynamic range, sometimes in disadvantageous ways.


----------



## mistermonday

Compaq said:


> I'm not too steady on the definitions here, but if you can capture the entire dynamic range in one exposure, would that, then, be a high dynamic range image? It wouldn't be tone mapped, but tone mapping isn't a necessity for HDRI, yes? The way I've understood it thus far, is that HDR isn't a "verb". You can't "HDR" an image. You either captured the dynamic range with one exposure or you didn't. If you didn't, then multiple exposures can be merged in the appropriate software and you can tone map the merged result. This will then only be a reproduction of the dynamic range in the original scene, that one exposure wasn't able to capture. You're no longer working with the RAW information when you merge the exposures, and everything after that point will only be a reproduction of the dynamic range, from algorithms that your software is using.
> 
> Again, correct me if I'm wrong!



Compaq, you pretty well have it bang on. I would just like to expand on your comment about a merged file. When HDR s/w merges RAW files, which are usually 8 or 16 bits in depth, in order to accommodate the entire range of information, the source files are merged into a 32 bit linear image.  These 32 bit images can not be properly displayed on out 8 bit monitors or printers so the Tone Mapping modules of the HDR s/w are used to remap the information into a n image that is visually pleasing in the 8 or 16 bit space. In the process of tone mapping, the software has the ability, typically through its Strength slider, to brighten the shadows/mid tone while darkening the highlights. This tonal inversion, when applied excessively, causes that overbaked, painterly, or unnatural, for example when a green pasture in the foreground is brighter than a blue sky) and it also results in rather strong halos.
The tone mapping modules of most HDR programs will allow us to apply the same adjustments to a single image. There, we are not actually increasing the dynamic range of the image but applying some tonal inversion, adjusting contrast at the global, local, and micro level, light gradients, and other conventional Low Dynamic Range adjustments like Brightness, Saturation, Temperature, Tint, etc.
Finally, given the proper HDR s/w, there is actually no value in making 3 exposures out of a single exposure and then merging and tone mapping. You will get better results from just tonemapping a single image and saving a lot of needless effort.
Regards, Murray


----------



## Bynx

Bynx said:


> You can tone map any file. You cant get an HDR image from less than two files.



When I made this statement it is assumed that if the whole range can be obtained in a single shot then it isnt really an HDR image. For example a shot of a tabletop with a few items like plates, fruit etc all giving off reflected light. No great range there and it can all be shot with a single exposure. I dont call that an HDR image. Now throw in an open window to the scene and there is now more than a single shot necessary to get it all exposed properly. And for a scene to only need 2 shots means, to me, that its pretty flat lighting.

Also as I understand it its not possible to actually see an HDR image without tone mapping it. Tone mapping allows the image to be seen by present day devices.


----------



## spacefuzz

slick mentioned using GNDs to create HDR.  It sure would be nice if they were considered HDR by the general community (since they technically are).  I think that would create wider acceptance of the term.


----------



## 480sparky

GNDs only work for highly limited type of shots (usually landscapes).  Even then they have their limitations.


----------



## cgipson1

spacefuzz said:


> slick mentioned using GNDs to create HDR.  It sure would be nice if they were considered HDR by the general community (since they technically are).  I think that would create wider acceptance of the term.



GND's don't really increase the dynamic range... they just reduce the highlights (sky) to allow better exposure of the foreground without blowing out the highlights... more of a compression of range than an HDR. And like Sparky said, limited application.


----------



## Bynx

Seems to be a complete misunderstanding what HDR is, how its achieved, or what its supposed to do. Wow after all this time. GND filter????


----------



## cgipson1

Bynx said:


> Seems to be a complete misunderstanding what HDR is, how its achieved, or what its supposed to do. Wow after all this time. GND filter????



<grin>!


----------



## spacefuzz

Bynx said:


> Seems to be a complete misunderstanding what HDR is, how its achieved, or what its supposed to do. Wow after all this time. GND filter????



Hmm I dont think its a mis understanding of HDR at all.  What is HDR? High Dynamic Range. What does that mean?  Your range (luminence) is broad, usually broader than what your camera sensor can capture (NOT to be confused with tone mapping).  What do you do with an HDR scene?  You compress the dynamic range for display somewhere (digital or print). 

Then does it matter how you compress your dynamic range to end up with a viewable result?  Nope.  

Would a GND work for this?  Yup. A GND reduces your exposure on part of the scene so you can properly expose everything in a single shot. It is the same thing as stopping down to limit light into your camera and take a bracketed exposure.  

Do they only work in certain circumstances? Yup, but so what. why would that make them non hdr?


----------



## spacefuzz

A nice way to look at it.  
Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel &#8211; eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog


----------



## cgipson1

spacefuzz said:


> A nice way to look at it.
> Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel &#8211; eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog



Both... a GND filter doesn't always provide enough range....   (at least, never the one I have with me!) lol!


----------



## spacefuzz

cgipson1 said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice way to look at it.
> Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel &#8211; eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both... a GND filter doesn't always provide enough range....  (at least, never the one I have with me!) lol!
Click to expand...


Exactly depends what your shooting. If I am doing seascapes a GND works very well. If I am in the mountains, I usually bracket and merge in post.

But if I do it well you wont be able to tell if its HDR via GND or HDR via blending in photoshop. So if you cant tell, why would it not be HDR?


