HDR images question

-keevill- wrote:

I’m playing around with HDR imaging and I can produce quite interesting images which I can only view in Photoshop. Is it not possible to view them in another software which most folks will have if I want to give them out to people?

The idea of HDR is that it is only an intermediate format. After you’ve created your HDR file, convert it to 16 bits TIFF or 8 bits TIFF. During that conversion you can play with the way the conversion is done. That is what makes HDR so useful.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

"-keevill-" wrote in message

I’m playing around with HDR imaging and I can produce quite interesting images which I can only view in Photoshop. Is it not possible to view them in another software which most folks will have if I want to give them out to people?

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html

http://gl.ict.usc.edu/HDRShop/

Lookup tone mapping as well.

I do not find that Photoshop does at all well with HDR.

Also, shoot raw mode.

The HDR technology in Adobe Photoshop CS2 is "experimental" at least according to Adobe. Since very few image editor or viewers support 32-bit images you will need to convert them to 16-bit or 8-bit.

HDR in Photoshop CS2 also isn’t very flexible. For example it will not let you use a RAW file that was adjusted for 3 separate exposures. Adobe says that the reason for this is that none of the 3 derivatives of the single RAW image contain any more or less data than the original RAW file. Those using a single RAW file adjusted for 3 exposure ranges doesn’t provide the needed data for a true HDR image. The reason being is that the HDR software sees all of the data even if they human using the computer doesn’t.

Now other programs (links were supplied in other messages on this) do allow this to use a single RAW file exposed for three different images. Personally, I am going to put my stock in Adobe when it comes to these being a true HDR image. What I don’t agree with is their stance that using a single RAW file to get the 3 or more images doesn’t provide you with a finished HDR image that is better than a single TIFF or JPG image from the camera. I have done enough experiments with this to know that it does. I also know that I think all HDR images look fake so I am not a big fan of the technology.

R

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

Now other programs (links were supplied in other messages on this) do allow this to use a single RAW file exposed for three different images. Personally, I am going to put my stock in Adobe when it comes to these being a true HDR image. What I don’t agree with is their stance that using a single RAW file to get the 3 or more images doesn’t provide you with a finished HDR image that is better than a single TIFF or JPG image from the camera. I have done enough experiments with this to know that it does. I also know that I think all HDR images look fake so I am not a big fan of the technology.

The same arguments were made about digital image manipulation when that first started to appear. Many people claimed that all manipulated images were clearly fake. The reality was that they only recognised the fake ones, and didn’t even know that many of the other images they saw daily were also manipulated to some extend. HDR is nothing more and nothing less than an image with a higher dynamic range than our present-day cameras can capture. Because our eyes *can* capture this higher dynamic range, I don’t see any reason why an HDR image should have to look fake. They may often look fake now, because the technology isn’t matured enough. Or because you only recognise the bad ones.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

I am not talking about any form of editing or even making an HDR image. What I am saying is that all HDR images I have seen look like they are either paintings or have been rendered in a 3D modeling program. They look fake, that is not to say they are, but they look it and that is why I am not a big fan of HDR. The last thing I really want to do is make any image look fake. Be it fake or not.

R

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

Now other programs (links were supplied in other messages on this) do allow
this to use a single RAW file exposed for three different images. Personally, I am going to put my stock in Adobe when it comes to these being
a true HDR image. What I don’t agree with is their stance that using a single RAW file to get the 3 or more images doesn’t provide you with a finished HDR image that is better than a single TIFF or JPG image from the
camera. I have done enough experiments with this to know that it does. I also know that I think all HDR images look fake so I am not a big fan of the
technology.

The same arguments were made about digital image manipulation when that first started to appear. Many people claimed that all manipulated images were clearly fake. The reality was that they only recognised the fake ones, and didn’t even know that many of the other images they saw daily were also manipulated to some extend. HDR is nothing more and nothing less than an image with a higher dynamic range than our present-day cameras can capture. Because our eyes *can* capture this higher dynamic range, I don’t see any reason why an HDR image should have to look fake. They may often look fake now, because the technology isn’t matured enough. Or because you only recognise the bad ones.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

I am not talking about any form of editing or even making an HDR image. What I am saying is that all HDR images I have seen look like they are either paintings or have been rendered in a 3D modeling program. They look fake, that is not to say they are, but they look it and that is why I am not a big fan of HDR. The last thing I really want to do is make any image look fake. Be it fake or not.

