Today I'm happy about......

[thebish]

i'll try an explanation with illustrations later!

[plymouth wanderer]

Tone mapping?

an HDR image formed from the merging of the 5 photos i took creates a 32bit image. but screens and prinbters can only handle 8 or 16bits - so they cannot view a 32 bit image properly - so it has to be "mapped" into an 8bit image - but in such a way as it gives the illusion that it still covers the same depth of dynamic range... that's what tone-mapping software does.

the technique is useful because - as you will have noticed - cameras don't record what the eye sees - they are infinitely poorer than the human eye. this is most commonoy noticed with indoor photos.

if you took a photo of a room looking out into the garden on sunny day - the eye would be able to cope with seeing the dark room and the brighter garden. the camera can't - it can only set it's exposure from one light level. so - either you have a nicely exposed photo of the room - but with the window appearing as a bright white square - OR you have a clear photo of the garden through the window - but the room is then dark...

by taking the same shot 5 times at different exposures you can then cover the whole dynamic range and then create a photo which is much closer to the truth - or what the eye sees...

the photos i took of the moors - at one end of the exposure range there was no sky detail - but good moorland detail - and at the other end the moorland was dark and featureless - but the sky now had detail... combine them - and you get both...

(in a nutshell!)

Thanks for keeping it in lamens terms bish

[Always hopeful]

Tone mapping?

an HDR image formed from the merging of the 5 photos i took creates a 32bit image. but screens and prinbters can only handle 8 or 16bits - so they cannot view a 32 bit image properly - so it has to be "mapped" into an 8bit image - but in such a way as it gives the illusion that it still covers the same depth of dynamic range... that's what tone-mapping software does.

the technique is useful because - as you will have noticed - cameras don't record what the eye sees - they are infinitely poorer than the human eye. this is most commonoy noticed with indoor photos.

if you took a photo of a room looking out into the garden on sunny day - the eye would be able to cope with seeing the dark room and the brighter garden. the camera can't - it can only set it's exposure from one light level. so - either you have a nicely exposed photo of the room - but with the window appearing as a bright white square - OR you have a clear photo of the garden through the window - but the room is then dark...

by taking the same shot 5 times at different exposures you can then cover the whole dynamic range and then create a photo which is much closer to the truth - or what the eye sees...

the photos i took of the moors - at one end of the exposure range there was no sky detail - but good moorland detail - and at the other end the moorland was dark and featureless - but the sky now had detail... combine them - and you get both...

(in a nutshell!)

I'm on the verge of buying either a DSLR, or a bridge camera. The bridge camera I'm looking at (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V) doesn't shoot RAW, but apparently does shoot HDR. I'm assuming to take an HDR image that you only press the shutter once, but the camera takes 5 exposures and the camera software takes 5 exposures and converts them into the image more representative of the naked eye?

Many camera reviews suggest that RAW is the way forward, but if HDR can produce the quality of photos you've displayed, then that'll do for me.

The bridge cameras have huge lens capability up to 35X zoom. I'm failing to see what the advantage is of a DSLR is, other than picture quality when blown up to very large size prints.

[thebish]

ok - a visual example using 3 exposures (I use 5)

normal exposure (such as your camera would give you on auto)



then take an underexposed image of exactly same scene (tripod!)



then take an overexposed photo of exactly same scene:




then combine them into an HDR photo and tone map the result (with an all-in-one programme like Photomatix)

and you get this:



you get the whole dynamic range and the detail of the whole scene - the dark bits (foliage) and the light bits (sky) rather than having to choose one or the other... it is closer to what the eye would see...

[thebish]

Tone mapping?

an HDR image formed from the merging of the 5 photos i took creates a 32bit image. but screens and prinbters can only handle 8 or 16bits - so they cannot view a 32 bit image properly - so it has to be "mapped" into an 8bit image - but in such a way as it gives the illusion that it still covers the same depth of dynamic range... that's what tone-mapping software does.

the technique is useful because - as you will have noticed - cameras don't record what the eye sees - they are infinitely poorer than the human eye. this is most commonoy noticed with indoor photos.

if you took a photo of a room looking out into the garden on sunny day - the eye would be able to cope with seeing the dark room and the brighter garden. the camera can't - it can only set it's exposure from one light level. so - either you have a nicely exposed photo of the room - but with the window appearing as a bright white square - OR you have a clear photo of the garden through the window - but the room is then dark...

by taking the same shot 5 times at different exposures you can then cover the whole dynamic range and then create a photo which is much closer to the truth - or what the eye sees...

the photos i took of the moors - at one end of the exposure range there was no sky detail - but good moorland detail - and at the other end the moorland was dark and featureless - but the sky now had detail... combine them - and you get both...