----------



## cgipson1

spacefuzz said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be a complete misunderstanding what HDR is, how its achieved, or what its supposed to do. Wow after all this time. GND filter????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I dont think its a mis understanding of HDR at all.  What is HDR? High Dynamic Range. What does that mean?  Your range (luminence) is broad, usually broader than what your camera sensor can capture (NOT to be confused with tone mapping).  What do you do with an HDR scene?  You compress the dynamic range for display somewhere (digital or print).
> 
> Then does it matter how you compress your dynamic range to end up with a viewable result?  Nope.
> 
> Would a GND work for this?  Yup. A GND reduces your exposure on part of the scene so you can properly expose everything in a single shot. It is the same thing as stopping down to limit light into your camera and take a bracketed exposure.
> 
> Do they only work in certain circumstances? Yup, but so what. why would that make them non hdr?
Click to expand...


GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure.


----------



## spacefuzz

cgipson1 said:


> GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... *to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure*.



Yeah GNDs are not new. But they accomplish your statement in bold. so HDR.


----------



## cgipson1

spacefuzz said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice way to look at it.
> Q and A: Do you prefer HDR or GND Filters? | Landscape Photography by Varina Patel &#8211; eBooks, Tips, Workshops, Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both... a GND filter doesn't always provide enough range....  (at least, never the one I have with me!) lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly depends what your shooting. If I am doing seascapes a GND works very well. If I am in the mountains, I usually bracket and merge in post.
> 
> But if I do it well you wont be able to tell if its HDR via GND or HDR via blending in photoshop. So if you cant tell, why would it not be HDR?
Click to expand...


Semantics!     only the processor would know for sure. I have seen (and hopefully done) HDR's that you couldn't tell they were HDR'd! So why not call those "normal single shot exposures"?


----------



## cgipson1

spacefuzz said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... *to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah GNDs are not new. But they accomplish your statement in bold. so HDR.
Click to expand...


GND's only directly affect the highlights... HDR can actively affect both Highlights and Shadows


----------



## 480sparky




----------



## cgipson1

Get 'em Sparky!


----------



## spacefuzz

cgipson1 said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GND's existed long before HDR came about... I was using them in the early 80's for instance! I guess I think of HDR as being an exposure fusion... *to cover the areas outside of what the sensor can pickup on a single exposure*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah GNDs are not new. But they accomplish your statement in bold. so HDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GND's only directly affect the highlights... HDR can actively affect both Highlights and Shadows
Click to expand...


Yup which is why (at least how I use them) is to essentially shoot your darks (-2 EV) bracket shot with the GND on the sky. Then you compress your other exposures into that one shot. If you do it right your histogram goes from edge to edge and your perfect! Then sometimes I take the raw file and process it twice to make it even more homogeneous. But all the data in one shot can be convenient. Especially with movement. 

aka: was this GND or Bracketing?


----------



## cgipson1

spacefuzz said:


> But all the data in one shot can be convenient.



Yea.. we did that with film!   (as best we could, anyway!)


----------



## spacefuzz

480sparky said:


>





dark [ dynamic range of scene ] bright
{ range of camera }

[ dynamic range of scene ]
{ range of camera }{GND compression}

result....

[ range of scene ]
{ range of camera }

You can use your imagination for fancy graphics 

My point is just that its all about the dynamic range of the scene.  How you perform your compression is semantics.


----------



## 480sparky

spacefuzz said:


> [
> 
> dark [   dynamic range of scene              ] bright
> { range of camera    }
> 
> [ dynamic range of scene                ]
> { range of camera    }{GND compression}
> 
> result....
> 
> [ range of scene      ]
> { range of camera    }
> 
> You can use your imagination for fancy graphics



Use your fancy GND on this one:


----------



## spacefuzz

480sparky said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> dark [ dynamic range of scene ] bright
> { range of camera }
> 
> [ dynamic range of scene ]
> { range of camera }{GND compression}
> 
> result....
> 
> [ range of scene ]
> { range of camera }
> 
> You can use your imagination for fancy graphics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your fancy GND on this one:
Click to expand...


why the hostility?


----------



## 480sparky

spacefuzz said:


> why the hostility?



No hostility. I just want to see it done.

Just like I've asked several members to tonemap a single image with digital black (0:0:0) and white (255:255;255) and magically produce the details.


----------



## spacefuzz

480sparky said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> why the hostility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hostility. I just want to see it done.
Click to expand...


Ok cool.  Hard to tell tone on the internets. 



480sparky said:


> Just like I've asked several members to tonemap a single image with digital black (0:0:0) and white (255:255;255) and magically produce the details.



Well you could pump it through photomatix and make it look so garish you dont notice the blown highlights....but you cant get them back. 

Dont worry that wasnt what I was trying to say.  I was saying in circumstances when you can use a GND, you can just compress the dynamic range using that so you dont have any blown highlights or shadows in a single exposure (whereas without the filter you would). Then normal processing commences.


----------



## clanthar

I think HDR should refer to a type of photo and not a methodology. If you have a functional method that permits you to capture a scene or create a photo that contains a greater than normal dynamic range then I think you can call it HDR. My film scanner has a 48 bit setting that allows it to scan a film original in one pass and record more tonal information than the "normal" setting. Silverfast, the company that sells the software, calls that setting HDR. They were using the term HDR for at least a decade before Photomatix existed.

30 years ago in the darkroom we would take a Kodachrome original (you'd be amazed how much is really there) and place it in a special negative carrier with a piece of photochromic glass. Using a small speedlite we'd flash the neg carrier from the film side and build up a functional highlight mask in the glass (think GND that would indeed work for the bike). We made HDR prints that way.

An HDR photo exhibits an extended tone range beyond what is normally possible and can be achieved via a multitude of methods including a combination of methods.

Joe


----------



## spacefuzz

clanthar said:


> 30 years ago in the darkroom we would take a Kodachrome original (you'd be amazed how much is really there) and place it in a special negative carrier with a piece of photochromic glass. Using a small speedlite we'd flash the neg carrier from the film side and build up a functional highlight mask in the glass (think GND that would indeed work for the bike). We made HDR prints that way.



impressive!


