The exposures were pulled off the RAW file (5 exposures), what do you think?

Original:


HDR:

[attack11]

Of course you can. HDR only means "high dynamic range" and this is everything exceeding 8 f-stops. A good RAW has enough DR for HDR techniques being applied. And by HDR technique I mean to bring it back into the 8 f-stop range one can print or display.

Of course, when considering HDR you almost always have a subject exceeding the DR capabilities of a single RAW and you need multiple exposures to avoid blown-out brights and noisy or sunken shadows. But this is a limitation of the camera hardware, not the HDR technique.

When you load a single RAW into Photomatix, it therefore warns but otherwise just proceeds as usual.

no.. you can't. 1 exposure has only so much dynamic range. saving it multiple times at different exposure bias doesn't change what's there; it won't add more shadow/light detail because it's simply not there.

photomatix even calls this a 'faux-hdr' when you import 1 raw/jpg.

this is an hdr from 5 raws at 2 stops between each. you can't pull that detail from 1 raw.

[falconeye]

no.. you can't. 1 exposure has only so much dynamic range. saving it multiple times at different exposure bias doesn't change what's there; it won't add more shadow/light detail because it's simply not there.

photomatix even calls this a 'faux-hdr' when you import 1 raw/jpg.

this is an hdr from 5 raws at 2 stops between each. you can't pull that detail from 1 raw.

I think that, if you carefully read what I have written, you may see that I haven't said otherwise.

Your 5 RAWs have more DR a single RAW can capture.

barbosas RAWs probably didn't have more DR a single RAW can capture. That was everything I was saying (at least initially...).


A single RAW may be able to capture about 10-12 f-stops, depending on camera and situation. It then may make sense to apply HDR techniques to a single image.

photomatix may call it a 'faux-hdr' but its still hdr and it does still do its job (what I called a "warning").

[attack11]

i know you didn't disagree, but we're not shooting with hdr sensors. it's just not possible from 1 raw with pentax hardware; or any dslr. you need to get into a highend mf back for a dynamic range that surpasses our eyes; which still isn't hdr.

tone mapping an image doesn't make it an hdr. if you can see the image, it's simply not an hdr because you can't visually represent the data before it's mapped; 32bit per pixel.

[falconeye]

i know you didn't disagree, but we're not shooting with hdr sensors. [...] tone mapping an image doesn't make it an hdr. if you can see the image, it's simply not an hdr because you can't visually represent the data before it's mapped; 32bit per pixel.

Well. I made an experiment with a stupid photo to see what is the matter.

Just as for our "dispute", attack11... I think I call everything HDR which is >8Bit and you call HDR only if it is 16Bit in the first place (you actually wrote 32Bit but let me just ignore this).

I agree with you that for full 16 Bit 5x+/-2EV (which adds 8 Bit DR by the way) are needed.

I don't agree that you can see an image with more than 8 Bit DR (you see something, but not its full tonal range. The human eye has a static DR of only 6.5 f-stops). This is why I call everything above 8 Bit HDR (because you cannot see it properly anymore).



Back to my experiment:

1. First attachment: RAW processed through LR with standard settings
2. Second attachment: RAW processed through Photomatix with close to standard settings (I had to "convince" Photomatix first by giving it twice the same image, though
3. Third attachment: RAW first processed through LR with 0,+/- 2EV to JPEG and then through Photomatix with the series of three JPEGs (hence, still from a single RAW).

As you may see, the HDR image has more detail in the sky. Also, one sees that Photmatix is poor in retrieving the full tonal range from the RAW and needs a little help from the user.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 06-15-2011 at 05:27 AM.

[axl]

Looks good, but it makes the pic kind of "flat" but colours of the flower are great in HDR version. I'd still try to combine those two images...

[travis_cooper]

What i did was from the Raw file i created 5 Jpeg's with different exposures: -2 -1 0 1 2

And then loaded the 5 exposures to photomatrix.

Seems like a lot of work, in photomatix you don't need to do that, you can just load the one file and tone mapped it by itself, you would have got the same result.

Also I don't do my HDR in M, I do it in Av. The reason for this is because in Av mode I know my dof won't be changing on me. Then I just use bracketing to get the extra exposures. I love that the K10D will let you choose between 3 and 5 shot bracketing and that you have the flexibility of up to two stops between each bracket. There was a thread on here a month ago or so that linked to an article on dpreview or somewhere else talking about HDR and the K10D was one of three cameras they said were the best for creating HDR images. Mostly because of the ability to bracket 5 shots and it could be done in around 1.5 seconds. The importance for this is if there is movement in the shot. Even clouds can move quite a bit on you if you were in M and then changing the exposure yourself, with bracketing you can just hold down the shutter and get your shots rather quickly.

[Joe_M]

This is a great thread but it shows there is a lot of confusion about what HDRI really is.

Anyone interested in this subject should read The HDRI Handbook by Christian Bloch. The first few chapters are an amazing read and go into great technical detail on what makes an HDRI.

---

Last edited by Joe_M; 04-11-2008 at 07:53 AM.

[Techiechick]

I like both shots, the color of the bud in the first shot is my favorite, but I like the look of the leaves in the second shot. Oh well, you know you can never please a woman