HDR Example Images

[darinb]

We've had a few threads on HDR still images and one of the problems is that they are hard to share--in fact, Apple's Safari browser doesn't allow HDR still images (yet).

Many people have been unable to see what an HDR image looks like for this reason. To try to address that a bit, I've posted a few images on my blog (still working on how to post HDR images here) and they will display in HDR even in non-HDR Safari (as long as you have an HDR screen, of course).

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/iowlscapes-i-revisted/

Maybe the mods can talk to the DPReview powers-that-be and see if HDR is on the roadmap here?

--Darin

P.S. Images taken with the 100-200 GF and the 250 GF (and sometimes the 1.4x on the 250).

--
Darin Boville
My photo site: www.darinboville.com
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/darinboville/
A Bigger Camera (blog): www.abiggercamera.com

 

[Noddemix]

Hi Darin

I'm not able to see these on an XDR screen using Chrome or on my Pixel - any idea why? I'm able to view HDR content elsewhere using either device and it's supported on my Mac in Lightroom etc., so I wonder if it's the specific file format you've output?

 

[darinb]

Hi Darin

I'm not able to see these on an XDR screen using Chrome or on my Pixel - any idea why? I'm able to view HDR content elsewhere using either device and it's supported on my Mac in Lightroom etc., so I wonder if it's the specific file format you've output?

Sorry about that. I posted at two or three in the morning and didn't test Opera or Chrome!

What I've done is to post a second set of the same images at that same link--that new set should work for you (and for anyone else who can't see the first set of images properly).

If you have problems please let me know--sort of the Wild West right now...

--Darin

 

[SrMi]

We've had a few threads on HDR still images and one of the problems is that they are hard to share--in fact, Apple's Safari browser doesn't allow HDR still images (yet).

Many people have been unable to see what an HDR image looks like for this reason. To try to address that a bit, I've posted a few images on my blog (still working on how to post HDR images here) and they will display in HDR even in non-HDR Safari (as long as you have an HDR screen, of course).

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/iowlscapes-i-revisted/

Maybe the mods can talk to the DPReview powers-that-be and see if HDR is on the roadmap here?

Why did you put the images as mp4 instead of AVIF or JPEGs?

 

[darinb]

We've had a few threads on HDR still images and one of the problems is that they are hard to share--in fact, Apple's Safari browser doesn't allow HDR still images (yet).

Many people have been unable to see what an HDR image looks like for this reason. To try to address that a bit, I've posted a few images on my blog (still working on how to post HDR images here) and they will display in HDR even in non-HDR Safari (as long as you have an HDR screen, of course).

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/iowlscapes-i-revisted/

Maybe the mods can talk to the DPReview powers-that-be and see if HDR is on the roadmap here?

Why did you put the images as mp4 instead of AVIF or JPEGs?

The goal here is to get the HDR mages to display in Safari--AVIF already works in Chrome and Opera. Supposedly HDR support is coming to Safari next month (any beta testers of the new Mac OS care to comment?).

So, for Safari users I made each image into a 5-second video, made it autoplay and looped, with no interface controls showing. Looks just like a photo in Safari and, since HDR in video is well supported now for years, displays the "still" photo in HDR, even in Safari which doesn't support HDR still images.

For the Chrome and Opera versions, I just posted the AVIF version (soooo much easier).

Some browsers may show both sets correctly but some do not like autoplay videos and will not show the "Safari" versions correctly.

I hope all of this mess will be resolved when Safari supports HDR. We will see.

--Darin

 

[darinb]

We've had a few threads on HDR still images and one of the problems is that they are hard to share--in fact, Apple's Safari browser doesn't allow HDR still images (yet).

Many people have been unable to see what an HDR image looks like for this reason. To try to address that a bit, I've posted a few images on my blog (still working on how to post HDR images here) and they will display in HDR even in non-HDR Safari (as long as you have an HDR screen, of course).

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/iowlscapes-i-revisted/

Maybe the mods can talk to the DPReview powers-that-be and see if HDR is on the roadmap here?

Why did you put the images as mp4 instead of AVIF or JPEGs?