----------



## Bynx

A GND is useless for creating an HDR image for all situations EXCEPT ONE -- if you are shooting a scene where you can exactly cover the brightest area with the GND thus reducing the exposure necessary and matching the camera settings for the darker,  correct exposure for the rest of the scene. (50% open sky 50% earth). The motorcycle example has highlights throughout the image. How does a GND cover that situation? If there is hostility being shown spacefuzz its due to stubborn ignorance. An HDR is more than just cutting down the exposure on the high end, its also increasing the exposure on the low end. Now tell us how your GND is going to cover that?


----------



## spacefuzz

Bynx said:


> A GND is useless for creating an HDR image for all situations EXCEPT ONE -- if you are shooting a scene where you can exactly cover the brightest area with the GND thus reducing the exposure necessary and matching the camera settings for the darker, correct exposure for the rest of the scene. (50% open sky 50% earth). The motorcycle example has highlights throughout the image. How does a GND cover that situation? If there is hostility being shown spacefuzz its due to stubborn ignorance. An HDR is more than just cutting down the exposure on the high end, its also increasing the exposure on the low end. Now tell us how your GND is going to cover that?



I did tell you that, but I guess you were too high on your horse to actually read my posts


----------



## clanthar

Bynx said:


> A GND is useless for creating an HDR image for all situations EXCEPT ONE -- if you are shooting a scene where you can exactly cover the brightest area with the GND thus reducing the exposure necessary and matching the camera settings for the darker,  correct exposure for the rest of the scene. (50% open sky 50% earth). The motorcycle example has highlights throughout the image. How does a GND cover that situation? If there is hostility being shown spacefuzz its due to stubborn ignorance. An HDR is more than just cutting down the exposure on the high end, its also increasing the exposure on the low end. Now tell us how your GND is going to cover that?



You're correct that a GND filter only works for landscape photos with a fairly straight horizon. It needn't be 50/50 sky/earth. Most GND filter rigs allow the filter to both rotate and move up and down. So a GND filter would also work for 15/85 sky/earth or 85/15 sky/earth or anything else in between.

As for increasing low end exposure, once the gap between the high and low ends is sufficiently compressed by the filter the exposure can be increased to include additional shadow detail -- kind of the point.

It's a limited technique and of course it wouldn't work on the bike. Just like multiple exposures wouldn't work on a flock of migrating birds. That's why it's nice that we have multiple techniques to achieve the same result when one or another variable throws in a wrench.

Joe


----------



## Compaq

Just because a scene includes both black and white pixels (in the best possible single exposure) doesn't mean that we need to bracket exposures and merge. Having black and white ares is beneficial. It adds contrast. I'm sure the motor cycle shot could work fine as a single exposure and some editing. 

Some people believe, me included, that some tone mapping can make a photo "pop". That is not to say it's needed to cover the dynamic range in the scene. Wikipedia defines HDRI as a set of techniques that can be used to allow a greater dynamic range to be displayed in the final photo. Whether that's using GND filters (which affects highlights directly and shadows in directly (allows us to expose for shadows)) or adding exposures in different layers in PS and masking in or tone mapping in Photomatix or other SW, doesn't really matter. At the end of the day whatever technique you use to allow for a greater dynamic range than your sensor can capture could be looked on as high dynamic range imaging.


----------



## Bynx

Hey folks, there are always more than one way to skin the cat. And that goes to covering the range in a given scene. A GND is so limiting why even consider it? The technique of doing multiple exposures is so simple for all HDR situations why fight it and come up with some other very less effective way to cover a limited specific situation? Spacefuzz I think the definition for you is obtuse. But thats ok. Maybe some other people will understand whats being said and come out of this with a better understanding of what exactly HDR covering is and how to do it properly.


----------



## 480sparky

So, let's hear all the possible solutions for this:


----------



## Compaq

Well, obviously, you cut holes in your ND filter to fit the windows, duh!


----------



## clanthar

Bynx said:


> Hey folks, there are always more than one way to skin the cat. And that goes to covering the range in a given scene. A GND is so limiting why even consider it?



Because it works when it works. Why exclude it?




Bynx said:


> The technique of doing multiple exposures is so simple for all HDR situations why fight it and come up with some other very less effective way to cover a limited specific situation? Spacefuzz I think the definition for you is obtuse. But thats ok. Maybe some other people will understand whats being said and come out of this with a better understanding of what exactly HDR covering is and how to do it properly.



It's October next week. The pelicans will be here soon. They migrate through in the tens of thousands -- in about 15 days. I try and get some shots but the weather doesn't always cooperate and the birds certainly don't. You have to get out on the river to get anything.

Had a bad day a couple years ago with really bad weather. Still I was there. Here's a straight out of the camera JPEG:






That overcast sky is of course a backlight and even though it's not sunny, backlight is high dynamic range. The opposite shore has green foliage and some trees starting to turn color.

Here's the same photo processed from the RAW file:







That's an HDR photo. The color and tone in the opposite shore really was there and a 16 bit RAW capture brought it home.

Your technique would be to set up a tripod in a moving jon boat -- seriously fun. Then take how many multiple exposures?

Given the circumstances we do what works. Why limit yourself? If a GND filter will work, I'll use one. You won't? A GND filter works when you have a moving subject -- multiple exposures doesn't. I've also used the multiple exposure HDR method when appropriate. I'll do whatever I can to capture a better photo.

Joe

P.S. I see no reason why spacefuzz's GND filter shouldn't be included as one of many techniques to approach HDR.


