Old 08-26-2008, 04:23 AM   #26
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Thank you.

No problem, Jim. Simply trying to inform the uninformed.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 10:04 AM   #27
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
I have always been under the impression this was an HDR shot, but then again it could be a RAW that was separated into three exposures and combined as was mentioned. I have certainly never seen lighting like that before but then again I've never been to the UK!
Image © Alan-Crotty
PhotoID: 214116
Photograph © Alan-Crotty


As for the orginal question: Are HDR RR shots being accepted? Well, yes and no. No, they aren't technically in the realm of what would be accepted as it violates the manipulated 'guidelines' (HA!) but then again, if it is doen the RIGHT way meaning one wouldn't be able to tell that is actually an HDR shot. My guess would be that there are some that have been accepted but the majority of people who would actually try would fail. I could be wrong but if they were a good enough photographer they wouldn't need to fiddle with HDRs in the first place.

As has been pointed out elsewhere this cannot be true HDR (unless Alan asked everyone to stand stock still for a few seconds). Perhaps Alan can confirm, but I suspect it is from a single RAW file exposure, but with careful layer masking applied to adjust levels, contrast and saturation in the various areas of the scene.
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 02:35 PM   #28
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Stock Still?

Now Steve,

You know how speedy those PWay chaps are! So no time to create three separate exposures.

Single raw file, used to create three densities of images, combined in ReDynamix.

Redynamix can be used as a pseudo HDR/tone mapping programme or a true one depending on what you feed it.

Now, I was not going to get involved in this discussion as it started to get a bit acrimonious, but since you asked me to join in here's my tuppence worth.

Janusz said

"What is not HDR is to take the same raw file, process it twice, once in a dark version and once in a light version, and then combine those two images in a way which captures a larger dynamic range. And that is what Jim complains about."

Where does it say that high dynamic range has to be created from three separate individual exposures?

If by using a raw file I can create the illusion of three (or more) exposures then what is wrong with that?

The final result, the photo you see clearly has a dynamic range greater than the camera, under 'normal' processing can achieve. Play with words if you like and call it extended dynamic range ...

The range of tones is higher than 'normal' so... High Dynamic Range.

The issue with many HDR programmes is that they make the image look 'wrong'.

I've stopped using Redynamix as it pushes up the saturation, increases noise and the result looks a bit odd.

I agree with some previous posters, the result should, (for me) look like something the human eye can relate.

The shot at the crossing is too saturated, but the way I saw the light density is very much like it has been reproduced, very weird light that day, wet too.

Andrew said

"I could be wrong but if they were a good enough photographer they wouldn't need to fiddle with HDRs in the first place."

Andrew, how would you suggest we deal with subjects that are beyond the dynamic range of a camera say 7 f stops?

We could and do use graduated filters, but these have limitations as they usually have a straight edge end to the grad.

We could do the same as we did in the darkroom, dodging and shading.

Whilst the dynamic range of the human eye is generally considered to be 6.5 f stops, accommodation both chemical and 'mechanical' gives us about 20f stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Dynamic_range

Currently no film or sensor can offer that.

Comparison of dynamic range of sensor, slide film and colour neg film.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

To truly approach 20 f stops, we would need to take multiple exposures as said by Jim.

However by multiple processing of a single raw file we can recover a few f stops (+/- 2 f stops) either side of the range produced by the camera if outputting to a .jpg file.

For the sake of semantics we could call this psuedo HDR.

Jim doing multiple exposures, not too easy with a moving subject and using appropriate processing would be able to produce 'true' HDR.

In the end perhaps we should be more concerned with capturing the image 'as we saw it' using all the skills, hardware and process we have at our disposal.

If that means, for moving subjects psuedo HDR, well hats fine by me, at least we would have detail in shadows and highlights without the image going to flat.

Most of all we should just enjoy our photography and the sharing of our pictures.

Alan

Last edited by alan-crotty; 08-26-2008 at 03:22 PM. Reason: spelling
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 02:54 PM   #29
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alan-crotty
Where does it say that high dynamic range has to be created from three separate individual exposures?

If by using a raw file I can create the illusion of three (or more) exposures then what is wrong with that?

