Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Hypocorism · 11-13-2010, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by PiotrKrochmal

But I what to show you by this topic, that today's sensors, could almost capture photos in better way

.

It was excellent examples of both, thanks for posting the useful demonstration Piotr.

But you reminded me too, of why I lust for a Samyang 8.FE, and that was cruel!

.R.

**jpzk** · 11-13-2010, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Staffan

To a large extent I agree with JP. And you can apply the Nik Software Viveza plug-in for PS and other photo editors, which really has changed photography for me. With that plug-in you can easily (avoiding a lot of layer work in PS) keep the better lower part of the first picture but change the sky of that picture to be more similar to the one of the second photo. This is an alternative about halfway between the two pictures and would be the ideal thing as I see it.

Interesting.
This almost seems like an automatic gradient tool.
I am going to check it out, "out of curiosity".

Cheers,

JP

Beau · 11-15-2010, 03:19 AM

If the DNG has no blown highlights and the shadows have enough detail, which seems to be the case, than these images just show a different tone-mapping of the same range.

With a DR of 14.1EV, the K-5 files really can be used as HDR files.
A K-7 bracketed -2 0 +2 shot has a DR of 14.6, only half a stop more than a single shot k-5 file.

Here's an example:

original

adjusted dng

exporting to sRGB jpg, destroying the dynamic and tonal range, and trying to recover from the jpg

Gimbal · 11-15-2010, 08:10 AM

Beautiful shoot!

Beau · 11-16-2010, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

Beautiful shoot!

Thanks

falconeye · 11-16-2010, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by PiotrKrochmal

Here is an example of what can be obtained from a single photo Versus HDR 5 images: -4 -2 0 2 4 EV.
Technical Description:
DNG by LR 3.2
HDR by PMP 4.0,
as a single picture I took -2EV photo.
Samyang 8mm ISO 80, f/10

If you want to compare results you have to make match the brightest exposure, i.e., you have to shhot at -4EV in this case. On web-sized photos, the results should be equal if you handled the software properly. If the software can't process properly, you can still export 5 TIFFs with 0 ... +8EV exposure boost (PS supports up to 20EV while ACR only supports 4, so, do the steps above 4 in PS and set black clipping to zero. Moreover, you may try to set brightness, contrast and level curve to zero.

Personally, I don't like the strong HDR effect and I am just fine with -2EV offset. I like the first image better too.

WerTicus · 11-16-2010, 05:25 AM

That isnt a HDR its a compressed dynamic range jpg. A HDR can only be read by special software that allows you to adjust the exposure. They are really useful in 3d graphics for lighting.

IMO Compressed dynamic range jpg's are generally horrible, like this one is.

Interesting comparison though

falconeye · 11-16-2010, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by WerTicus

That isnt a HDR its a compressed dynamic range jpg. A HDR can only be read by special software that allows you to adjust the exposure.

HDR probably is one of the most confusingly defined terms around. What you are referring to is the HDR file format flavour (which sometimes is called extended dynamic range or EXR to complete the confusion)

Personally, I have decided that I can accept the term HDR with anything which involves a number greater than 8

Beau · 11-16-2010, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

If you want to compare results you have to make match the brightest exposure, i.e., you have to shhot at -4EV in this case.

Why? If you have no clipped highlights in the -2, the -2 is better as it will have more shadow detail you can lift. The single shot will always be a compromise, either you have less shadow detail or you have clipped highlights.

Originally posted by WerTicus

That isnt a HDR its a compressed dynamic range jpg. A HDR can only be read by special software that allows you to adjust the exposure. They are really useful in 3d graphics for lighting.

IMO Compressed dynamic range jpg's are generally horrible, like this one is.

Interesting comparison though

Of course it's a tone-mapped HDR file but IMHO, a 14bit DNG is a HDR file as its range exceeds the range of a monitor and has to be tone-mapped too. How it looks just depends on the tone-mapping.

falconeye · 11-16-2010, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Beau

Why? If you have no clipped highlights in the -2, the -2 is better as it will have more shadow detail you can lift. The single shot will always be a compromise, either you have less shadow detail or you have clipped highlights.

For everyday shooting you may be right. The scene contrast doesn't always exceed 12 or even 8 stops. But you wanted to study how much of an HDR headroom you can recover from a single K-5 shot. And if the sun didn't clip your highlights, you must be from another planet

EDIT:
Sorry, the comment was for the OP's image. YOur image is just great. And you didn't attempt a side by side comparison, so everything is perfect.

WerTicus · 11-16-2010, 09:24 AM

Beau that is a perfect example of what can be done with DR and why someone might want it in the real world. Its also the best example of its use in the real world that I have seen so far, thank you.