----------



## spacefuzz

Bynx said:


> Hey folks, there are always more than one way to skin the cat. And that goes to covering the range in a given scene. A GND is so limiting why even consider it? The technique of doing multiple exposures is so simple for all HDR situations why fight it and come up with some other very less effective way to cover a limited specific situation? Spacefuzz I think the definition for you is obtuse. But thats ok. Maybe some other people will understand whats being said and come out of this with a better understanding of what exactly HDR covering is and how to do it properly.



Heheh. I'm not obtuse, I just like trying to enlighten people when they are limiting themselves due to their own stubborness. Why hamstring your tool kit? GNDs are not less effective in all situations, just some (and it really depends what you shoot, I spend a lot of time shooting seascapes so GNDs work very very well. But like I said before I dont bring them to the mountains or when I'm shooting architechture). Its great to get everything in one shot, gives me a better indication of what the final image will look like and has the added bonus of allowing me to spend less time in post. But I know some poeple love post, so again it depends. 

If you want to be obtuse Bynx thats fine, its your photography....but dont insult me just because I do things a different (and equally valid) way
(and I checked out your flickr, I understand why you dont use GNDs in your HDR shots but if you ever travel to the coast keep an open mind


----------



## spacefuzz

480sparky said:


> So, let's hear all the possible solutions for this:



In camera GND based on luminosity! 

Adjustable neutral density filter ... - Google Patents

Honestly, I cant wait for something like this..... (although then everyone will have perfect images.....and there will be even more pro's!)

But sparky if I had to shoot that today? Definitely bracket and merge.


----------



## 480sparky

clanthar said:


> ......... Here's a straight out of the camera JPEG:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...........
> 
> Here's the same photo processed from the RAW file:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ............


----------



## Bynx

A GND will probably work fine as long as the highlight area all falls within the ND area. Its not that it works for most of the time. It will work for a select few times. As I said more than one way to skin a cat and Photomatix isnt the only way to achieve HDR images. Seas where you have uninterrupted sky will be good for your GND. But the concept of using multiple exposures grew out of broader range of lighting situations. Now without jumping on me and what Im saying, how about just looking at the images posted by sparky and tell me how you would handle them with your GND. Under an extremely limited lighting situation where there is no dynamic range a good exposure can be had with a single shot. But it cant be done, for example, with any of those images posted by Sparky. If it can, please enlighten us.
Clanthars bird shot doesnt have a great dynamic range. Its pretty flat actually. So simply brightening it up globally produces the final image. Not rocket science there. Under similar situation where there is fast movement to capture I would do the same....shoot raw and tone map from the raw info. And clanthar, I didnt say GND wouldnt work at all. I did say it would work under a single ideal situation.


----------



## clanthar

Bynx said:


> A GND will probably work fine as long as the highlight area all falls within the ND area. Its not that it works for most of the time. It will work for a select few times. As I said more than one way to skin a cat and Photomatix isnt the only way to achieve HDR images. Seas where you have uninterrupted sky will be good for your GND. But the concept of using multiple exposures grew out of broader range of lighting situations. Now without jumping on me and what Im saying, how about just looking at the images posted by sparky and tell me how you would handle them with your GND. Under an extremely limited lighting situation where there is no dynamic range a good exposure can be had with a single shot. But it cant be done, for example, with any of those images posted by Sparky. If it can, please enlighten us.
> Clanthars bird shot doesnt have a great dynamic range. Its pretty flat actually. So simply brightening it up globally produces the final image. Not rocket science there.



You've received multiple acknowledgements in multiple posts from multiple people that a GND filter has limited application and of course won't work on a photo like Sparky's. Why are you asking for that again? How many times do you need to hear it? And your argument in that regard has likewise been set aside. Just because a GND filter won't always work doesn't invalidate it. Your multiple exposure method won't always work either.

Now you please explain how your multiple exposure method can capture a flock of flying birds. Should I keep asking you until you answer?

And: "Clanthars bird shot doesnt have a great dynamic range. Its pretty flat  actually. So simply brightening it up globally produces the final image." You're completely wrong here. Backlighting isn't flat and globally brightening the shot would not work and that's not what I did.

If you don't want to explain how multiple exposure can work on flying birds from a moving boat then how about a moving roller coaster at the park.

Here's another example -- straight out of the camera JPEG: Exposed to hold the highlight detail in the sky.









Given the backlight sky in the background and the sun still hitting the opposite shore that's a high dynamic range.

Here's the processed photo from the single shot RAW file:







I didn't globally lighten it. It's an HDR photo from a single RAW file.

Look at the back end of the boat. Notice the water churning from the engines. The boat was moving.

Now please explain how you would HDR this with say five multiple exposures.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky

I fail to see total black (0:0:0) AND total white (255:255:255) in either the bird or the boat shots.

This means.......... the dynamic range of the image was captured in a single frame by the camera and no HDR process is even needed.

Now, once again...... I will challenge anyone_ to do the same with the image I posted._


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> I fail to see total black (0:0:0) AND total white (255:255:255) in either the bird or the boat shots.
> 
> This means.......... the dynamic range of the image was captured in a single frame by the camera and no HDR process is even needed.
> 
> Now, once again...... I will challenge anyone_ to do the same with the image I posted._




Well Sparky when you can't see you can always measure:







A look at the straight out of the camera JPEG provides clear evidence that this was a high dynamic range condition. The histogram makes that clear regardless of what your eyes can't see. As for the processed image, of course it holds the highlight -- that's the point. I made sure the exposure held the highlight -- and it does have black. A normal and/or standard photo that can be transferred to print is an 8 bit RGB file. No 8 bit capture technique could have handled the dynamic range of the above photo.

It would be impossible to recover the processed photo I posted of this boat from the camera JPEG. Therefore using a 16 bit RAW capture is a legitimate HDR technique.

This technique can't span as extreme a dynamic range as combining multiple exposures can. I would know that because I do a lot of those. That's OK. I never said it could.

