12-12-07 – Farktography Classic: HDR 2 – Page 3 – Its not photography, its Farktography

This topic has 57 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by Mr.BobDobalita.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 58 total)

← 1 2 3 4 →

Author

Posts
December 4, 2007 at 5:08 am #14131

U-Man
Participant

So I tried to do this HDR thing for the first time this weekend. It’s harder than it looks. Actually, it’s probably about as hard as it looks. So far, I’ve got crap and funny looking crap.

However, I reeeaaally like some of the images I’ve seen while researching the topic. It intrigues the artistic side of me as well as the geeky me.

chakalakasp, I enjoyed the slap down you put on that Pete Carr guy in the comments section or your article. I will say though, I kinda like the unrealistic look to some of his stuff. Sort of a painting/photo hybrid. Evidently, galleries all over Liverpool do too. (haughty pyup, pyup, pyup…)

I’ll keep working at it. Again, thanks to Farktography in general (and especially the Mods) for pushing me out of the house with camera in hand. It is highly unlikely that I would even know what HDR is without you guys; let alone try to do it.

December 4, 2007 at 1:24 pm #14132

Mr.BobDobalita
Participant

I was surprized with how easy it is to do…. I was dismayed with how difficult it is to do WELL. 😀 I will keep practicing and maybe I’ll come up with something…

awww… here’s my first try… what crap! lol

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x212/bobdobalita/my-first-hdr-small.gif

Also, I don’t want to hear about the color of my walls.. I’m trying to get the motivation to paint!!! hehe

sorry Mr.BobDobalita. I had to turn your inlined imaged into a link – it really was too wide and hosed the display of the thread. Nothing personal – schnee.

December 4, 2007 at 3:26 pm #14133

schnee
Participant

My big confusion with HDR is how to actually demo “high dynamic range”. Detail in the shadows and highlights. The stuff that I’ve done doesn’t seem to reveal the HDR-ness. For example, this image:

is HDR, but it is also “meh”.

Same image, with better tone mapping:

not quite so “meh”, but that’s because of the tonemapping, not the inherent HDR. I’m thinking that I need more than three exposures to really get the HDR-ness into the image.

(my Flickr stream will get you to larger versions of the images)

December 4, 2007 at 3:42 pm #14134

U-Man
Participant

That tone mapped image is very un-meh. I can look online tonight (after work) – but does anyone have a tone mapping tutorial that they would like to share?

/Not looking to delegate the research, just looking for input.
//OK. I’m looking to delegate the research a little.

December 4, 2007 at 4:00 pm #14135

corsec67
Participant

One thing that is easy to overlook is that you can adjust the range that Qtpfsgui will do the HDR over after you have loaded the images and before you start the tonemapping. Some images require that you stretch (or compress) that range before you start the tonemapping. The histogram above the unprocessed hdr also shows the “to process” range, which you can change via the menu.

In this picture, the contrast range is so high between the bars and the rocks at the end of the tunnel that I had to expand the range quite a bit before any of the tonemapping tools would work at all on it, and even then they aren’t very good. Part of the problem here is the incredible DOF I would need to get both parts in focus, but I did my best there.

flickr page

This made a big difference in some of my pictures, but less contrasty pictures might not need any tweaking.

December 4, 2007 at 4:04 pm #14136

schnee
Participant

Thanks U-Man. The ubiquitous qtfpsgui provides lots of tonemap operators. I’ve found that a layered combination of the outputs of two operators give me the best approach.

Generally, I like the default output of the “Mantiuk” operator for the base layer. I look at Fattal as a “saturation” operator and, in Photoshop, use a Fattal layer as a 70% overlay on top of the Mantiuk base layer.

Fattal is a bit hard to work with – it changes based on the output pixel size. That is, settings that “look good” for a 400×600 image will not look the same as for a 1200×1600 (using the same source image). As I increase the output pixel dimensions, I need to increase Fattal’s beta operator. That’s about all I know.

I do like tonemapping – I’m not a Photoshop guru and find that tonemapping can give me interesting results without having to muck with a lot of layer masks in the digital image editor.

December 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm #14137

Elsinore
Keymaster

I always thought that what the rules meant is that if you have to select a location on the image for a tool that it definitely isn’t allowed, but if you apply the tool to the entire image evenly that it is mostly OK, so Levels, USM, noise-reduction, etc. are OK. Blending two different images would probably be the exception that really isn’t allowed.

The HDR contests relax that last restriction in that images with the same composition but different exposures can be blended together with any tools.