And I’m saying that this is not necessarily so. I repeat what I said earlier: an HDR image is nothing more than an image with higher dynamic range than a digital camera can capture. There is absolutely no reason at all why an HDR image should look the way you describe, but they often do because people do not know how to use HDR properly and because some of the tools are still rather crude.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Well, then apparently at least for now they do look and are as I described. It doesn’t matter if it is user error or the lack of poor software options for adjusting. The fact remains what I said is accurate. Now if things continue and improve with HDR technology I will certainly take a look and I am always open to changing my mind. So there is nothing wrong with what I have said. As there is nothing wrong with what you have said. In the end what we have are… possibilities!

R

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

I am not talking about any form of editing or even making an HDR image. What
I am saying is that all HDR images I have seen look like they are either paintings or have been rendered in a 3D modeling program. They look fake, that is not to say they are, but they look it and that is why I am not a big
fan of HDR. The last thing I really want to do is make any image look fake.
Be it fake or not.

And I’m saying that this is not necessarily so. I repeat what I said earlier: an HDR image is nothing more than an image with higher dynamic range than a digital camera can capture. There is absolutely no reason at all why an HDR image should look the way you describe, but they often do because people do not know how to use HDR properly and because some of the tools are still rather crude.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Granny typed:

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

I am not talking about any form of editing or even making an HDR image. What I am saying is that all HDR images I have seen look like they are either paintings or have been rendered in a 3D modeling program. They look fake, that is not to say they are, but they look it and that is why I am not a big fan of HDR. The last thing I really want to do is make any image look fake. Be it fake or not.

And I’m saying that this is not necessarily so. I repeat what I said earlier: an HDR image is nothing more than an image with higher dynamic range than a digital camera can capture. There is absolutely no reason at all why an HDR image should look the way you describe, but they often do because people do not know how to use HDR properly and because some of the tools are still rather crude.

I am just curious as to whether Hebee Jeebes has gone to the Johan W. Elzenga site at http://www.johanfoto.com/ and tried to spot the "Fakes". I would be interested in hearing Hebee Jeebes critique of Johns HDR photos. Personally I think the HDR John does is beautiful and I would love to have him as my mentor.. I think he is right up there with Ansel Adams, Weston and the rest..

Does Hebee Jeebes have some samples of his own works we could look at? I did notice he is an avid poster.. but with most of his posts there was little substance and no help, but they had a lot of ranting and critical observations on his part… There were no links, that I could find, to substantiate his observations.
—
"Granny"
(Will not play with flames.. they R 2 Hot!)

"granny" wrote in message
….

I am just curious as to whether Hebee Jeebes has gone to the Johan W. Elzenga site at http://www.johanfoto.com/ and tried to spot the "Fakes". I would be interested in hearing Hebee Jeebes critique of Johns HDR photos. Personally I think the HDR John does is beautiful and I would love to have him as my mentor.. I think he is right up there with Ansel Adams, Weston and the rest..

….
Dang it, Granny, if you haven’t hit it on the head again. Johan obviously puts a lot of care and thought into them. HDR or not, the results are excellent. Hats off to you Johan!
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"granny" wrote in message
…

I am just curious as to whether Hebee Jeebes has gone to the Johan W. Elzenga site at http://www.johanfoto.com/ and tried to spot the "Fakes". I would be interested in hearing Hebee Jeebes critique of Johns HDR photos. Personally I think the HDR John does is beautiful and I would love to have him as my mentor.. I think he is right up there with Ansel Adams, Weston and the rest..

…
Dang it, Granny, if you haven’t hit it on the head again. Johan obviously puts a lot of care and thought into them. HDR or not, the results are excellent. Hats off to you Johan!
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Gotta love those. I have been mucking about with HDR and tone mapping and my stuff always comes out looking surreal. Its nice to know there is hope. Thanks for the challenge and the link.