Likewise spacefuzz never claimed that a GND filter could either.

A photo like the one you posted wouldn't be appropriate for this  technique or for a GND filter. Here, I'll say that again for you, A photo like the one you posted wouldn't be appropriate for this  technique or for a GND filter.

On the other hand this photo couldn't be handled with multiple exposures because the main subject is moving.

Combining multiple exposures is a terrific way to accomplish HDR. When it works it's great. All spacefuzz and I have done is point out that it's not the only way to deal with high dynamic range subjects and that it likewise has it's limitations. Spacefuzz likes seascapes. I spend a lot of time in a boat. Do you realize how dumb a tripod is in a moving boat? I nonetheless encounter high dynamic range conditions. Since the multiple exposure method is limited to static subjects/cameras only, I have to go a different route when I'm on the water. I achieve a fair degree of success doing that as I've demonstrated.

Now I'm going to say it ONE MORE TIME: You showed us a circumstance that can't be helped with either a GND filter or my method of using a 16 bit RAW capture. That's fine. We know that and we accept that. That in no way however means that we don't have legitimate methods for successfully dealing with high dynamic range conditions. We do. And as I said, I use the multiple exposure method when I can. In fact I teach it in my classes. And sure enough I always get some smart-ass student who asks, "how do you do that for sports?" I have an answer for that question.

And I want to know what you're planning to do with that bunch of antsy kids in the foreground of your photo -- hot glue them down?

Joe


----------



## 480sparky

Funny.  _Every_ histogram I've seen has the numbers 0 and 255 on 'em.


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> Funny.  _Every_ histogram I've seen has the numbers 0 and 255 on 'em.



Right, the arrows also point at the graph. Every ruler I've seen has inches marked on it too. We use rulers to measure things, that's why the inches are marked there. I put four arrows on the illustration -- two point at the numbers and two point at the graphed data. You are having trouble seeing.

Joe


----------



## mistermonday

I am not going to get into the arguments on what is HDR, value of GNDs or choose sides. However, would like to make a couple of points. It is possible to use HDR s/w as a RAW processor to produce some really good results from a single image, regardless of what you want to call the process. Given the right HDR s/w, the results can be much better than anything you can get from ACR or Lightroom.
My 2nd point is that you can process HDR from images of moving birds, boat propellers, and jumping kids. Photomatix 4.1 has a new feature which allows you to make a selection around objects in a merged set of bracketed images, then you select 1 of the source images and Photomatix will insert that area from the the chosen image and it will belnd it into the merged image. This is not the same as the deghosting during the merge - it's a new feature and it works well.  Another technique to address the motion problem is to take a normal exposure of a specific subject, allow the subject to move out of the frame, take the remaining shots in the bracketed series, and merge the subject in using the HDR s/w or subsequently in PS.  In the end, the results are what count more than how you got produced them.
Regards, Murray


----------



## 480sparky

clanthar said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  _Every_ histogram I've seen has the numbers 0 and 255 on 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the arrows also point at the graph. Every ruler I've seen has inches marked on it too. We use rulers to measure things, that's why the inches are marked there. I put four arrows on the illustration -- two point at the numbers and two point at the graphed data. You are having trouble seeing.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


I'm having no trouble at all _seeing two numbers_.  I can load a shot of a gray card, and the numbers 0 and 255 will be on the histrogram.

What I cannot see is both 0:0:0 pixels AND 255:255:255 pixels *in the image*.



Of course, I don't have the original, full-size raw image like you do.

And I will lay out the challenge YET AGAIN:  Try this with MY image.


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  _Every_ histogram I've seen has the numbers 0 and 255 on 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the arrows also point at the graph. Every ruler I've seen has inches marked on it too. We use rulers to measure things, that's why the inches are marked there. I put four arrows on the illustration -- two point at the numbers and two point at the graphed data. You are having trouble seeing.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm having no trouble at all _seeing two numbers_.  I can load a shot of a gray card, and the numbers 0 and 255 will be on the histrogram.
> 
> What I cannot see is both 0:0:0 pixels AND 255:255:255 pixels *in the image*.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I don't have the original, full-size raw image like you do.
> 
> And I will lay out the challenge YET AGAIN:  Try this with MY image.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you're trying to see. I showed you the histogram of the camera JPEG which demonstrates that both 0:0:0 pixels AND 255:255:255 pixels are in that image.

Here's the processed file and histogram:






And this proves that both 0:0:0 pixels AND 255:255:255 pixels are in that image.

==================================================================

I have already told you that this won't work with your image; I told you twice in the last post that this won't work with your image. But hey, I'm accommodating: This won't work with your image.

But that does not mean this isn't a valid HDR technique. There are multiple techniques for dealing with high dynamic range subjects. Combining multiple exposures is one and this is another and using a GND filter is yet another.

The above image had a high dynamic range, to claim otherwise is a mistake. Given that the subject was moving, a 16 bit RAW capture was a good way to deal with it and it falls into the category of HDR photography.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky

Yes, you have black in the image.  _But not much_.  Details as dark as 5:5:5 can be brought out in post.  Once you get below that, things get iffy, and no amount of processing will reveal any detail if the data is 0:0:0 or 255:255:255.  I would venture to say less than 2% of the image is below 2:2:2.

The histogram for your original shot shows it is DARK, but the bulk of the data is _well above the threshold that can be recovered_. Data in the 10:10:10 range and higher is a cakewalk, which the majority of your image is.

In short, you have captured the dynamic range of the scene in a single image, and HDR is not needed.  This is exactly what I have stated all along.  When the range is captured like this, it's just a matter of knowing how to properly PP the image data.

It has been claimed by some that no matter the range of the scene, it can be captured in a single frame if exposed properly, and recovered in post.  I have yet to see anyone actually take an image that is 30% pure black and 30% pure white and make an acceptable image out of it, however.