At least, that is how I interpret the rules.

Just for point of information, the “layers blending” schnee and I were referring to wasn’t so much about blending two different images as setting different types of blending for your adjustment layers. For normal Farktography rules, you may use adjustment layers, but you must use normal mode to combine them as opposed to things like dodge/burn, dissolve, etc. For the HDR theme, however, it’s acceptable to use different blending techniques.

December 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm #14138

U-Man
Participant

😯

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

qtfpsgui….mantiuk…..fattal….beta operator….

Foreign language. Must learn more.

😯

December 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm #14139

schnee
Participant

qtfpsgui….mantiuk…..fattal….beta operator….

Tone Mapping, via Wikipedia. Footnote 2 is the Fattal algorithm and Footnote 3 is Mantiuk.

December 4, 2007 at 10:06 pm #14140

Mr.BobDobalita
Participant

schnee no prob man.. I would have done it myself once I saw it was fubared, but I had already taken a couple of min to resize from the 45 mb picture (used 6 different exposures) and also had to convert to .gif… anyways, I was too lazy to fire photochop back up.. thanks for the hand.

YEah, my picture didn’t look all that special too… I”m going to try some of the tone mapping and messing with the curves… we’ll see how it goes. Me thinks it’s going to be a lot of experimenting to get the desired effect. For the record, I like the tone mapped bridge picture..

I still havn’t figured out the entire point of HDR… but it seems like in order to use the benefits of it, one must be taking a picture where it is needed. If you’re taking a shot of something that can be properly exposed in one shot, then the HDR isn’t necessary… it’s needed for the ‘impossible’ shots where you physically cannot properly expose the shot without having blown highlights, or huge shadows…

That’s the point, right???

Therefore, my crappy picture inside at my comptuer desk (which is in need of cleaning) was a picture that I could have probably gotten in one shot… I need to take pictures out of the window while it’s dark inside or something… I also need a tripod.

December 5, 2007 at 10:16 am #14141

Flavivirus
Participant

Back from a 3 week Asia trip, can’t wait to contribute 😀 I have some pretty striking HDR’s ready to go.

If you do love HDR, I highly recommend using Photomatix, it’s worth the money if you can afford. The open source one (I can never remember it’s name) you guys are referencing is fantastic too, especially for the money… but Photomatix can really pop out an image.

December 5, 2007 at 8:51 pm #14142

schnee
Participant

I still havn’t figured out the entire point of HDR… but it seems like in order to use the benefits of it, one must be taking a picture where it is needed. If you’re taking a shot of something that can be properly exposed in one shot, then the HDR isn’t necessary… it’s needed for the ‘impossible’ shots where you physically cannot properly expose the shot without having blown highlights, or huge shadows…

That’s the point, right???

I think so, but it turns out that “nature” almost always has more dynamic range than what our imaging technology can capture. I put down some words on HDR. Less of a “how-to” and more of a “how-come”.

December 5, 2007 at 9:34 pm #14143

Mr.BobDobalita
Participant

I still havn’t figured out the entire point of HDR… but it seems like in order to use the benefits of it, one must be taking a picture where it is needed. If you’re taking a shot of something that can be properly exposed in one shot, then the HDR isn’t necessary… it’s needed for the ‘impossible’ shots where you physically cannot properly expose the shot without having blown highlights, or huge shadows…

That’s the point, right???

I think so, but it turns out that “nature” almost always has more dynamic range than what our imaging technology can capture. I put down some words on HDR. Less of a “how-to” and more of a “how-come”.

Cool… interesting read.

December 13, 2007 at 2:30 am #14144

FutherMucker
Participant

I look on HDR similar as I look on infrared. What human eye is not possible to see in real, photography techniques can allow it. We have certain spectrum that is possible with our eyes, and certain DOF. To see it is to look on magic world that go beyond our ability. Sneaky peek to other views. Nice !

December 13, 2007 at 4:33 am #14145

corsec67
Participant

I look on HDR similar as I look on infrared. What human eye is not possible to see in real, photography techniques can allow it. We have certain spectrum that is possible with our eyes, and certain DOF. To see it is to look on magic world that go beyond our ability. Sneaky peek to other views. Nice !

Then what about an IR HDR:
flickr

Yeah, it amazes me when I do a 30-second exposure at f/fast, where the camera make it look almost like day, in the middle of the night. That always amazes me. (30 seconds/iso 400/f/1.4 would make a very dark night look like day)
Author

Posts