(in a nutshell!)

I'm on the verge of buying either a DSLR, or a bridge camera. The bridge camera I'm looking at (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V) doesn't shoot RAW, but apparently does shoot HDR. I'm assuming to take an HDR image that you only press the shutter once, but the camera takes 5 exposures and the camera software takes 5 exposures and converts them into the image more representative of the naked eye?

Many camera reviews suggest that RAW is the way forward, but if HDR can produce the quality of photos you've displayed, then that'll do for me.

The bridge cameras have huge lens capability up to 35X zoom. I'm failing to see what the advantage is of a DSLR is, other than picture quality when blown up to very large size prints.

if i am taking serious photos i shoot in RAW - all it means is that you keep all of the image data so that you can work on it later yourself. most cameras shoot in jpeg - what that means is that the camera decides for you what info to chuck away - it doesn't keep all the information the camera has actually recorded - it compresses the image down into what is quite a "lossy" format...

i don't know what that camera means by HDR - more modern cameras than mine do what is called "bracketing" - you press the shutter once and it shoots 3 or 5 exact same scenes at different exposures - I have to do it all manually on mine - which is a bit of a pain - but makes me more hardcore!

i shot the moorland photos in RAW today = it means a bigger image size - in my case - 11MB per image... (which is why most cameras use jpeg!)

[Always hopeful]

Tone mapping?

an HDR image formed from the merging of the 5 photos i took creates a 32bit image. but screens and prinbters can only handle 8 or 16bits - so they cannot view a 32 bit image properly - so it has to be "mapped" into an 8bit image - but in such a way as it gives the illusion that it still covers the same depth of dynamic range... that's what tone-mapping software does.

the technique is useful because - as you will have noticed - cameras don't record what the eye sees - they are infinitely poorer than the human eye. this is most commonoy noticed with indoor photos.

if you took a photo of a room looking out into the garden on sunny day - the eye would be able to cope with seeing the dark room and the brighter garden. the camera can't - it can only set it's exposure from one light level. so - either you have a nicely exposed photo of the room - but with the window appearing as a bright white square - OR you have a clear photo of the garden through the window - but the room is then dark...

by taking the same shot 5 times at different exposures you can then cover the whole dynamic range and then create a photo which is much closer to the truth - or what the eye sees...

the photos i took of the moors - at one end of the exposure range there was no sky detail - but good moorland detail - and at the other end the moorland was dark and featureless - but the sky now had detail... combine them - and you get both...

(in a nutshell!)

I'm on the verge of buying either a DSLR, or a bridge camera. The bridge camera I'm looking at (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V) doesn't shoot RAW, but apparently does shoot HDR. I'm assuming to take an HDR image that you only press the shutter once, but the camera takes 5 exposures and the camera software takes 5 exposures and converts them into the image more representative of the naked eye?

Many camera reviews suggest that RAW is the way forward, but if HDR can produce the quality of photos you've displayed, then that'll do for me.

The bridge cameras have huge lens capability up to 35X zoom. I'm failing to see what the advantage is of a DSLR is, other than picture quality when blown up to very large size prints.

if i am taking serious photos i shoot in RAW - all it means is that you keep all of the image data so that you can work on it later yourself. most cameras shoot in jpeg - what that means is that the camera decides for you what info to chuck away - it doesn't keep all the information the camera has actually recorded - it compresses the image down into what is quite a "lossy" format...

i don't know what that camera means by HDR - more modern cameras than mine do what is called "bracketing" - you press the shutter once and it shoots 3 or 5 exact same scenes at different exposures - I have to do it all manually on mine - which is a bit of a pain - but makes me more hardcore!

i shot the moorland photos in RAW today = it means a bigger image size - in my case - 11MB per image... (which is why most cameras use jpeg!)

OK. Thanks. Therefore, in summary, to get the best results, you need more memory and have to spend more time "back in the office" processing the photos. It's now clear to me that its a trade off between expecting to get excellent results from simply point and shoot (and probably failing), or definately getting excellent results from spending time in post-production. Hmmmmmmmm. I was hoping to get excellent results without the effort. That's life I guess.