----------



## Bynx

Its a waste of time trying to explain things Sparky. A broad statement....Single Exposure HDR. Sure a single image is capable of capturing all the range as long as that range is limited. Under unique situations its possible for a GND to bring down the highlights to match closely the settings for the rest of the scene. I dont really understand what the point is here. Its been asked, answered, ignored and twisted around in circles. Each side of the argument says the other doesnt understand. I say, just leave them alone and let them figure it out for themselves. Meanwhile, we can continue to do what we do and get the benefits of doing it. Tone mapping a single raw file may be the best way to approximate an HDR image of movement for now. But as someone said, Photomatix has a fix for that too. No one contends there are other possible ways to create a good looking image.


----------



## mistermonday

Bynx said:


> Its a waste of time trying to explain things Sparky. A broad statement....Single Exposure HDR. Sure a single image is capable of capturing all the range as long as that range is limited. Under unique situations its possible for a GND to bring down the highlights to match closely the settings for the rest of the scene. I dont really understand what the point is here. Its been asked, answered, ignored and twisted around in circles. Each side of the argument says the other doesnt understand. I say, just leave them alone and let them figure it out for themselves. Meanwhile, we can continue to do what we do and get the benefits of doing it. Tone mapping a single raw file may be the best way to approximate an HDR image of movement for now. But as someone said, Photomatix has a fix for that too. No one contends there are other possible ways to create a good looking image.



+1, & time to retire this thread and move on.
Regards, Murray


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> The histogram for your original shot shows it is DARK, but the bulk of the data is _well above the threshold that can be recovered_. Data in the 10:10:10 range and higher is a cakewalk, which the majority of your image is.



Patently wrong. No recovery even remotely close to my processed RAW file is possible from a 8 bit capture of that towboat scene.



480sparky said:


> In short, you have captured the dynamic range of the scene in a single image, and HDR is not needed.  This is exactly what I have stated all along.  When the range is captured like this, it's just a matter of knowing how to properly PP the image data.



Well duh! That's what I've been saying isn't it. I captured most of the dynamic range in a high bit-depth RAW file. I have never said that this method captures as much data as combined multiple exposures. To claim that the lighting in the towboat shot isn't high dynamic range is flat out wrong. Is it the highest dynamic range lighting that anyone's ever seen? No, but it's well beyond the limits of normal capture with either film or a digital camera that produces an 8 bit final product. That makes it high dynamic range lighting. My final image would not be possible using either film or by editing an 8 bit camera JPEG.

Oh and once you've stacked a bunch of multiple exposures it's just a matter of knowing how to properly PP the image data. I'd call it a cakewalk.

As for Photomatix being able to handle moving subjects -- that ability is extremely limited. Imagine you have to photograph a parade late in the day. The marching band is marching toward you and three majorettes are tossing batons. They're backlit by full sun -- high dynamic range. Your method simply won't work.

You're stuck on the need to define HDR as a method that requires stacked multiple exposures. There's no reason to be so limiting. HDR should be defined by the image type and not the specific methodology.

This is right off hdrsoft's (Photomatix) website where they explain how to use a single RAW capture to create an HDR image.

==============================================

You can still use Photomatix when you have shot only one exposure in RAW mode. The big advantage, of course, is that you just need one image, so there is no need to use a tripod or to remember to auto-bracket, and it will also work if the subject is moving.
      However, the range of "workable" exposures you can get from a RAW file is limited. If you are shooting a high contrast scene, you are unlikely to match the results you would have with taking the scene under different exposures that can cover the whole dynamic range.
      There are three techniques for using Photomatix Pro with one single exposure taken in RAW mode:
·     Technique 1: Open your RAW file in Photomatix Pro to tone map it directly.
·     Technique 2: Convert your RAW file into a 16 bits/channel image in your favorite RAW converter, open it in Photomatix Pro, and tone map it.
·     Technique 3: Create two or three exposures in your RAW converter and combine them in Photomatix Pro (or Photomatix Essentials) as if they were "real" bracketed shots

=============================================

Gee!  They accept it as legit with the exact same qualifications that I detailed.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky

clanthar said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The histogram for your original shot shows it is DARK, but the bulk of the data is _well above the threshold that can be recovered_. Data in the 10:10:10 range and higher is a cakewalk, which the majority of your image is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patently wrong. No recovery even remotely close to my processed RAW file is possible from a 8 bit capture of that towboat scene.
Click to expand...


What are you saying is 'wrong'?  That my interpretation of the histo is incorrect and 50% of the original image is totally black?  If so, then show us your technique that brought out those details.  I'm sure there's a lot of big$ software companies that would love to know how you did it.



clanthar said:


> You're stuck on the need to define HDR as a method that requires stacked  multiple exposures.



Perhaps you could point out where I stated that.


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The histogram for your original shot shows it is DARK, but the bulk of the data is _well above the threshold that can be recovered_. Data in the 10:10:10 range and higher is a cakewalk, which the majority of your image is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patently wrong. No recovery even remotely close to my processed RAW file is possible from a 8 bit capture of that towboat scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you saying is 'wrong'?  That my interpretation of the histo is incorrect and 50% of the original image is totally black?  If so, then show us your technique that brought out those details.  I'm sure there's a lot of big$ software companies that would love to know how you did it.
Click to expand...


You're interpretation of the dynamic range of the original scene is wrong. You're trying to say that the original scene didn't have a high dynamic range and therefore nothing more than simple editing of the camera JPEG was necessary. That's wrong.



clanthar said:


> You're stuck on the need to define HDR as a method that requires stacked  multiple exposures.



Sorry I inferred that. So then you do agree with me. Great.

