[Eric Seavey]

But, civiletti, thanks for reminding me of that plugin, since I almost forgot about it and it also have some other interesting uses/features.

---

Last edited by Eric Seavey; 01-09-2013 at 04:45 AM.

[civiletti]

Enfuse is not true HDR, because the dynamic range gets lost, thought the results are nicely merged photos of different exposures. True HDR (32-bit colordepth) images contain the entire dynamic range in one photo/file. However, because monitors/prints/etc cannot produce that much dynamic range, there is a need to tonemap to "simulate" that range into a 8 to 16 bit colordepth. Many tonemapping algorithms have been developed over the years, each giving a different look.

Some of us use HDR to produce images of scenes that exceed the dynamic range of our cameras. LRenfuse works well at that. Others wish to produce images that look like cartoons. Tonemapping is needed for that.

[Karl Stevens]

Tonemapping is not required for all HDR processes.

Tonemapping is absolutely required for HDR - once you create an HDR image you cannot view it without some form of tonemapping. (Unless you have a quarter-million-dollar HDR display from Dolby.)

Some of us use HDR to produce images of scenes that exceed the dynamic range of our cameras. LRenfuse works well at that.

You do not do HDR, you do exposure fusion. As Eric said, exposure fusion and HDR are not the same thing. While they can provide similar results, they are vastly different processes. HDR imaging creates a mathematical model of the intensity of each pixel in the scene, while exposure fusion blends different exposures into one.

Others wish to produce images that look like cartoons. Tonemapping is needed for that.

This has adds nothing to the discussion, and is completely wrong - you can make any image "look like cartoons" without tonemapping, and tonemapping does not automatically cause cartoonish images.

If you'd like to clear up your misunderstanding of the difference between exposure fusion and HDR, I'd recommend the following FAQ entry, which is a good primer on how they differ: FAQ about HDR photography software Photomatix - Tone Mapping, HDR images creation and Exposure Fusion.

For a more in-depth discussion of exposure fusion, there DPS has a good article on what exposure fusion is, and how it differs from HDR here: Exposure Fusion: What is it? How does it Compare to HDR? How Do I Do It?

[civiletti]

Tonemapping is absolutely required for HDR - once you create an HDR image you cannot view it without some form of tonemapping. (Unless you have a quarter-million-dollar HDR display from Dolby.)



You do not do HDR, you do exposure fusion. As Eric said, exposure fusion and HDR are not the same thing. While they can provide similar results, they are vastly different processes. HDR imaging creates a mathematical model of the intensity of each pixel in the scene, while exposure fusion blends different exposures into one.


This has adds nothing to the discussion, and is completely wrong - you can make any image "look like cartoons" without tonemapping, and tonemapping does not automatically cause cartoonish images.

If you'd like to clear up your misunderstanding of the difference between exposure fusion and HDR, I'd recommend the following FAQ entry, which is a good primer on how they differ: FAQ about HDR photography software Photomatix - Tone Mapping, HDR images creation and Exposure Fusion.

For a more in-depth discussion of exposure fusion, there DPS has a good article on what exposure fusion is, and how it differs from HDR here: Exposure Fusion: What is it? How does it Compare to HDR? How Do I Do It?

There is more than one defintion of HDR. It can mean the tonemapped super-high contrast file to which you refer, or it can be more general. WikiPedia defines thusly:

High dynamic range imaging (HDRI or HDR) is a set of methods used in imaging and photography to allow a greater dynamic range between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than current standard digital imaging methods or photographic methods. HDR images can represent more accurately the range of intensity levels found in real scenes, from direct sunlight to faint starlight, and is often captured by way of a plurality of differently exposed pictures of the same subject matter.
In simpler terms, HDR is a range of methods to provide higher dynamic range from the imaging process. Non-HDR cameras take pictures at one exposure level with a limited contrast range. This results in the loss of detail in bright or dark areas of a picture, depending on whether the camera had a low or high exposure setting. HDR compensates for this loss of detail by taking multiple pictures at different exposure levels and intelligently stitching them together to produce a picture that is representative in both dark and bright areas.
HDR is also commonly used to refer to display of images derived from HDR imaging in a way that exaggerates contrast for artistic effect. The two main sources of HDR images are computer renderings and merging of multiple low-dynamic-range (LDR) or standard-dynamic-range (SDR) photographs. Tone mapping methods, which reduce overall contrast to facilitate display of HDR images on devices with lower dynamic range, can be applied to produce images with preserved or exaggerated local contrast for artistic effect.

[Karl Stevens]

There is more than one defintion of HDR.

Then please include a citation for a definition that supports your claim. The wikipedia page you quoted includes only includes one definition, and includes two examples of different methods used to create HDR images, and explicitly says that tone mapping is required for display (correctly implying that exposure fusion is not HDR.)

The two main sources of HDR images are computer renderings and merging of multiple low-dynamic-range [...] photographs. Tone mapping methods [...] facilitate display of HDR images on devices with lower dynamic range

HDR is a process, not a result. If you do not use the process, you are not doing HDR.

(edit)if you had bothered to look up exposure fusion on Wikipedia, instead of stopping at HDR, you would have encountered this:

exposure fusion is a technique for blending multiple exposures of the same scene into a single image. As in high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR), the goal is to capture a scene with a higher dynamic range than the camera is capable of capturing with a single exposure. However, because no HDR image is ever created during exposure fusion, it cannot be considered an HDR technique.

Also, I looked up the software you use (LREnfuse), and it's a LightRoom front-end for http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse
The makers of Enfuse say this:

Enfuse is a command-line program used to merge different exposures of the same scene to produce an image that looks very much like a tonemapped image (without the halos) but requires no creation of an HDR image.

Even the people who write the software you're using say that it is not HDR.

[civiletti]

Then please include a citation for a definition that supports your claim. The wikipedia page you quoted includes only includes one definition, and includes two examples of different methods used to create HDR images, and explicitly says that tone mapping is required for display (correctly implying that exposure fusion is not HDR.)

HDR is a process, not a result. If you do not use the process, you are not doing HDR.

(edit)if you had bothered to look up exposure fusion on Wikipedia, instead of stopping at HDR, you would have encountered this:


Also, I looked up the software you use (LREnfuse), and it's a LightRoom front-end for Enfuse - PanoTools.org Wiki
The makers of Enfuse say this:
Even the people who write the software you're using say that it is not HDR.

The definition you gave is one. The definition on the HDR page of WikiPedia is another. If you search on HDR and LR/enfuse, you will find many writers referring to enfuse as an HDR application.

[Karl Stevens]

The definition you gave is one. The definition on the HDR page of WikiPedia is another.

The definition I gave is the same as the definition on the Wikipedia page. They are not different. As I said, you need to read it more carefully to understand what is being said.

If you search on HDR and LR/enfuse, you will find many writers referring to enfuse as an HDR application.

So experts in the field (including the ones who wrote the software you use) are wrong, but when someone else - whom you refuse to cite or name (presumably because they are not experts in the field) - says the opposite, that makes it true? That is positively absurd.

By the same logic, I went to Europe last summer, so obviously I swam across the Atlantic ocean. It doesn't matter that I was in a plane and didn't get wet, the fact that I left North America and ended in Europe means that I swam there, right?

Exposure fusion compresses the dynamic range from multiple images to fit into a single one. That is the exact opposite of HDR (which - as the name implies - means that the dynamic range is higher, not lower). If it is the exact opposite, it cannot be the same thing.

I realize that it can be embarrassing when you try to correct someone and it turns out that you didn't really understand the topic, but when you do, it's generally the mark of an adult to admit that you learned something, rather than stubbornly insisting that every expert in the field is wrong.