The goal here is to get the HDR mages to display in Safari--AVIF already works in Chrome and Opera. Supposedly HDR support is coming to Safari next month (any beta testers of the new Mac OS care to comment?).

So, for Safari users I made each image into a 5-second video, made it autoplay and looped, with no interface controls showing. Looks just like a photo in Safari and, since HDR in video is well supported now for years, displays the "still" photo in HDR, even in Safari which doesn't support HDR still images.

For the Chrome and Opera versions, I just posted the AVIF version (soooo much easier).

Some browsers may show both sets correctly but some do not like autoplay videos and will not show the "Safari" versions correctly.

I hope all of this mess will be resolved when Safari supports HDR. We will see.

And when Dreamhost and DPReview and everyone else let's me post AVIF files!

--Darin

--
Darin Boville
My photo site: www.darinboville.com
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/darinboville/
A Bigger Camera (blog): www.abiggercamera.com

 

[darinb]

Hi Darin

I'm not able to see these on an XDR screen using Chrome or on my Pixel - any idea why? I'm able to view HDR content elsewhere using either device and it's supported on my Mac in Lightroom etc., so I wonder if it's the specific file format you've output?

Please try again--I've added a second set of the images that should display correctly if the first set does not.

--Darin

 

[SrMi]

We've had a few threads on HDR still images and one of the problems is that they are hard to share--in fact, Apple's Safari browser doesn't allow HDR still images (yet).

Many people have been unable to see what an HDR image looks like for this reason. To try to address that a bit, I've posted a few images on my blog (still working on how to post HDR images here) and they will display in HDR even in non-HDR Safari (as long as you have an HDR screen, of course).

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/iowlscapes-i-revisted/

Maybe the mods can talk to the DPReview powers-that-be and see if HDR is on the roadmap here?

Why did you put the images as mp4 instead of AVIF or JPEGs?

The goal here is to get the HDR mages to display in Safari--AVIF already works in Chrome and Opera. Supposedly HDR support is coming to Safari next month (any beta testers of the new Mac OS care to comment?).

So, for Safari users I made each image into a 5-second video, made it autoplay and looped, with no interface controls showing. Looks just like a photo in Safari and, since HDR in video is well supported now for years, displays the "still" photo in HDR, even in Safari which doesn't support HDR still images.

For the Chrome and Opera versions, I just posted the AVIF version (soooo much easier).

Some browsers may show both sets correctly but some do not like autoplay videos and will not show the "Safari" versions correctly.

I hope all of this mess will be resolved when Safari supports HDR. We will see.

And when Dreamhost and DPReview and everyone else let's me post AVIF files!

You can post HDR JPEGs, which will be visible as HDR images once you click on JPEG in the gallery (full view). The problem is how they look outside the gallery's full view.

 

[Satyaa]

I am looking at the post on a wide (34") DELL monitor. It is not a HDR monitor, using Edge browser.

I don't see anything for the first set of images (for Safari browser). I do see the second set (all other).

I like the look of them, but just wondering if it will be sort of over-powering if all images were to look that way. Not sure until I see more, of course. First impression of some of them was as if the contrast was turned up.

Another thought that came to mind is how people's photos would look in HDR mode. Please share if you have any examples.

I searched for people's photos in HDR online. I did not like the few I found. They were probably over-done by people who got carried away. May be there is a trick to know how far to go with it.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[darinb]

We've had a few threads on HDR still images and one of the problems is that they are hard to share--in fact, Apple's Safari browser doesn't allow HDR still images (yet).

Many people have been unable to see what an HDR image looks like for this reason. To try to address that a bit, I've posted a few images on my blog (still working on how to post HDR images here) and they will display in HDR even in non-HDR Safari (as long as you have an HDR screen, of course).

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/iowlscapes-i-revisted/

Maybe the mods can talk to the DPReview powers-that-be and see if HDR is on the roadmap here?

Why did you put the images as mp4 instead of AVIF or JPEGs?

The goal here is to get the HDR mages to display in Safari--AVIF already works in Chrome and Opera. Supposedly HDR support is coming to Safari next month (any beta testers of the new Mac OS care to comment?).