[thebish]

OK. Thanks. Therefore, in summary, to get the best results, you need more memory and have to spend more time "back in the office" processing the photos. It's now clear to me that its a trade off between expecting to get excellent results from simply point and shoot (and probably failing), or definately getting excellent results from spending time in post-production. Hmmmmmmmm. I was hoping to get excellent results without the effort. That's life I guess.

it kinda depends what you want.

proper photographers save time by getting it right in the first place by knowing how to use their camera properly - and 9/10ths of a decent photo is composition..

those of us who need it - cos we are a bit crap to start with - need to do a bit of post-processing!

the HDR thing is loved by some and hated by others - I don't do it often - cos (for one thing) it means taking a tripod! But it can make a landscape come to life - and HDR is really the only way you can photograph the inside of a room or building without massively expensive lighting rigs! (see below)

cameras are massively versatile nowadays - yet most people never stray from the automatic settings - thus never really understanding how the thing works - and thus often being disappointed by the results they get.

I'm a rank amateur - but the best thing I did was go on a basic days training course with Nikon which showed me what the D60 could do... i never looked back!

of course - the d60 is dated now - but I reckon it's plenty good enough for me - and I very much doubt whether my photos would be even the slightest bit better with a more expensive camera.. there's only so far that technology can take you - the rest is art and "eye"...


here's the indoor photo problem:



5 shots. the third one is the one your camera would give you on auto - how the camera "sees" the room. it has lots of dark spots and the window is just a white square. that's not how the eye would see the room. so - you add two progressively over-exposed shots - blowing out the window even more - but getting the detail of the dark corners - and you add two progressively more underexposed photos - and in the darkest you get the leading pattern on the window.

HDR software then allows you to manipulate all five images together to get the following: (he's also adjusted other stuff - like the white-balance - to get rid of the yellowish glow from the lamps...)



which you simply could not get with one shot unless you had some kind of multi-million pound lighting rig set up all over the room... and even then - I doubt it... however professional you were...

[Always hopeful]

So clearly, this HDR malarkey can only work with stills. If there's a slightest movement of poeple, leaves, clouds or animals etc, then this process is rendered useless. Interesting, impressive, yet disappointing at the same time.

Thanks for taking time to explain the process. You class yourself as a rank amateur? I'm not sure what class that puts the the rest of us in.

[Worthy4England]

Thanks for taking time to explain the process. You class yourself as a rank amateur? I'm not sure what class that puts the the rest of us in.

That puts us all in the still life class. As in, we still have one.

[thebish]

So clearly, this HDR malarkey can only work with stills. If there's a slightest movement of poeple, leaves, clouds or animals etc, then this process is rendered useless. Interesting, impressive, yet disappointing at the same time.

Thanks for taking time to explain the process. You class yourself as a rank amateur? I'm not sure what class that puts the the rest of us in.

you could do something vaguely similar but a bit different... you would stack the images in a program like photoshop (one that works with layers) and then mask out the bits you don't want... you would only include the moving thing in one of the layers - maybe take the sky from another and the dark bits from another... that wouldn't give you HDR - but it would gice you more range than a single shot could. of course - that's much easier if the bulk of the shot is static...

this is often used for trick photography - such as this one of my daughter(s)


Two's company.... by revnev, on Flickr

and this one of me building my chicken run and giving myself a hand...


making my new chicken run by revnev, on Flickr

[thebish]

Thanks for taking time to explain the process. You class yourself as a rank amateur? I'm not sure what class that puts the the rest of us in.

I am a rank amateur in terms of being an actual photographer.. I enjoy fannying about with what software and post-processing can do - or some of the rarer more specialist techniques can do (such as very long exposures and catching movement with very fast shutter speeds or panning - where you follow a subject moving the camera as you release the shutter - making the background blurred but the subject sharp and give the shot a real sense of movement..) or zoom-bursting (where you zoom the lens in or out while the shutter is open)

in other words - I am interested in the HOW you do stuff - and then experimenting to see if I can do it - whereas a proper photographer has a proper artist's eye - which I don't have. So my photography is very faddy - I move on from one cool technique to another just to see if i can do them...

(if that makes sense!)

panning:


carys on bike by revnev, on Flickr

zoom-bursting:


zoom burst clock by revnev, on Flickr

[thebish]

eldest son at university was woken up last night by a house alarm somewhere down the street..

I've just caught up with his night time hourly-update ranting on fb... (which made me smile! - hence is on this thread)

Someone's house alarm started going off around 4
It's still going
It has been eight hours

Lucky I wasn't planning on sleeping or anything

this alarm is slowly driving me insane

At the bottom of the ocean even light must die

You will all be alone in the end

Y'knath k'th'rygg k'yi mrr'ungha gr'mula

*

welcome to hour 21 of "please fix your bloody house alarm or whatever that even is"

(daughter intervenes: "you and your foul mouth Hywel")

I think at this point I am justified in a little profanity!