[Na Horuk]

I realize that it can be embarrassing when you try to correct someone and it turns out that you didn't really understand the topic, but when you do, it's generally the mark of an adult to admit that you learned something, rather than stubbornly insisting that every expert in the field is wrong.

I realize it can feel great when you explain that you are right and someone else is wrong, but when you do, its generally the mark of an adult to be gentlemanly about it, rather than rubbing it in and making the person even more resistant to the idea of agreeing with you.

Yes, I think you are right, but the label HDR has simply come to mean "photos where nothing is black and nothing is white" (well, except for objects of that colour, I guess). On the other hand, distinction between processes can be helpful when trying to achieve a certain look or a certain IQ.

[civiletti]

The definition I gave is the same as the definition on the Wikipedia page. They are not different. As I said, you need to read it more carefully to understand what is being said.



So experts in the field (including the ones who wrote the software you use) are wrong, but when someone else - whom you refuse to cite or name (presumably because they are not experts in the field) - says the opposite, that makes it true? That is positively absurd.

By the same logic, I went to Europe last summer, so obviously I swam across the Atlantic ocean. It doesn't matter that I was in a plane and didn't get wet, the fact that I left North America and ended in Europe means that I swam there, right?

Exposure fusion compresses the dynamic range from multiple images to fit into a single one. That is the exact opposite of HDR (which - as the name implies - means that the dynamic range is higher, not lower). If it is the exact opposite, it cannot be the same thing.

I realize that it can be embarrassing when you try to correct someone and it turns out that you didn't really understand the topic, but when you do, it's generally the mark of an adult to admit that you learned something, rather than stubbornly insisting that every expert in the field is wrong.

Karl insists on making a debate out of a discussion of terminology. Okay, here are links to pages where LR/enfuse is referred to as HDR. HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. He wants it to refer only to files that contain a range of values greater than can be printed or displayed. Fine for him. I am more concerned about dynamic range that I can print or display on a monitor.

LR/Enfuse - Blend Multiple Exposures Together in Adobe Lightroom
LR/Enfuse — A HDR Plugin for Adobe Lightroom, Photo
Using the LR/Enfuse plugin for Lightroom
Ken Hurst Photography: LR/Enfuse: HDR Plug-in For Lightroom
HDR Software Comparison - The F/Stop Spot | The F/Stop Spot
Night Photography > Chapter 7. High Dynamic Range Imaging > HDR with Enfuse - Pg. 186: Safari Books Online
Tech Tuesday:HDR with photomatix and LR/Enfuse
http://www.tommasz.net/2011/02/06/experimenting-with-hdr-hdrtist-vs-lrenfuse/
http://www.blogarithms.com/index.php/archives/2012/01/12/hdr-align/
Photomatix Pro vs LR/Enfuse vs Topaz Adjust 3
Photo Expressions: enthusiastic about enfuse
The Quiet Picture

Karls's technical definition of HDR is not wrong. Neither is it the only definition of HDR in common usage.

[Racer X 69]

Wow.

All I wanted to do was learn a bit more about HDR images. I truly did not expect that anyone would get into a protracted and fierce debate about such minutia.

[Karl Stevens]

Civiletti,

Wikipedia says exposure fusion is not HDR. (exposure fusion cannot be considered an HDR technique)
The people who developed the algorithms for exposure fusion say it is not HDR.
The people who write HDR software say it is not HDR.
The people who write exposure fusion software you use say it is not HDR.

And yet somehow you believe they are all wrong. Every single one of them. That boggles the mind.

Note that they do not say "there may be other ways to do HDR", they say flat out "exposure fusion cannot be considered an HDR technique".

Karl insists on making a debate out of a discussion of terminology.

I am simply correcting your error. The only "debate" that's happening is you refusing to acknowledge anything I say, and quoting things that do not support your claim.

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. He wants it to refer only to files that contain a range of values greater than can be printed or displayed.

It has nothing to do with what "I want" - it has to do with what it actually is.