So, for Safari users I made each image into a 5-second video, made it autoplay and looped, with no interface controls showing. Looks just like a photo in Safari and, since HDR in video is well supported now for years, displays the "still" photo in HDR, even in Safari which doesn't support HDR still images.

For the Chrome and Opera versions, I just posted the AVIF version (soooo much easier).

Some browsers may show both sets correctly but some do not like autoplay videos and will not show the "Safari" versions correctly.

I hope all of this mess will be resolved when Safari supports HDR. We will see.

And when Dreamhost and DPReview and everyone else let's me post AVIF files!

You can post HDR JPEGs, which will be visible as HDR images once you click on JPEG in the gallery (full view). The problem is how they look outside the gallery's full view.

Right. I rarely click on images, though. Early days!

Someone in an earlier thread, quoting Jim, said that DPReview doesn't reprocess images, which opens the possibility that adding AVIF support would be trivial--although it also sounds like (from what you say) that that applies only to the gallery image, not whatever DPReview displays in the original post (which is obviously resized).

It's slightly odd that DPReview doesn't support HDR images in posts. They've written articles about it and this is, after all, a technology-centered photo board. They must be facing the same ISP issues I'm facing with my blog (Dreamhost) and web site (Dreamhost)--that is, problems beyond our control!

--Darin

--
Darin Boville
My photo site: www.darinboville.com
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/darinboville/
A Bigger Camera (blog): www.abiggercamera.com

 

[darinb]

I am looking at the post on a wide (34") DELL monitor. It is not a HDR monitor, using Edge browser.

I don't see anything for the first set of images (for Safari browser). I do see the second set (all other).

I like the look of them, but just wondering if it will be sort of over-powering if all images were to look that way. Not sure until I see more, of course. First impression of some of them was as if the contrast was turned up.

Another thought that came to mind is how people's photos would look in HDR mode. Please share if you have any examples.

I searched for people's photos in HDR online. I did not like the few I found. They were probably over-done by people who got carried away. May be there is a trick to know how far to go with it.

Thanks for sharing.

There are two different things called "HDR" unfortunately. It's very confusing. The thing I am talking about is the one that gives you lots of extra highlight headroom--those areas get much brighter than before, but fully detailed.

Another point to stress, images that do not have brightness values that exceed traditional photographs will look identical in "HDR" as they did before. All those other values remain unchanged. (A side note, often you'll find that there are tiny specular highlights, for example in foliage. In HDR these otherwise lower value areas *will* look different as those tiny highlights brighten).

But keep in mind, your RAW files are HDR files in disguise. Your old files will suddenly show much more highlight detail than before and your non-HDR versions might start to look a little weak. It's a transitional period...

Another point--you still have full control of your Curves and all of your other tools. You can control the amount of highlight headroom that you want to take advantage of. I'm finding that one or two stops (out of four) are all that most photographs need. The last two stops are for extremely bright areas--in fact, for those areas you might want to tone things down a bit to avoid distractions.

These Owlscapes I linked to are not "normal looking photographs"--you can see non-HDR versions a few posts earlier on my blog and compare. You can do quite subtle images in HDR as well as you can do bright, strongly colored images.

In the end there will surely not be a "normal" image file and an HDR image file. You'll just have an image file that you can do whatever with. Unless JPEGs live forever--we still have GIF, after all!

--Darin

 

[Noddemix]

Hi Darin

I'm not able to see these on an XDR screen using Chrome or on my Pixel - any idea why? I'm able to view HDR content elsewhere using either device and it's supported on my Mac in Lightroom etc., so I wonder if it's the specific file format you've output?

Please try again--I've added a second set of the images that should display correctly if the first set does not.

It works! And it's quite an experience. Is it better though? I enjoy the work a lot but I much prefer looking at the SDR files.

 

[darinb]

Hi Darin

I'm not able to see these on an XDR screen using Chrome or on my Pixel - any idea why? I'm able to view HDR content elsewhere using either device and it's supported on my Mac in Lightroom etc., so I wonder if it's the specific file format you've output?

Please try again--I've added a second set of the images that should display correctly if the first set does not.

It works! And it's quite an experience. Is it better though? I enjoy the work a lot but I much prefer looking at the SDR files.

