Has anyone tried HDR (high dynamic range) with B&W?

Five shots on a tripod (with the same f/stop but halving/doubling the shutter speed from the meter

recommendation) blended on the computer to make this photo. I think the technique might have

interesting possibilities. Has anyone else tried this? Constructive opinions are welcome.

 

As I used an M-series, and as it was made from B&W film, I thought first of the Leica forum...

 

Thanks.<div></div>

Very interesting idea, but I'm having a hard time seeing the detail in the image because it's so small. Any chance you could post it bigger or with a link to a bigger version?

 

It's hard to tell here, but I have the impression that the image looks out of focus. perhaps because of the overlays being slightly misaligned, but it could just be my eyes or the small image.

I agree. I'm intrigued by the idea, and admit not to having seen it done. It looks like there's a

doubling of shadows, as the earlier poster said--maybe a light moved, or maybe the camera

moved. Love to see a careful study of this, indeed!

Gordon, I used a wide-open Summar so don't expect too much detail. It's my impression

that with a lens such as the Summar, HDR will improve exposure in highlights and shadows

but do little for detail. I will be experimenting with much more modern lenses.

Scott, the photos were taken in the dark of the early morning, an hour or two before "first

light," after some snow. There were two floodlights illuminating the area from areas

separated by between 75 and 100 feet. I also noted the doubling of the shadows but I think

it might be due to the two distinct sources of illumination.

<i>As I used an M-series, and as it was made from B&W film..</i>

<p>

Why would you do that? What is limiting the dynamic range of a B&W print film??

<p>

You may want to look for a better scanner with a higher D-range or something that will reliably do multipass scans.

I thought the whole concept is for high contrasted areas where no one shot will get you detail in both your high and low zones. Is this one of those pics?

Barry is right, HDR is helpful in scenes with a difference between bright and dark areas that

exceeds 9 stops. In most scenes, it does not enable performance beyond that of regular

exposure.

Barry & Ramy, The scene had enormous contrast and a wide range of mid-tones... bright

white from the floods to the lift, deep black in the mid-rear to the right and a lot of gray due

to the moisture in the air from the snow. The human eye has a far greater dynamic range

than B&W film and the human eye continually "adjusts" as you scan a scene. Although I am

not satisfied and there may be methodological modifications that will improve the results,

my, in this case, goal is to take photos closer to what the human eye "sees."

 

I use a Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 ED.

For those who haven't "seen" an HDR image, here is a recent "example" taken with an Nikon

digital. The top image is the "metered" photo; the bottom image is a 5-shot HDR "blend."

Even as a "web" image, I think it is obvious that the bottom image is far closer to what the

human eye sees as it scans a scene and adjusts. There is detail in the foyer that is missing in

the "straight" shot. I wonder if the dynamic range of B&W film can be similarly extended and

thereby open up a new vista for exploration.<div></div>

I recently return from digital to film beacause i hate in photografs the look of this kind of manipulations. Just my thoughs; if you are a leica user work like a leica user, if you want digital look and manipulations in your work go to digital.

f.

Ansel Adams and Minor White did meet Johnnycake's challenge about sixty years ago: Zone System.

John Kelly and I are on the "same page." HDR of B&W negatives might be a semi-digital

path

to the "Zone System." The Zone System when used properly gave terrific results from a

single

negative after an investment of a significant amount of time in calibration of film,

development, etc. On the other hand, even 35mm Leica negatives are really too small for

the best of Zone System-like results. HDR of B&W negatives might be a quasi-digital path

to small negative, i.e. small sensor, results that are something like the Zone System...

more than 10 zones might be possible... and in a way, it might be a lot easier.

Johnnycakes, film's film. Zone System is equally applicable to 35mm and sheet film. The challenge with 35 is that one has to process an entire roll one way. That's easy enough to do if you bulk load short rolls, or if you believe the particular shot, or set of shots, all calls for the same N-2 or whatever and you can ignore the rest of the shots that may not call for it.