Back to Curvemeister 101 which is already in progress.

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

Well, then apparently at least for now they do look and are as I described.

No, they don’t. They *sometimes* do or even *often* do, but it is not necessarily so. Do you think this image looks like a 3D rendering or painting? http://www.johanfoto.com/Images/Lodge1.jpg

Go to my site and click ‘Lodges and hotels’, then tell me which ones are the fakes and which ones are not (not all are HDR, but I won’t tell you which ones are and which ones aren’t).

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Just did and the HDR images are very easy to spot. They have too much color and too much detail. They look like paintings especially at the tiny size he posts.

You can like HDR all you want. I don’t, nothing you say or do is going to change my mind. The images look fake and if as it was said it was because of the software not having the tools to adjust them correctly or if it is because of user problems then that means HDR at least for now is not that great. Those two problems if true is what makes the images look fake which means there is still a lot of work to be done to make HDR imagery worth while and user friendly.

R

"granny" wrote in message

Granny typed:

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

I am not talking about any form of editing or even making an HDR image. What I am saying is that all HDR images I have seen look like they are either paintings or have been rendered in a 3D modeling program. They look fake, that is not to say they are, but they look it and that is why I am not a big fan of HDR. The last thing I really want to do is make any image look fake. Be it fake or not.

And I’m saying that this is not necessarily so. I repeat what I said earlier: an HDR image is nothing more than an image with higher dynamic range than a digital camera can capture. There is absolutely no reason at all why an HDR image should look the way you describe, but they often do because people do not know how to use HDR properly and because some of the tools are still rather crude.

I am just curious as to whether Hebee Jeebes has gone to the Johan W. Elzenga site at http://www.johanfoto.com/ and tried to spot the "Fakes". I would be interested in hearing Hebee Jeebes critique of Johns HDR photos. Personally I think the HDR John does is beautiful and I would love to have him as my mentor.. I think he is right up there with Ansel Adams, Weston and the rest..

Does Hebee Jeebes have some samples of his own works we could look at? I did notice he is an avid poster.. but with most of his posts there was little substance and no help, but they had a lot of ranting and critical observations on his part… There were no links, that I could find, to substantiate his observations.
—
"Granny"
(Will not play with flames.. they R 2 Hot!)

No they look like oil paintings. Too vivid colors (they look fake) and too much detail. Real photos do not have that much detail. While detail is nice it isn’t make it makes the images look fake, surreal, 3D rendered or whatever you wish to call it and the images of johanfoto at least the HDR ones look that way. You are not going to change my mind.

R

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

Well, then apparently at least for now they do look and are as I described.

No, they don’t. They *sometimes* do or even *often* do, but it is not necessarily so. Do you think this image looks like a 3D rendering or painting? http://www.johanfoto.com/Images/Lodge1.jpg

Go to my site and click ‘Lodges and hotels’, then tell me which ones are the fakes and which ones are not (not all are HDR, but I won’t tell you which ones are and which ones aren’t).

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

No they look like oil paintings. Too vivid colors (they look fake) and too much detail. Real photos do not have that much detail.

Ha, ha, ha. Maybe not with the cameras you use, but my Canon 1Ds MkII gets me all the detail I want. And apparently more detail than you can imagine being possible! Check the wildlife photos under ‘New images’, you must agree wildlife images cannot possibly be HDR images, because the animals do not stand still to enable you to make multiple exposures. And yet they have the same amount of detail as the lodge photos.

As far as the vivid colors are concerned, that’s just a matter of taste. You like more muted colors? Fine! It’s dead easy to tone them down by lowering the saturation in Photoshop. I bet even you could do that. It has nothing to do with HDR or not HDR.

While detail is nice
it isn’t make it makes the images look fake, surreal, 3D rendered or whatever you wish to call it and the images of johanfoto at least the HDR ones look that way. You are not going to change my mind.

And you haven’t answered my challence. Which ones are the fake HDR ones? It must be easy for you to spot them.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Hebee Jeebes wrote:

Well, then apparently at least for now they do look and are as I described.

