Is HDR ruining photography?

EV 4 to EV 16 means 12 stops. a 14 bit RAW file should have 14 stops of brightness range, but yes little color in the bottom or top few stops. Still if you take 1 RAW shot at EV 5, one at EV 10 and one shot at EV 15 you would have all the information you need to composite them. Taking 13 shots is basically assuming that the sensor only captures information in a 1 EV band, but it's actually getting good info in a 10 to 12 EV range, even if you only trust the middle 8 EV you can still cover the range with only 3 shots.

Daniel, the bits in a non-hdr RAW file only describe the brightness as related to the output (screen etc), not input. A 14 bit raw file does NOT capture 14 stops, any more than a value of 255 in a jpg is 8 stops of input above a 0. Depending on how your screen is calibrated 255 may be 2^8 x brighter than 0, but that has nothing to do with the EV of the incoming light when the image was taken. The sensor is what captures the dynamic range, then the camera scales it however it wants to product the RAW file. The RAW file MAY contain some extra info beyond the output data. My Fuji does that. But how that data is represented is not related to the number of bits. Once the raw file has been processed into a 16 bit image any extra info is discarded.

Nice work, Ed. First demonstration I've seen in a while of an advantage of digital. The d-lighting and other in-camera shadow opening systems on consumer digital cameras was a first step. We may not use it, but isn't being able to represent the widest possible range a first goal of image-making. First, learn how to put everything; then, learn what to take out.

Well, CCDs work linear, so a CCD with a 14 bit converter and sufficient full-well capacity is indeed capable of 14 stops. It is actually not really a problem to build CCDs with that dynamic range and more (much more), the problem is rather that the readout times increase drastically with converter bits, which is not suitable for DSLRs.

 

While it is of course possible that the in-camera converter scales up the converter bits into a higher number of bits in the RAW frame, this plainly makes no sense. I know for sure that 12bit RAWs came directly from the sensor ADU converter, because the 12bit CCD converters were/still are industry technical standard. I admit I'm mot so sure about 14bit, though.

 

That said, there is normally a ground level (called bias) that takes away several stops, as well as noise, in which the first few EVs drown, so you won't get the full range.

I would rather work with great light and technique than sit in front of the computer any more than I have to. I really don't

care for most of the HDR stuff I see, it looks too flat.

 

So no, it's not ruining photography...certainly not mine.

As Thomas said, I'm pretty sure the RAW files give you the raw data off the CCD/CMOS. JPEGs are definitely

processed by the camera, but the point of RAW is that it's raw. So extending the dynamic range via extra

bracketing can be thought of as extending the number of bits of good signal that you can attach to each pixel.

 

Edward, your architectural shot is a perfect example of advantage of HDR techniques but I think with

appropriately spaced 3 raw files you can get that kind of result.

Computers have also ruined writing as has the combustion engine ruined travelling. It was much better with typewriters and horse-drawn buggies. Come on, stop griping about new technologies you old curmudgeons. It has always been my dream that cameras have "selective" exposure to correctly expose different parts of a scene. For now, we have HDR. I think that HDR might have ruined Dave Hickey's life style, not photography. It seems that you have become a slave of HDR, Dave, and are now bracketing everything. Stop bracketing when you're travelling with your family and only bring the tripod along when you are doing special stuff. Yeah , I know. My advise is falling on deaf ears. Like me - I always seem to be dragging the tripod around. I haven't mastered HDR yet - I'll probably have to spend inumerous long hours long hours trying to master it if I don't give up first. These digital post-production skills are very difficult it seems. Thanks for the great links. I'll probably learn all I need to know with the links here. Thanks fot the thread. Cheers, Alex.

of course HDR does not ruin anything. It´s just plain boring and lifeless, as the examples above show.

I don't think HDR has ruined photography. As so many have already said, it's that too many people misuse it and create pictures that no longer look like photographs, but that either look like paintings or images that belong firmly in the 'computer manipulated images' section of a photo contest. Done well it can help a photographer produce a beautiful image, but to me there's still a lot to be said of capturing a moment the way it was experienced or seen, which means doing your best to get your exposure right when you press the shutter, whether you're using film or digital. I think HDR should be used, judiciously, to help achieve this when the conditions of a photographic moment exceed the photographer's and the camera's capability to accurately capture what was seen.

It all depends what you think photography is? Is it recording? Or is it creating? If you believe the former, it removes from the purity of the recording. However, in the latter, HDR is one more paint brush that the artist can use in "creating an image". Not all art is good :)

Sven, I couldn't agree more. The only time I use it is when film won't work due to wide f-stop range. No question that film looks more alive. But what it does show is that digital has the potential to someday be as good or better than film.

My Exhibited HDR Work :http://www.photo.net/photo/7688359

http://www.photo.net/photo/7688359

http://www.photo.net/photo/7380429

http://www.photo.net/photo/7380415

http://www.photo.net/photo/6361408

http://www.photo.net/photo/6361422

 

Love and Light

 

Jose

HDR is nothing new. Photographers in the 19th century used to have negatives of clouds which were combined with the images where the skies were overexposed. This was necessary because the spectral sensitivities of plates made this a frequent problem.

HDR is really no much different than doing a pull when developing B&W film, except that you can do it it color, but with somewhat artificial looking colors. In theory you can also do a true dodge and burn, but currently Photoshop does not support local operations on 32bit images. Once you convert it to 16 bit the invisible high and low info is lost. I'm sure that in the future PS will move more toward HDR and we will see much better support.

 

So yes, HDR is just a way for digital photographers to do what film photographers have been able to do from day one.