 

One approach seeks very low contrast in all negs, knowing that you have control over the final result in Photoshop, just as you did in the darkroom with multiple grades. For a long time I used to print almost everything on #4. Flat negs.

 

The opposite approach is to adjust everything to print on #2, in line with Zone System thinking. Harder to do with 35.

Johnnycakes, I was following your thread, and I think it is interesting. I didn't realize that some digital cameras could automatically meld the exposures as in your experiment. I spent some time and energy a few years ago working up my own formulas for optimizing fill flash for foreground and background using manual flash. In examining my data, I found that the typical slow-shutter solution of most modern-auto cameras is pretty much adequate---if you are using one of those. Like many people, I'm sure, if shooting indoors at night, and in a situation where I really need flash, which I do not prefer, with manual cameras I set as slow a shutter speed as I can to bring in the ambient light sources and more importantly, their distant reflected light: tyically 1/30 or 1/15.

 

But I have long been intreagued by the idea of variable exposure and have wondered if one day a digital CCD or substitute may be able to expose itself differently for different parts of the scene, if they do not require a shutter.

 

Your own example, however, shows the benefit and consequence of this effect. The second shot that was optimized appears to me almost like a 3-D studio max photo-realistic simulation of the space. Its flattened image doesn't look real to the lighting. I think our eyes or minds or whatnot recognize realistic lighting situations and are drawn to their rendering even if some detail is lost.

 

I have to imagine that as with Ansel Adams' zone technique, that there are digital techniques to use scanned film or digital images to create these "balanced" exposure images, but the success of the image will still depend on the photographer/craftsman's ability to capture and then create that image. Some images will appear fake and bad ,but there exists an arena for manipulated images that surpass categorizing because they are simply well done.

 

I, myself, rely on shooting slides, where the only variable is the development of the slide itself. What I see is what I did, for better or worse. I would argue that there are benefits to constaints because if you don't have them, then you never know when you've been lead down the path of your own misconceptions. However, I realize that sometimes your own misconceptions lead to high art, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that. Good fortune to you.

Getting a good print is not just a matter of how broad a range of tones you can record on the film, but also how you selectively compress them so that the final print has the full range but still looks natural to the eye, tonal compression often being necessary because the range of brightnesses in the scene exceeds the reflectance range of the paper.

 

In the darkroom world, I have seen this done well and done poorly. When done well, the natural contrast of the midtones is preserved, the shadows are opened up just a bit and the highlights are tamed into printability. When done poorly, all tones are compressed equally and the result looks like mud.

 

The same thing, I suppose, applies to HDR. Frankly, I don't know enough about the HDR process to know whether the compression of tones in the final print is selective, as in the best darkroom prints, or linear, as in the bad ones. I do know that I have seen HDR images that just don't look natural to me.

 

In the posted example of a home interior, I'll take your word for it that the HDR image is closer to what an observer actually saw. However, in several HDR images I've seen posted on the web, a scene obviously shot in strong sunlight also included open shadows that experience tells us would have appeared much darker to the eye.

 

This isn't an argument against HDR but rather a suggestion that, as with any tool of manipulation, it will get overused during its infancy. Eventually, I hope, the tool will be mastered and good taste will prevail.

Johnny, you might wish to investigate the software Photomatix. It allows you to use one frame and make copies of that frame. In which you can adjust those copies for different levels of exposure or contrast. Then, it merges those copies. The merge to hdr function in CS2 is pretty poor. Unreliable and requiring more than a single frame, camera shake is a concern. You can do the same thing, multiple exposures, with photomatix of course. And it comes with a great pluggin called "Tone Mapping". If you?re turned on with this process, you should check it out.<br><br>

<center><img src=" http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/408525753_e4f1e1ed08_o.jpg"></center><br><br>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/314683673_2f7694f9e9_o.jpg"></center><br><br>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/314677856_e9d43b6aa0_o.jpg"></center><br><br>

I'm sorry to be thick, but please would someone explain the point to me? Surely, however broad a dynamic range you capture on film or memory card, you are still ultimately limited by the dynamic range of the print or computer screen, which is far smaller.