Outstanding! These Owlscapes are probably not the best "first HDR:" images to show people. Not all HDR images need to look like them.

Check out my prior post--it's a regular movie. In it you'll see a variety of "before an after" images, maybe where the change is subtle.

https://www.abiggercamera.com/2024/08/sdr-and-hdr-comparison-video/

That should give you a better idea of what is possible.

--Darin

 

[Satyaa]

I am looking at the post on a wide (34") DELL monitor. It is not a HDR monitor, using Edge browser.

I don't see anything for the first set of images (for Safari browser). I do see the second set (all other).

I like the look of them, but just wondering if it will be sort of over-powering if all images were to look that way. Not sure until I see more, of course. First impression of some of them was as if the contrast was turned up.

Another thought that came to mind is how people's photos would look in HDR mode. Please share if you have any examples.

I searched for people's photos in HDR online. I did not like the few I found. They were probably over-done by people who got carried away. May be there is a trick to know how far to go with it.

Thanks for sharing.

There are two different things called "HDR" unfortunately. It's very confusing. The thing I am talking about is the one that gives you lots of extra highlight headroom--those areas get much brighter than before, but fully detailed.

Thank you for that clarification.

Another point to stress, images that do not have brightness values that exceed traditional photographs will look identical in "HDR" as they did before. All those other values remain unchanged. (A side note, often you'll find that there are tiny specular highlights, for example in foliage. In HDR these otherwise lower value areas *will* look different as those tiny highlights brighten).

But keep in mind, your RAW files are HDR files in disguise. Your old files will suddenly show much more highlight detail than before and your non-HDR versions might start to look a little weak. It's a transitional period...

Another point--you still have full control of your Curves and all of your other tools. You can control the amount of highlight headroom that you want to take advantage of. I'm finding that one or two stops (out of four) are all that most photographs need. The last two stops are for extremely bright areas--in fact, for those areas you might want to tone things down a bit to avoid distractions.

These Owlscapes I linked to are not "normal looking photographs"--you can see non-HDR versions a few posts earlier on my blog and compare. You can do quite subtle images in HDR as well as you can do bright, strongly colored images.

In the end there will surely not be a "normal" image file and an HDR image file. You'll just have an image file that you can do whatever with. Unless JPEGs live forever--we still have GIF, after all!

What's your typical process to create a HDR image from a raw file? Do you have a guideline for how much is too much or do you start editing and decide each photo based on its merits?

I ask because I see many HDR photos on the web and they do too much, making them look artificial. Your photos don't go that far.

Thanks.

 

[Satyaa]

I have a question about the monitor.

I use a factory-calibrated DELL 4K monitor at home (few years old). It has served me well over the years.

When I got a Windows 11 laptop, I noticed an option in the display settings that said "Use HDR" (or something like that).

When I enabled it, all it did was overly brighten the monitor (at least that was the final effect, for me). After processing photos in that mode and uploading to Google photos, all photos looked darker on other monitors.

Do you know what HDR this hardware setting is referring to?

Thanks.

 

[darinb]

I am looking at the post on a wide (34") DELL monitor. It is not a HDR monitor, using Edge browser.

I don't see anything for the first set of images (for Safari browser). I do see the second set (all other).

I like the look of them, but just wondering if it will be sort of over-powering if all images were to look that way. Not sure until I see more, of course. First impression of some of them was as if the contrast was turned up.

Another thought that came to mind is how people's photos would look in HDR mode. Please share if you have any examples.

I searched for people's photos in HDR online. I did not like the few I found. They were probably over-done by people who got carried away. May be there is a trick to know how far to go with it.

Thanks for sharing.

There are two different things called "HDR" unfortunately. It's very confusing. The thing I am talking about is the one that gives you lots of extra highlight headroom--those areas get much brighter than before, but fully detailed.

Thank you for that clarification.

Another point to stress, images that do not have brightness values that exceed traditional photographs will look identical in "HDR" as they did before. All those other values remain unchanged. (A side note, often you'll find that there are tiny specular highlights, for example in foliage. In HDR these otherwise lower value areas *will* look different as those tiny highlights brighten).