The final result, the photo you see clearly has a dynamic range greater than the camera, under 'normal' processing can achieve. Play with words if you like and call it extended dynamic range ...

...

For the sake of semantics we could call this psuedo HDR.
It says so on various websites I looked at, searching for the "proper" definition of HDR, after reading Jim's complaints about the use of the term.

I have no problem with the use of the technique (might quibble or complain about some of the results), of extending dynamic range, or for that matter of using the term HDR for single-raw-file manipulations. But the term has apparently come to mean multiple-file combinations.

"Pseudo-HDR" is an excellent alternative and I will henceforth use it until the members of this forum and others come to my home, drag me out of my house, and tar and feather me.

Well, only after the great linguist and semanticist Jim Thias conveys his official approval in this forum.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 02:58 PM   #30
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Thanks Alan - the sign of excellent post processing when you can't tell exactly what technique was used.

I'm curious with regards to the pseudo HDR processing of the single RAW image.

I find that when processing a RAW image in Photoshop (brought in as an uncompressed TIFF as I'm using PS 7) I can bring out the shadow detail or tone down blown highlights to reveal details that still exist in the RAW file simply by creating a suitable adjustment layer in the desired location for levels, and then blurring the layer mask to blend the change into the rest of the shot. Do you find that the pseudo HDR method recovers even more dynamic range, or is it just easier than layer masking ?
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr

Last edited by Wizzo; 08-26-2008 at 03:03 PM.
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 03:11 PM   #31
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Many ways

Steve,

There are many ways to darken/lighten areas in a photo.

I don't think any one way is best, it's what works best for you.

my current favorite is to use 'pseudo hdr' or exposure blending using TuFuse.

TuFuse Pro is a Windows "Image Fusion" program that can be used to create extended depth of field ("focus blended") images, extended exposure range ("exposure blended") images, and other types of composite images. TuFuse uses a technique known as Image Fusion to combine the "best" (e.g. best exposed and/or best focused and/or most saturated, etc.) regions of multiple images into a single "fused" composite image.

I've mentioned this quite a bit in another thread recently.

The advantage I see over layer masking is I don't get to have to work hard at blending edges, TuFuse does it for me.

Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 03:21 PM   #32
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Pseudo HDR

Hi Janusz,

Those good folk over at Tabaware, http://www.tawbaware.com/index.html have a good name for it too.

Exposure Blended Extended Range... EBER ??

Doesn't have the same ring to it as HDR though

TuFuse Pro is a Windows "Image Fusion" program that can be used to create extended depth of field ("focus blended") images, extended exposure range ("exposure blended") images, and other types of composite images. TuFuse uses a technique known as Image Fusion to combine the "best" (e.g. best exposed and/or best focused and/or most saturated, etc.) regions of multiple images into a single "fused" composite image.


Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 03:29 PM   #33
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alan-crotty
Those good folk over at Tabaware, http://www.tawbaware.com/index.html
Thanks, Alan. There is a freeware version of TuFuse that I will give a try sometime, looks interesting.

I tried a different freeware pseudo HDR program (aha, I'm using the new term already, without hardly thinking about it!) but the results were poor, comparable to some of the results discussed here or even worse.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 04:04 PM   #34
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default TuFuse

Hi Janusz

You'll find Tufuse much more gentle in it's action, no Leery colours and very little noise issues.

I'd be interested to see your results.

If done well, we won't see the joins

The Freeware is OK , just drag your files onto the .exe.

Pro is good value if you like tweaking, the freeware has no tweaks and does a good job.

Alan

Last edited by alan-crotty; 08-26-2008 at 04:52 PM. Reason: spelling
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 05:14 PM   #35
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alan-crotty
Where does it say that high dynamic range has to be created from three separate individual exposures?
Because that is the defintion. And it doesn't have to be three...it can be many more than that (I've done as many as 5 exposures).

Quote:
If by using a raw file I can create the illusion of three (or more) exposures then what is wrong with that?
There is nothing "wrong" with it if that's a technique that you want to use, but where you are "wrong" is to refer to it as an HDR image. Overexposing an existing RAW image is NOT the same as overexposing in a camera.