 

The ultimate digital camera will be one that captures 14EV of data in a single pass. Among other interesting things, this would eliminate the need for metering, since it could all be done in post processing!

 

Oh, and the ultimate digital will have seperate sensor for RGB with a broader spectrum sensitivity for each.

 

I'm hoping I'll see this in my lifetime. Meanwhile I'm keeping my F3.

I always thought that photography was about capturing the moment, not about capturing 10 differently exposed moments to combine later so that they look like the perfect moment. Many of the posts above demonstrate HDR being over-used to the point that these pictures no longer look like photographs, but rather paintings of a fake world that neither our eyes, or a sensor/film can see without taking multiple exposures.

 

Maybe HDR started with people using it for 3D, then somebody said "hey, this is a cool picture" but wherever it started, I hope it doesn't go too much further. It's taking a lot of the creative control in photography away from behind the camera, and putting it in front of the computer screen. Whereas before people would be out there using filters to try and achieve a look with as much dynamic range as possible, now you can just take 10 different exposures and scurry home to assemble them on your computer.

 

I don't think that HDR will ruin photography, but I do think that it is ruining photographers. The effect that HDR gives a lot of photographs, seems to make people think that they no longer need to take interesting pictures, they can simply 'wow' people with the effect of HDR, regardless of the subject matter.

 

With that being said, as with any art, I think that HDR photography is still in its infancy and I think a lot of people are still really (REALLY) overdoing it simply because it is a relatively new effect. As some examples above show, when it is done tastefully, it can add some range to a picture without it looking fake, but then there are some examples where the effect is so overdone that it's just tacky.

AHA! Now I understand what's going on. When I or other architectural photographers talk about shooting HDR, we mean using HDR to create a digital negative that we can then further manipulate to look more or less like a normal image. Without my noticing, what seems to have happened is that many photographers are skipping the final manupulation, which is tricky, to get decidedly unnatural looking images.

 

So when we say HDR we're really talking about two things. For some, HDR no longer means "High Dynamic Resolution", but means strange colored skies and abnormal skin tones. For others, HDR is a tool you use on location so you don't have to lug lights around, but the ultimate goal is to get normal looking images.

 

I doubt that the latter is ruining photography. As for the former, well, fads come and go, and eventually whatever is of value in them remains.

Nice commentaries Dave and Edward.

HDR or not?

 

http://www.whateverland.com/yesterday/2008/06/13/living_quarters/

 

You decide. Then click the info. link.

I'm not going to click the link, but I'm guessing computer-generated. Either that or it's one of Thomas Demands paper constructions.

"...and 3 sensors capturing 3 seperate exposures at the same instant in time. "

 

You mean like color video cameras since about 1954?

If I may provide a technical solution : http://www.creaceed.com/hydra/ - this HDR software should save you a bit of time :

select your shots, drop them in the window, you're done. It does the aligning all by itself and has few but useful settings.

I've already done several HDR shots with it, all handheld (burst mode). Works like a charm.

It's comparing apples with pears, as the dutch expression goes. Cause they're different aspects of expression in their own right. Whatever one's personal taste is: be it b/w, artistic or realistic, hdr or whatever. This is an everchanging world I reckon ;), and yesterday's values are yesterday's. It's that fameous generation gap over and over again.

I don't think I missed any of the commentary but I'm still at a loss as to the understanding of High Dynamic Range Imaging.

Those still using film already know that properly exposed, it produces a significantly greater tonal range than is currently available in digital. Digital cameras and sensors capture far more than their electronics can successfully transfer to a computer. They were originally designed to handle a maximum 9 f/stop range, whereas the human eye and good lenses are capable of about 24. Nothing new about HDR. It was developed within the scientific community over 20 years ago and only recently adapted for general photography. If the new formats are accepted by the JPEG group we'll probably be seeing cameras within the next year or two that will significantly close the film/digital gap.

If you're interested in something that could be applied to past files and color print scans using a single file you might want to check out this software developer.

 

<< http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html >>

 

and

 

<< http://www.mediachance.com/plugins/redynamix.html >>

 

The first link is to the full HDR program which can handle both Multi Bracketed exposures or a single file.

The second is for a PhotoShop compatible plug-in designed soley for single file processing.

 

Both have unlimited trial periods with watermarks placed on Saved files. All updates are free to registered users, and if you've already tried a half dozen others, you're in for a surprising treat.....and NO, I have no affiliation with MediaChance. He simply writes great software.

Personally I don't use HDR - I've tried it a couple of times and left considerably underwhelmed by it - more probably down to my lack of skills rather than a flaw with the idea but isn't HDR just another tool in the box?

 

When putting a nail in a wall use a hammer, when putting a screw in the wall don't use the hammer ;) Every tool we have has good and bad uses. The trick for people is knowing which tool for which job... and how gently or hard to use the tool...

 

Looking at alot of HDR images around (including my own pathetic example) they're all over done to the extreme.

 

Also surely any HDR image is only going to be as good as the weakest shot in the stack?

It's definitely easy to spend more time on the computer. If you're tired of it, just don't do HDR. Just stop doing it. Look for good light, instead. If the light sucks and you know it, don't bother. Come back later when there is less contrast.

 

It's pretty easy to do HDR that looks natural. You only notice the ones that don't.

 

You might also try different areas of photography which don't lend themselves to HDR. I used to like landscapes, and did lot's of HDR, but now I'm into portraits and people. I found that it's more satisfying to do nice people pictures, because the people appreciate what you did. The building or mountain doesn't really care if you took a nice picture of it. Just some thoughts.