But keep in mind, your RAW files are HDR files in disguise. Your old files will suddenly show much more highlight detail than before and your non-HDR versions might start to look a little weak. It's a transitional period...

Another point--you still have full control of your Curves and all of your other tools. You can control the amount of highlight headroom that you want to take advantage of. I'm finding that one or two stops (out of four) are all that most photographs need. The last two stops are for extremely bright areas--in fact, for those areas you might want to tone things down a bit to avoid distractions.

These Owlscapes I linked to are not "normal looking photographs"--you can see non-HDR versions a few posts earlier on my blog and compare. You can do quite subtle images in HDR as well as you can do bright, strongly colored images.

In the end there will surely not be a "normal" image file and an HDR image file. You'll just have an image file that you can do whatever with. Unless JPEGs live forever--we still have GIF, after all!

What's your typical process to create a HDR image from a raw file? Do you have a guideline for how much is too much or do you start editing and decide each photo based on its merits?

I ask because I see many HDR photos on the web and they do too much, making them look artificial. Your photos don't go that far.

Thanks.

I suspect, but don't know, that you are looking at "old" HDR photos, where people take three or more images (underexposure, regular exposure, overexposure) and combine them. That's very different and the result was, in the hands of many photographers, a way to produce god-awful, ugly images. It could be done right, but often it was weird and gaudy and just bad bad bad.

The bad news, I'm afraid, is that without having an HDR monitor (even an iPhone is an HDR monitor) it is impossible to see an HDR image. What you see instead is a "fallback" image made for those who can't view the real thing--but the fallback image is usually created automatically from the HDR image and usually doesn't look too good.

If you have an iPhone from the past few years or an iPad you likely have an HDR screen, all recent Macs have them, too. Perhaps a friend of library has what you need.

Why do you need an HDR screen? To accomplish the HDR, the screen needs to have a large range of brightness--it needs to keep those shadows the same and the midtones the same but the extra four stops of highlight values need four stops of extra brightness. Non-HDR monitors can't add those extra stops without brightening the whole screen, killing the whole point. Sometimes you can hook up your computer to a large screen TV--many of those (all of them solid recently, I think) are HDR screens so maybe that is another way to see images in HDR.

--Darin

 

[darinb]

I have a question about the monitor.

I use a factory-calibrated DELL 4K monitor at home (few years old). It has served me well over the years.

When I got a Windows 11 laptop, I noticed an option in the display settings that said "Use HDR" (or something like that).

When I enabled it, all it did was overly brighten the monitor (at least that was the final effect, for me). After processing photos in that mode and uploading to Google photos, all photos looked darker on other monitors.

Do you know what HDR this hardware setting is referring to?

Thanks.

I'm a Mac since 1986 so know nothing about Windows--though I've seen that setting mentioned online. What I do know is that invoking that setting WILL NOT allow you to see HDR if your screen is not an HDR screen. It just doesn't have the dynamic range, no matter what signal you send it.

Right now, as I've mentioned, it's the Wild West in HDR land. Even if you get an HDR screen it still won't be smooth sailing to display HDR images. The shooting format is solid--just shoot in any RAW format. The editing part is solid (if you have an HDR monitor) using Lightroom or Pixlmator Pro. But the display part and file type stuff is still coming online so the images (as my post demonstrates) are hard to share. But it's coming. As of next month all major browsers will support HDR, Instagram supports HDR, Wordpress supports HDR--but still lots of kinks to work out.

--Darin

 

[SrMi]

I have a question about the monitor.

I use a factory-calibrated DELL 4K monitor at home (few years old). It has served me well over the years.

When I got a Windows 11 laptop, I noticed an option in the display settings that said "Use HDR" (or something like that).

When I enabled it, all it did was overly brighten the monitor (at least that was the final effect, for me). After processing photos in that mode and uploading to Google photos, all photos looked darker on other monitors.

Do you know what HDR this hardware setting is referring to?

Thanks.

There are all kinds of HDR, some of which make the monitor brighter. I do not see a point in that.

To see HDR output photos in their glory, you need monitors that support 1000 nits or brighter, not those that switch between HDR and SDR per button press.