Joe

Perhaps you could point out where I stated that.[/QUOTE]


----------



## spacefuzz

480sparky said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck on the need to define HDR as a method that requires stacked multiple exposures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could point out where I stated that.
Click to expand...


Post #23 page 2


----------



## clanthar

spacefuzz said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck on the need to define HDR as a method that requires stacked multiple exposures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could point out where I stated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #23 page 2
Click to expand...


Thanks sapcefuzz.


----------



## 480sparky

So the alternative would be............?


----------



## spacefuzz

480sparky said:


> So the alternative would be............?



lol, read posts 1-61


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> So the alternative would be............?




This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:







If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.

If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.

=====================================================

This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:







Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.

There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky

spacefuzz said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the alternative would be............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, read posts 1-61
Click to expand...


----------



## 480sparky

clanthar said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the alternative would be............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.
> 
> If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.
> 
> =====================================================
> 
> This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.
> 
> There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Uh.... you have, once again, *captured the dynamic range of the scene IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE*.  You didn't extend the camera's dynamic range one, single bit.

To state, "Hey lookie here.... an 8-bit jpeg with lots of contrast in it!  See what I can do with the 14-bit raw?" is meaningless.

Now once again, I will ask you what your solution would be to a situation where the range of the scene exceeds the camera's capacity....even in  a raw file?


----------



## clanthar

480sparky said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the alternative would be............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.
> 
> If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.
> 
> =====================================================
> 
> This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.
> 
> There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... you have, once again, *captured the dynamic range of the scene IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE*.  You didn't extend the camera's dynamic range one, single bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HDR isn't about taking photos that exceed the dynamic range of a specific piece of hardware. It's about taking better photos of high dynamic range lighting conditions that have historically challenged film and continue to challenge digital capture which must ultimately answer to the dynamic range of the final print. 8 bit RGB files were developed to match the dynamic range of the output media -- print. HDR is any of a collection of methods that can capture lighting contrast that historically exceeds those limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> To state, "Hey lookie here.... an 8-bit jpeg with lots of contrast in it!  See what I can do with the 14-bit raw?" is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to any photographer who shoots film or who shoots camera JPEGs. You know well from reading this forum that the majority of photographers do not shoot RAW files.
> 
> As the RAW file was capable of producing an image superior to anything the 8 bit JPEG could produce your claim of meaningless is just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now once again, I will ask you what your solution would be to a situation where the range of the scene exceeds the camera's capacity....even in  a raw file?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would do what I always do and take multiple exposures and combine them. I'm quite comfortable with that method as I teach it regularly in college classes. And now you explain how that would work with the bike race and we can quit.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


----------



## 480sparky

clanthar said:


> ......... And now you explain how that would work with the bike race and we can quit.
> 
> Joe



Did I ever claim you could?


I'm getting dizzy now from running around in circles. Pardon me while I spin a couple more times then puke.


----------



## spacefuzz

What everyone here needs to realize is that there is no ISO 9001 style standard for what constitutes HDR for photography. Is is an image that exceeds an 8 bit jpeg?  Is it how much range my Nikon D7000 sensor can capture?  What about your canon camera with a different chip in it, it can capture a different dynamic range.  Does that mean whats HDR on your camera isnt on mine?  Is it some measure related to the human eye?  Is it compared to what you could get out of color film? B&W film? what can be printed? but ahhh what ink and what paper?

There is NO standard definition of what HDR is....and what it isnt. Just please keep that in mind when making arguments that some photo doesnt qualify.


----------



## mistermonday

clanthar said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the alternative would be............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.
> 
> If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.
> 
> =====================================================
> 
> This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.
> 
> There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Racing Photo snipped:

The correct term for the scene is High Contrast (HDR refers to the captured / processed image). Your camera managed to capture the entire dynamic range. Retaining the sensor data in a 12 or 14 bit RAW file (14 bit is the actual max rsolution possible in today's Analog/Digital converters) has allowed you using a RAW processor (which in this case is an HDR application as opposed to ACR or Lightroom or other) to maintain max detail and post process the file into a good looking image. You have not actually extended the range of the original NEF since all of the data was captured in a single exposure. If the contrast of the scene had been much higher and had greatly exceeded the capture range of your camera's sensor, you would have a problem.  So now you are probably saying "well those who bracket are also screwed".  There is another option. Set up a tripod. Set up for bracketed exposures. Meter on the cyclists and fire off the first shot. Let all the cyclists go by until only the background remains. Fire off the rest of the bracketed exposure. Merge and tonemap the bracketed set without the cyclists, tonemap the single cyclist image, overlay in PS and blend the two layers. I do this most of the time when people are prime subjects as they do not always do well when run subjected to tonemappers.
Regards, Murray