* these are all bits of dialogue from World of Warcraft I believe - which he was playing at the time...

[plymouth wanderer]

Bish I have been playing around with my phone and realised I have a setting for Hdr now how do I go about using it (iv a samsung galaxy s3) and what program do i need for my Pc

[thebish]

Bish I have been playing around with my phone and realised I have a setting for Hdr now how do I go about using it (iv a samsung galaxy s3) and what program do i need for my Pc

I think what it means is that it will take several shots - not sure how many - probably 3 or 5 - and then do all the stuff that I talked about in-camera without you having to worry about it - and present you with an HDR-type result already converted into a jpg - so you wouldn't need to do anything with your pc..

of course - that means you have no real control over the final effect - it will use some kind of preset algorithm to bring out the detail in the shadows and retain the detail in the bright areas...

it will mean you will have to hold the camera very still as you take the shot as the shot will take longer than normal - camera shake will lead to blurriness...

but - a quick look on flickr seems to show that people can get some pretty good results.. this car shot, for instance, was taken with your phone on the HDR setting..


2007 Murano at Sunset - Samsung Galaxy S3 (HDR mode) by Justin Griswold, on Flickr

bit grainy - but pretty darned good for a phone!

I don't know your phone - but it'll be in the camera settings somewhere as a "mode" - HDR mode - it'll be in the shooting mode settings somewhere. try it out! take one in automatic mode - then the same shot in HDR mode and see if you can see the difference! (set the resolution as high as it will go - 8 megapixels? - for the best quality shot.)

(post your results back here!) the best subject would be a situation with high contrast between some dark areas and some light areas...


btw - camera phones and all digital cameras have some auto mode settings - portrait/sports/night-time/landscape etc.. these are almost always worth using in preference to auto... a portrait setting will focus on a very narrow range - and so blur the background behind your subject - which is what you want with a portrait... a sports mode - means stuff that is moving (basically) - use this and it will select a fast shutter speed and thus nullify the motion blur you get when you photograph summat that is moving...

[clapton is god]

I recently posted an image of Great Gable. Today was the annual Remembrance Day service on the summit. I couldn't attend this year but many did as you'll see from the link below from one of my walking buddies:

http://www.leaney.org/lake_district_wal ... lk_id=1052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

I recently posted an image of Great Gable. Today was the annual Remembrance Day service on the summit. I couldn't attend this year but many did as you'll see from the link below from one of my walking buddies:

http://www.leaney.org/lake_district_wal ... lk_id=1052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

some STUNNING views there!! wow! (shame it was so misty... but then - isn't it always!)

[TANGODANCER]

So clearly, this HDR malarkey can only work with stills. If there's a slightest movement of poeple, leaves, clouds or animals etc, then this process is rendered useless. Interesting, impressive, yet disappointing at the same time.

Thanks for taking time to explain the process. You class yourself as a rank amateur? I'm not sure what class that puts the the rest of us in.

you could do something vaguely similar but a bit different... you would stack the images in a program like photoshop (one that works with layers) and then mask out the bits you don't want... you would only include the moving thing in one of the layers - maybe take the sky from another and the dark bits from another... that wouldn't give you HDR - but it would gice you more range than a single shot could. of course - that's much easier if the bulk of the shot is static...

this is often used for trick photography - such as this one of my daughter(s)


Two's company.... by revnev, on Flickr

and this one of me building my chicken run and giving myself a hand...


making my new chicken run by revnev, on Flickr

They're really clever. Well done.

[thebish]

They're really clever. Well done.

thanks Tango - if push comes to shove we could use this technique to field a whole team of Kevin Davies's!

some people are REALLY good at this stuff - like this guy:


Accepting the Challenge - Brian Hart by Mark Birkle, on Flickr

I think he used some kind of a jig on the table to get the hands positioned right...

[Always hopeful]

They're really clever. Well done.

thanks Tango - if push comes to shove we could use this technique to field a whole team of Kevin Davies's!

some people are REALLY good at this stuff - like this guy:


Accepting the Challenge - Brian Hart by Mark Birkle, on Flickr

I think he used some kind of a jig on the table to get the hands positioned right...

I bet this bloke's more mobile on a football pitch than Davies!

[Bruce Rioja]

Accepting the Challenge - Brian Hart by Mark Birkle, on Flickr

Looks to me as though they're settling a game of Scrabble with an arm-wrestle. That's how they do it in Farnworth, isn't it?