 

[darinb]

To see HDR output photos in their glory, you need monitors that support 1000 nits or brighter, not those that switch between HDR and SDR per button press.

Exactly. Lots of "HDR" screen that really aren't HDR. The Wild West! But, yes, 1000 nits seems to be a good baseline. The MacBook Pros go up to 1600.

But even the nits get confusing. It will depend on how much of your screen is brightly lit. For example, in a slideshow I made of one of my projects for a small museums show (opening on the 7th in Lancaster, CA--come visit!) some of the "slides" have a white "letterboxed" border. All of that white is just fine on my Mac screen but on my LG OLED TV this images are dimmed slightly since the there is too much sustained white area. RTings.com goes into it in their reviews but the bottom line is that there is a lot going on beyond nits.

--Darin

 

[Satyaa]

I am looking at the post on a wide (34") DELL monitor. It is not a HDR monitor, using Edge browser.

I don't see anything for the first set of images (for Safari browser). I do see the second set (all other).

I like the look of them, but just wondering if it will be sort of over-powering if all images were to look that way. Not sure until I see more, of course. First impression of some of them was as if the contrast was turned up.

Another thought that came to mind is how people's photos would look in HDR mode. Please share if you have any examples.

I searched for people's photos in HDR online. I did not like the few I found. They were probably over-done by people who got carried away. May be there is a trick to know how far to go with it.

Thanks for sharing.

There are two different things called "HDR" unfortunately. It's very confusing. The thing I am talking about is the one that gives you lots of extra highlight headroom--those areas get much brighter than before, but fully detailed.

Thank you for that clarification.

Another point to stress, images that do not have brightness values that exceed traditional photographs will look identical in "HDR" as they did before. All those other values remain unchanged. (A side note, often you'll find that there are tiny specular highlights, for example in foliage. In HDR these otherwise lower value areas *will* look different as those tiny highlights brighten).

But keep in mind, your RAW files are HDR files in disguise. Your old files will suddenly show much more highlight detail than before and your non-HDR versions might start to look a little weak. It's a transitional period...

Another point--you still have full control of your Curves and all of your other tools. You can control the amount of highlight headroom that you want to take advantage of. I'm finding that one or two stops (out of four) are all that most photographs need. The last two stops are for extremely bright areas--in fact, for those areas you might want to tone things down a bit to avoid distractions.

These Owlscapes I linked to are not "normal looking photographs"--you can see non-HDR versions a few posts earlier on my blog and compare. You can do quite subtle images in HDR as well as you can do bright, strongly colored images.

In the end there will surely not be a "normal" image file and an HDR image file. You'll just have an image file that you can do whatever with. Unless JPEGs live forever--we still have GIF, after all!

What's your typical process to create a HDR image from a raw file? Do you have a guideline for how much is too much or do you start editing and decide each photo based on its merits?

I ask because I see many HDR photos on the web and they do too much, making them look artificial. Your photos don't go that far.

Thanks.

I suspect, but don't know, that you are looking at "old" HDR photos, where people take three or more images (underexposure, regular exposure, overexposure) and combine them. That's very different and the result was, in the hands of many photographers, a way to produce god-awful, ugly images. It could be done right, but often it was weird and gaudy and just bad bad bad.

I think we're talking about the same thing

The bad news, I'm afraid, is that without having an HDR monitor (even an iPhone is an HDR monitor) it is impossible to see an HDR image. What you see instead is a "fallback" image made for those who can't view the real thing--but the fallback image is usually created automatically from the HDR image and usually doesn't look too good.

If you have an iPhone from the past few years or an iPad you likely have an HDR screen, all recent Macs have them, too. Perhaps a friend of library has what you need.

Why do you need an HDR screen? To accomplish the HDR, the screen needs to have a large range of brightness--it needs to keep those shadows the same and the midtones the same but the extra four stops of highlight values need four stops of extra brightness. Non-HDR monitors can't add those extra stops without brightening the whole screen, killing the whole point. Sometimes you can hook up your computer to a large screen TV--many of those (all of them solid recently, I think) are HDR screens so maybe that is another way to see images in HDR.

Thanks again for the clarifications.