To get this shot would be impossible without dynamic range, you cannot use a grad filter because of the lighthouse and you cannot use multi shot hdr because of the moving waves.

You could just blow the sky of course, or you could photoshop a new sky onto the waves...

cem.kumuk · 11-16-2010, 12:19 PM

In built HDR at K-5 is not a real HDR application. I can call it pseudo HDR only. Because a real HDR must be at least made of 3 or 5 frames with ev differences about 1,5 or 2 in between each. Than dedicated softwares like Photomatix combine these frames to built a real HDR photo. I love HDR photography but I think I'll never make use of in built HDR application at K-5. An example of areal HDR that I've made with my new K-5, only 5 days old

Parallax · 11-16-2010, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by cem.kumuk

In built HDR at K-5 is not a real HDR application. I can call it pseudo HDR only. Because a real HDR must be at least made of 3 or 5 frames with ev differences about 1,5 or 2 in between each. Than dedicated softwares like Photomatix combine these frames to built a real HDR photo. I love HDR photography but I think I'll never make use of in built HDR application at K-5. An example of areal HDR that I've made with my new K-5, only 5 days old

cem.kumuk, well done. Could you post that same photo, processed as a normal photo, just for comparison?

cem.kumuk · 11-16-2010, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

cem.kumuk, well done. Could you post that same photo, processed as a normal photo, just for comparison?

With pleasure... I'll upload original 3 frames converted from RAW to JPEG. The HDR is made of combination of these 3 frames in Photomatix pro3.

Parallax · 11-16-2010, 01:27 PM

Thank you!
I'm becoming more and more intrigued by HDR. I've never been much of a fan, but the photos in this thread are turning me around.

11-15-2010, 03:19 AM	#18
Beau Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Leuven, Belgium Posts: 37	If the DNG has no blown highlights and the shadows have enough detail, which seems to be the case, than these images just show a different tone-mapping of the same range. With a DR of 14.1EV, the K-5 files really can be used as HDR files. A K-7 bracketed -2 0 +2 shot has a DR of 14.6, only half a stop more than a single shot k-5 file. Here's an example: original adjusted dng exporting to sRGB jpg, destroying the dynamic and tonal range, and trying to recover from the jpg Last edited by Beau; 11-18-2010 at 08:11 AM.

11-16-2010, 06:55 AM	#25
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Beau Why? If you have no clipped highlights in the -2, the -2 is better as it will have more shadow detail you can lift. The single shot will always be a compromise, either you have less shadow detail or you have clipped highlights. For everyday shooting you may be right. The scene contrast doesn't always exceed 12 or even 8 stops. But you wanted to study how much of an HDR headroom you can recover from a single K-5 shot. And if the sun didn't clip your highlights, you must be from another planet EDIT: Sorry, the comment was for the OP's image. YOur image is just great. And you didn't attempt a side by side comparison, so everything is perfect. Last edited by falconeye; 11-16-2010 at 10:45 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1.4x TC + 55-300 versus 1.7x TC + 55-300 versus 55-300mm + cropping.	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	09-05-2009 02:41 PM
HDR Software - Dynamic-Photo HDR	mithrandir	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	03-03-2009 08:46 PM
Batch converting camera dng to acr dng using acr	Maynerd	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	01-17-2009 02:22 PM
RAW files? PEF versus DNG?	rdrum76	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	1	11-03-2008 11:59 AM
DNG in-camera vs DNG from Lightroom?	rfortson	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	9	11-02-2008 11:06 PM

11-13-2010, 02:21 AM	#16
Hypocorism Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Melbourne .au Posts: 623	Originally posted by PiotrKrochmal But I what to show you by this topic, that today's sensors, could almost capture photos in better way . It was excellent examples of both, thanks for posting the useful demonstration Piotr. But you reminded me too, of why I lust for a Samyang 8.FE, and that was cruel! .R.

11-13-2010, 07:35 PM	#17
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by Staffan To a large extent I agree with JP. And you can apply the Nik Software Viveza plug-in for PS and other photo editors, which really has changed photography for me. With that plug-in you can easily (avoiding a lot of layer work in PS) keep the better lower part of the first picture but change the sky of that picture to be more similar to the one of the second photo. This is an alternative about halfway between the two pictures and would be the ideal thing as I see it. Interesting. This almost seems like an automatic gradient tool. I am going to check it out, "out of curiosity". Cheers, JP

11-15-2010, 08:10 AM	#19
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Beautiful shoot!