No, they don’t. They *sometimes* do or even *often* do, but it is not necessarily so. Do you think this image looks like a 3D rendering or painting? http://www.johanfoto.com/Images/Lodge1.jpg

Go to my site and click ‘Lodges and hotels’, then tell me which ones are the fakes and which ones are not (not all are HDR, but I won’t tell you which ones are and which ones aren’t).

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Johan

To interrupt this nonsensical dialogue with Hebee Jeebes!! ( I supposed they were all HDR by the way, as they all look rather too good to be standard images and Hebee Jeebes does not seem to be answering your challenge!!) I have to say, they all look really good to me, they capture the ambience of the rooms well, which I suppose is the very object of the exercise!! I wonder if you would care to pass on any of your trade secrets!!!

Harry

Harry Limey wrote:

To interrupt this nonsensical dialogue with Hebee Jeebes!! ( I supposed they were all HDR by the way, as they all look rather too good to be standard images and Hebee Jeebes does not seem to be answering your challenge!!)

None are standard images in the way that they are just one shot, that is true. But not all are HDR either. I’ve used masking techniques for some and that’s exactly the point: you can’t see the difference between the two methods, because there doesn’t have to be a difference if you know how to use HDR properly.

I have to say, they all look really good to me, they capture the ambience of the rooms well, which I suppose is the very object of the exercise!! I wonder if you would care to pass on any of your trade secrets!!!

If I have time, I will add another tutorial to my site about HDR, but for the time being this is what I found:

Most people try to ‘get it right’ directly in the interface you get when you go from HDR back to 16 bits. That often gives the results that look ‘3D’ or ‘painting’. I use a different approach, where I do as little as possible in the HDR -> 16 bits conversion. When doing this conversion, I’m only concerned with the highlights and the shadows. They have to be right, meaning they both must have detail. Everything else can be fixed later in the 16 bits image, because then I have all the Photoshop tools I need to improve the image.

A second observation is that the defaults for the most powerful method (Local Adaptation) are wrong. The microcontrast settings (Radius and Threshold) defaults are almost always too high. If I use this method, I use settings like a Radius of 10 or less and a Threshold of 0.1 or something like that. This avoids that ‘3D’ look. It does give a softer image with not too much detail, but that problem can be solved later by sharpening. And as Hebee Jeebes confirmed, this works so well that he thinks the resulting detail is too high for a real photograph! Go figure. 😉

BTW: many people claim that PhotoMatix does a better job than Photoshop, but I disagree. I think Photoshop gives far more natural results if you use these settings.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

"Hebee Jeebes" schreef in bericht

No they look like oil paintings. Too vivid colors (they look fake) and too much detail. Real photos do not have that much detail.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/sets/7215759433107 3165/detail/

Rutger

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message secrets!!!

If I have time, I will add another tutorial to my site about HDR, but for the time being this is what I found:

Most people try to ‘get it right’ directly in the interface you get when you go from HDR back to 16 bits. That often gives the results that look ‘3D’ or ‘painting’. I use a different approach, where I do as little as possible in the HDR -> 16 bits conversion. When doing this conversion, I’m only concerned with the highlights and the shadows. They have to be right, meaning they both must have detail. Everything else can be fixed later in the 16 bits image, because then I have all the Photoshop tools I need to improve the image.

A second observation is that the defaults for the most powerful method (Local Adaptation) are wrong. The microcontrast settings (Radius and Threshold) defaults are almost always too high. If I use this method, I use settings like a Radius of 10 or less and a Threshold of 0.1 or something like that. This avoids that ‘3D’ look. It does give a softer image with not too much detail, but that problem can be solved later by sharpening. And as Hebee Jeebes confirmed, this works so well that he thinks the resulting detail is too high for a real photograph! Go figure. 😉

BTW: many people claim that PhotoMatix does a better job than Photoshop, but I disagree. I think Photoshop gives far more natural results if you use these settings.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl

Thanks for that Johan – I shall include that in the Photoshop help file!! as soon as I figure out a way!!