Quote:
The issue with many HDR programmes is that they make the image look 'wrong'.
That's neither here nor there in relation to this discussion. Many of those HDR images that look "wrong" have to do with human error.

I know some of you may just say it's semantics, but if you're going to throw around a technical term for something you've produced, it's probably a good idea if you actually used the correct technique in order to achieve that finished product. And using three files from one RAW image to produce a final image is NOT the correct technique to producing a high dynamic range image.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 11:39 PM   #36
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Built in HDR?

Jim,

I found this on a photographic forum where there has been much debate about any new Canon cameras that may appear at Photokina.

As you may know, in some folks eyes Canon are not best at responding to customer needs and often say that features added to their cameras are the subject of research of the customer base.

Though you may appreciate it in view of the afore going discussion,it is based on a spoof interview between a photo mag and a Canon rep.

PP: Will you be including any post production capability in the camera for people that want to process their RAW files without waiting until they get home to their computer?

Canon: Absolutely. We have included a new panorama mode that allows the users to crop the top and bottom of the picture before they print or fax it. We have also included a special HDR processing mode!

PP: So that will automatically combine several exposures to create a single image with a greater dynamic range?

Canon: Huh? No, not that kind of HDR. This mode will oversaturate the colors, apply extreme transitions between dark and light areas, and make the pictures look garish. That is what our research has shown people use HDR software for.

Well it made me smile.

HDR Is of course an abbreviation

Keep Well

Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 02:24 AM   #37
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,850
Default



Good find, Alan.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 05:52 AM   #38
Slopes09
Senior Member
 
Slopes09's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here.
Posts: 837
Send a message via AIM to Slopes09
Default

Here's another HDR shot in the database.
Image © Nick Suydam
PhotoID: 194009
Photograph © Nick Suydam
__________________
-Mike W.
Railroad Civil Engineer

Pretty much the only Pentax Shooter.

Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Slopes09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 01:56 PM   #39
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slopes09
Here's another HDR shot in the database.
Another? Was there already one mentioned that I missed?

Now THAT one looks like an HDR image. The others "psuedo" ones, not so much.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 09:46 PM   #40
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Interesting responses. Here's an HDR shot I did a few weeks back of a train holding on a red signal. The same shot under normal exposure/single shot was terrible.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2300_1_2.jpg
Views:	200
Size:	458.8 KB
ID:	3304  
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 10:25 PM   #41
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalrailfan
Interesting responses. Here's an HDR shot I did a few weeks back of a train holding on a red signal. The same shot under normal exposure/single shot was terrible.
And that one is quite terrible as well, I'm afraid.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 10:32 PM   #42
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
And that one is quite terrible as well, I'm afraid.
It may be, but on the other hand it is also really cool! Not RP material, but a really interesting effect.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2008, 12:08 AM   #43
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
And that one is quite terrible as well, I'm afraid.
It is a nice shot, if the sky wasn't so dark, it may have something.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2008, 02:02 AM   #44
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalrailfan
Interesting responses. Here's an HDR shot I did a few weeks back of a train holding on a red signal. The same shot under normal exposure/single shot was terrible.
Holy halos and bright backgrounds, batman!
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2008, 02:45 AM   #45
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Believe it or not this photo has gotten a lot of kudos on photography forums, but it is not an RP.net photo by any means. If you saw the original photo it would not even be worth looking at. That's why I now like HDR photos. Think outside the box!
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2008, 02:48 AM   #46
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

If you sent me the RAW, I'm sure we could reach a compromise
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2008, 02:58 AM   #47
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Email address? and it will be 3 big files!
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2008, 07:15 AM   #48
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Here's my take on it, trying to be faithful to life as much as possible, but I'm not entirely satisfied.
Maybe if I get home early from work sometime...
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2008, 11:30 PM   #49
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Considering that there is sunshine in the background, I can't help but wonder why Dave didn't just wait till the sun shined on the train rather than bother with a HDR.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 05:57 PM   #50
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Because I was after an HDR shot, experimenting. It's something new to me, the chance to balance and unbalanced shot to me was more interesting than the trian shot itself. Once I learn the program more I will be better at it. I like the way HDR looks real yet surreal.
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.