11-16-2010, 02:40 AM	#20
Beau Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Leuven, Belgium Posts: 37	Originally posted by Gimbal Beautiful shoot! Thanks

11-16-2010, 04:12 AM	#21
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by PiotrKrochmal Here is an example of what can be obtained from a single photo Versus HDR 5 images: -4 -2 0 2 4 EV. Technical Description: DNG by LR 3.2 HDR by PMP 4.0, as a single picture I took -2EV photo. Samyang 8mm ISO 80, f/10 If you want to compare results you have to make match the brightest exposure, i.e., you have to shhot at -4EV in this case. On web-sized photos, the results should be equal if you handled the software properly. If the software can't process properly, you can still export 5 TIFFs with 0 ... +8EV exposure boost (PS supports up to 20EV while ACR only supports 4, so, do the steps above 4 in PS and set black clipping to zero. Moreover, you may try to set brightness, contrast and level curve to zero. Personally, I don't like the strong HDR effect and I am just fine with -2EV offset. I like the first image better too.

11-16-2010, 05:25 AM	#22
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	That isnt a HDR its a compressed dynamic range jpg. A HDR can only be read by special software that allows you to adjust the exposure. They are really useful in 3d graphics for lighting. IMO Compressed dynamic range jpg's are generally horrible, like this one is. Interesting comparison though

11-16-2010, 05:35 AM	#23
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by WerTicus That isnt a HDR its a compressed dynamic range jpg. A HDR can only be read by special software that allows you to adjust the exposure. HDR probably is one of the most confusingly defined terms around. What you are referring to is the HDR file format flavour (which sometimes is called extended dynamic range or EXR to complete the confusion) Personally, I have decided that I can accept the term HDR with anything which involves a number greater than 8

11-16-2010, 05:40 AM	#24
Beau Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Leuven, Belgium Posts: 37	Originally posted by falconeye If you want to compare results you have to make match the brightest exposure, i.e., you have to shhot at -4EV in this case. Why? If you have no clipped highlights in the -2, the -2 is better as it will have more shadow detail you can lift. The single shot will always be a compromise, either you have less shadow detail or you have clipped highlights. Originally posted by WerTicus That isnt a HDR its a compressed dynamic range jpg. A HDR can only be read by special software that allows you to adjust the exposure. They are really useful in 3d graphics for lighting. IMO Compressed dynamic range jpg's are generally horrible, like this one is. Interesting comparison though Of course it's a tone-mapped HDR file but IMHO, a 14bit DNG is a HDR file as its range exceeds the range of a monitor and has to be tone-mapped too. How it looks just depends on the tone-mapping.

11-16-2010, 09:24 AM	#26
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Beau that is a perfect example of what can be done with DR and why someone might want it in the real world. Its also the best example of its use in the real world that I have seen so far, thank you. To get this shot would be impossible without dynamic range, you cannot use a grad filter because of the lighthouse and you cannot use multi shot hdr because of the moving waves. You could just blow the sky of course, or you could photoshop a new sky onto the waves...

11-16-2010, 12:19 PM	#27
cem.kumuk Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Istanbul Photos: Gallery Posts: 241	In built HDR at K-5 is not a real HDR application. I can call it pseudo HDR only. Because a real HDR must be at least made of 3 or 5 frames with ev differences about 1,5 or 2 in between each. Than dedicated softwares like Photomatix combine these frames to built a real HDR photo. I love HDR photography but I think I'll never make use of in built HDR application at K-5. An example of areal HDR that I've made with my new K-5, only 5 days old

11-16-2010, 12:43 PM	#28
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by cem.kumuk In built HDR at K-5 is not a real HDR application. I can call it pseudo HDR only. Because a real HDR must be at least made of 3 or 5 frames with ev differences about 1,5 or 2 in between each. Than dedicated softwares like Photomatix combine these frames to built a real HDR photo. I love HDR photography but I think I'll never make use of in built HDR application at K-5. An example of areal HDR that I've made with my new K-5, only 5 days old cem.kumuk, well done. Could you post that same photo, processed as a normal photo, just for comparison?

11-16-2010, 01:23 PM	#29
cem.kumuk Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Istanbul Photos: Gallery Posts: 241	Originally posted by Parallax cem.kumuk, well done. Could you post that same photo, processed as a normal photo, just for comparison? With pleasure... I'll upload original 3 frames converted from RAW to JPEG. The HDR is made of combination of these 3 frames in Photomatix pro3.

11-16-2010, 01:27 PM	#30
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Thank you! I'm becoming more and more intrigued by HDR. I've never been much of a fan, but the photos in this thread are turning me around.

K5 DNG versus HDR

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!