John Kelly. Several years ago I did give the "Zone System" a try with 35mm. I used short

lengths of bulk loaded film. I found it was difficult to assess the dynamic range of an

image by examining only the negative; 35mm contact sheets were only a little bit easier. I

didn't have a lot of time to spend in the darkroom making prints. HDR blending of B&W

negatives does seems to be similar, in principle, to the Zone System. It may be less time-

consuming and give similar and unique results.

 

Mark Amos. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The interior color HDR shot was the

"blended" result of five separate exposures using a Nikon D2Xs. [it was an expedient

composition only for the purposes of HDR generation.] I used a tabletop tripod,

bracketted exposure and then combined the files with Photomatrix. As the files were

already digital, no negative scanner was involved. I understand what you are saying about

"variable" exposure CCD sensors. That would be a terrific way to achieve HDR/

ZoneSystem-like results directly from the camera. Already, "shutter speeds" of 1/8000

second are not achieved by an entirely mechanical shutter. It's done by a combination of

"PowerOn/PowerOff" to the sensor and a mechanical shutter. Will it be possible to specify

how the "sensor" deals with the various "zones" in the image field?

 

Jonathan Davis. I basically agree with you. HDR is new technology. As photographic

images have a truly unique human appeal, there will be struggles. Think of a "toddler;" all

other things being normal, the toddler will learn to walk. Beauty using HDR, B&W or color,

will stand or fall on its' own.

 

Eric~. Thanks for sharing. I already have Photomatrix. I am unsatified with "single image"

HDR. I like the "Tone Mapping" plugin for Photoshop. It is particularly useful when

circumstances prevent "bracketting." Although multiple image HDR requires a tripod and

a static composition, I think it has the best chance of resembling "Zone System" results.

Although the "algorithm" used is, for the most part known, the lack of control that

Photomatrix offers is annoying to me... I "plug it in, it does its' thing, if I like it, good, if I

don't like it, delete."

 

Jonathan Reynolds. I still think that Ansel Adams was "right" years ago when he said the

the best print came from the best negative. Your best negative, or file, is your style for

better, or worse.

 

Regards.

Eric,I am interested in the single image use in Photomatrix. Are these images of yours single images? They must be with the girl..doh..its definately interesting.

Johnny, Photomatix isn?t limited to single use frames. You can load as many tripod shot frames as you wish like CS. The single fame feature is just a strength it has over CS. Another strength is that you are not limited to 16 bit. Photomatix loads jpg?s. It also has the batch action for files, including raws. I?m not sure what you mean by a lack of control with Photomatix? I?ve found the opposite as it has a lot more sliders and adjustments available than the CS version. I got fed up with CS and ?not enough info for an hdr?. Although I haven?t tried CS3 yet.<br><br>

 

Barry, yes, they are. But don?t judge the pluggin from my above examples. Those are pretty cooked up. With photomatix, you can go fairly mild too. Here I had to use it to atain detail in the clouds and the foreground.

 

<br><br>

<center><img src=" http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/417765841_b9bf5527fb_b.jpg"></center><br><br>

Thx Eric. I've been using the "recovery" slider in Lightroom, or the High tonal width in CS2 to bring in some of those highlights. Sometimes it works good, sometimes not. But I like the extreme look actually. Here's one on a preset I developed for lightroom that sometimes has an interesting look as a starting point.

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/417247054_9f319f1bcf_o.jpg">

 

If the photomatrix will than let me recover the darker areas without having to do a ton of masking, or overlays etc.,that would be great.

Saw your post JC, so you really had to a wide lattitude, ok.

Eric, those shots are absolutely awsome!