Or do you support the claim that I swam across the atlantic ocean this summer?

I am more concerned about dynamic range that I can print or display on a monitor.

That doesn't mean you're doing HDR. You are compressing the dynamic range to fit your display - that is (again, as I said) the opposite of HDR.

Here are links to pages where LR/enfuse is referred to as HDR.

Thank you for providing some citations. As I suspected they are all from people who don't understand the process - there are not domain experts.

I realize it can feel great when you explain that you are right and someone else is wrong, but when you do, its generally the mark of an adult to be gentlemanly about it, rather than rubbing it in and making the person even more resistant to the idea of agreeing with you.

True enough. Thank you for reminding me of the importance of tact.

However my first few messages are a testament to the point that no amount of tact will help Civletti to understand what I'm saying - he began with snide comments borne out of Dunning-Krueger ignorance, and continued to in that vein - for example he still insisted that the Wikipedia article he quoted supported his position, when I explained clearly how it did not, and how his chosen source explicitly said he was incorrect.

distinction between processes can be helpful when trying to achieve a certain look

Yes, and since Racer X 69 explicitly wanted to know how to achieve a certain look (tonemapped) it's important to keep the terminology correct - it does not help him (or anyone else who wants to learn this technique) if the correct information he is given is condescendingly attacked by those who do not understand it.

[wildman]

Wow.

All I wanted to do was learn a bit more about HDR images. I truly did not expect that anyone would get into a protracted and fierce debate about such minutia.

Your naiveté is refreshing.
Welcome to the Pentax Forum A.K.A. Ego Optics.

[emalvick]

As I think is being shown, the biggest problem is that people think of HDR as the result rather than as the process. They often confuse a tone-mapped image as HDR, when I seem to see many people using Tone-mapping without being an HDR (for instance a single RAW file tone-mapped). It is becoming more apparent through reading a few books on HDR that tone-mapping is an even more generic term that really seems to apply to almost any global tone editing procedure. For instance, RAW development is in essence tone mapping. You are adjusting the RAW image tones to meet your desired output.

In terms of HDR, tone-mapping is taking the 32-bit image that cannot be shown on the screen (think of it as a 32-bit raw file) and mapping it down to 16 or 8 bits so that it can be viewed, just as you would do with a RAW file to make it a JPG.

As far as I can tell, Enfuse (and probably exposure fusion in general) is using three (multiple) images and tone-mapping them to one, but it is not creating a high dynamic range image in the process. It is compressing the dynamic range of three images to fit into one. Interestingly the tone-mapped result of an HDR is attempting to do the same thing by a different process.

As far as whether either method is superior or ideal depends on the purpose and what you want out of it. I've used Enfuse and I've tried HDR with the same sets of bracketed exposures. I've gotten similar results out of both and I can't say either method of obtaining an image was better than the other. I like the HDR process a bit better because most of the work is at the end and it is a bit easier to control the final product since you have the full dynamic range. Enfuse is ok, but since you never have the full dynamic range, you have to work harder with the input images to get output images you can work with. Never-the-less, the fusion process is a bit easier for some people to grasp because you avoid that 32-bit stage, which is a bit abstract when you don't really see it. I see similar issues with those that avoid RAW files. The abstract of what you have but can't see is tough to overcome.

[rayallen]

Wow.

All I wanted to do was learn a bit more about HDR images. I truly did not expect that anyone would get into a protracted and fierce debate about such minutia.

Yes, this sure has become an emotion charged thread. I have used the HDR process and tone mapping process to produce images but I realise now that I was not really aware of the differences.

The fierce debates here have been very informative and I am now better educated about these processes but I still have more reading to do. Thank you to those who contributed. I have tried very hard to sift out the facts and to ignore the emotion.

[graphicgr8s]

To the OP your image would have looked better just doing a comp image instead of trying to do HDR. The thing with HDR is not all subjects fit the bill for HDR. The success comes from realizing which ones are and which are not.