----------



## clanthar

mistermonday said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the alternative would be............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is high dynamic range lighting. The sun is shining directly on the background and the foreground is shaded. It is a textbook case of high dynamic range lighting. (Please note: It is not the ultimate highest dynamic range lighting possible). Straight out of the camera JPEG:
> 
> 
> If you want to argue that the above is not high dynamic range lighting you're just wrong.
> 
> If you want to argue that this photo would be easy to recover with a little PP from the 8 bit camera JPEG that you see above you're just wrong.
> 
> =====================================================
> 
> This is an HDR image processed from the high bit depth RAW capture of the above photo. It qualifies as one form of accepted HDR processing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the specific circumstances of this photo, a single RAW capture was the best choice alternative. They're moving 30 mph. Assuming you had your tripod in the right place, you wouldn't get off your second bracket before they were out of the frame. Photomatix's new movement feature would be rendered moot.
> 
> There's multiple ways to deal with High Dynamic Range lighting. They're not all equal and each has it's advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racing Photo snipped:
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> The correct term for the scene is High Contrast (HDR refers to the captured / processed image).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to call it high contrast.
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your camera managed to capture the entire dynamic range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it didn't, but it got a whopping good piece of it.
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retaining the sensor data in a 12 or 14 bit RAW file (14 bit is the actual max rsolution possible in today's Analog/Digital converters) has allowed you using a RAW processor (which in this case is an HDR application as opposed to ACR or Lightroom or other) to maintain max detail and post process the file into a good looking image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say I used an HDR application -- then I must have made an HDR image just like the folks at hdrsoft say it can be. Thanks! That's all I'm saying.
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not actually extended the range of the original NEF since all of the data was captured in a single exposure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is what I've been saying all along. I have never claimed that I extend the range of my original RAW capture. I'd have to take multiple exposures to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the contrast of the scene had been much higher and had greatly exceeded the capture range of your camera's sensor, you would have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely, again something I have said all through this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are probably saying "well those who bracket are also screwed".  There is another option. Set up a tripod. Set up for bracketed exposures. Meter on the cyclists and fire off the first shot. Let all the cyclists go by until only the background remains. Fire off the rest of the bracketed exposure. Merge and tonemap the bracketed set without the cyclists, tonemap the single cyclist image, overlay in PS and blend the two layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who bracket would have been screwed. This was a fast action sports event. This wasn't a good shot but it was good for this illustration so I used it. To get a couple good shots of an event like this you have to shoot a lot. Setting up a tripod during a sports event attended by thousands and then trying to catch a bracket set through a scene without moving people is as silly as the earlier example of setting up a tripod in a moving boat. I take a lot of photos from a moving boat and those who bracket would be screwed.
> 
> Since what I was able to do with a single capture RAW file worked in this case (I knew it would) it was the most efficient and effective choice for the type of photo.
> 
> 
> 
> mistermonday said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do this most of the time when people are prime subjects as they do not always do well when run subjected to tonemappers.
> Regards, Murray
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been familiar with the term HDR for a long time now; from way  before the existence of any kind of HDR software that could combine  multiple exposures. I'm aware of that technique and I use it. I'm also  well aware that high contrast lighting conditions have always existed.  That those lighting conditions strained and indeed broke the limits of  what was possible with film and what is possible with 8 bit digital  capture -- what the vast majority of people with digital cameras do today. From the day photography was born we've looked for methods to  deal with high contrast light and extend our reach. High Dynamic Range  Imaging should not refer exclusively to methods that require the  stacking of multiple exposures. Hdrsoft doesn't think so. Silverfast  doesn't think so. Spacefuzz doesn't think so and neither do I. That's all. When you can't run a bracket set (keep thinking moving boat) there are still effective things you can do to handle high contrast and even extreme high contrast lighting. And if you succeed it's appropriate to call the final result an HDR image. An HDR image is a successful photo of a scene in very high contrast light that doesn't look like a scene in very high contrast light. It is not exclusively a photo from stacked multiple exposures.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


----------



## mistermonday

Clanthar wrote: "So you say I used an HDR application -- then I must have made an HDR  image just like the folks at hdrsoft say it can be. Thanks! That's all  I'm saying".
I am not sure exactly how the HDRSoft people market it, but what you are actually doing is using the tone mapping module of Photomatix (or for that matter other HDR apps) to process the RAW or JPG image much like you would in ACR and Lightroom and Photoshop. You have not created an HDR image because the dynamic range is the same as the source image. You have just redistributed the tones. If you wish to call that an HDR image, the semantics are up to you. Frankly this entire thread is really pointless as it has generated useless bickering among those who understand the processes going on and probably serves to confuse those who don't. I suggest we all find more constructive contributions to this forum.
Regards, Murray


----------



## clanthar

mistermonday said:


> Clanthar wrote: "So you say I used an HDR application -- then I must have made an HDR  image just like the folks at hdrsoft say it can be. Thanks! That's all  I'm saying".
> I am not sure exactly how the HDRSoft people market it, but what you are actually doing is using the tone mapping module of Photomatix (or for that matter other HDR apps) to process the RAW or JPG image much like you would in ACR and Lightroom and Photoshop. You have not created an HDR image because the dynamic range is the same as the source image. You have just redistributed the tones.





mistermonday said:


> If you wish to call that an HDR image, the semantics are up to you.



Yes I do, and I'm completely comfortable accepting responsibility for the semantics.



mistermonday said:


> Frankly this entire thread is really pointless as it has generated useless bickering among those who understand the processes going on and probably serves to confuse those who don't. I suggest we all find more constructive contributions to this forum.
> Regards, Murray



I agree it's time for this to end. I reject a definition of an HDR image as exclusively produced by stacking multiple exposures. Other options exist. That's the bottom line in this thread. When I laid out that bottom line earlier I got a denial, but that really is it. There's a group here who insist that if you're not combining multiple exposures the result can't be called an HDR image. Fair enough, I will not agree to that because my definition is focused on the end result and not the method. I have a different working definition and I'm not alone. Here's an ancient screen shot of Silverfast scan software:






Their definition of HDR matches mine. Google search "single RAW HDR" and you'll get scores of tutorials and articles and a years worth of reading. I've already posted HDRsoft's FAQ that agrees with my definition as well. I'm happy with that.

Joe


----------



## DiskoJoe

mangtarn said:


> So i was looking around on deviantart and saw this post Warmth by =IvanAndreevich on deviantART it looks absolutely amazing. in the description it said "Noise reduction + distortion correction + HDR techniques from a single jpeg exposure." any ideas how you can get an HDR from a single jpeg?



With photomatix you can use a single raw file to do an hdr. It is not quite as nice as using 3-5 images but it can come out nicely if you know how to adjust the photo settings.


----------

