Image: ssHDR - a proper classification?

[Chato]

And I guess we'll have to let "tone mapping" stand as a complex mapping, whether global (like histogram equalization) or local (burning and dodging, Fatall's "gradient domain", Mantiuk's local contrast enhancement, etc).

The confusion comes from the fact that you can tone map a "normal" dynamic range image, or even a very low dynamic range image, if you want, but you pretty much must tone map a high dynamic range image, or it will look unnaturally flat.

Tone mapping doesn't automatically imply HDR, but HDR pretty much implies tone mapping.

Maybe it's not much but I easily get an extra stop and a half out of my camera's RAW files, so for me this is single shot HDR. This is best seen in the shadows to the left of the tree that is at the base of the building, port-side.

And getting back to the purpose of this post I would suggest defining an ssHDR image as one that has:

1. been shot in RAW format, but single shot ie just one exposure! That means no exposure bracketing done in-camera and no JPEG output used from the camera. This will distinguish ssHDR from HDR as it implies that HDR is multiple camera exposures. (I like to street shoot, so ssHDR means no tripod and not having to worry about any movement of anything within the composition. HDR is definitely slower, harder and more equipment intensive!)

2. RAW conversion of this single shot to 2 or more exposure bracketed TIFFs. Okay, you will get better highlight and shadow recovery by using multiple camera exposures, but in any case a single shot RAW has more dynamic range than a camera JPEG. Noise is also higher for a single shot HDR, as can be seen in the images I posted. Personally I'm exploring ways to use this noise instead of fighting it, so no slick-magazine pixel-perfect marketing-makeup results for me! I want to celebrate dead/hot pixels, and imperfect noisy images in an imperfect noisy world! (stepping down from my soapbox, now).

3. Steps 3 and on are just everybody's favorite HDR work flow. So from here on it's just standard stuff, loading bracketed TIFFS, generating extended radiance files or whatever your software may call it and pushing all the sliders to taste.

So does it deserve a name? I think so, and if my opinion mattered (now stepping onto soapbox again) I would also like ssHDR to be associated with imperfect noisy images, pixels dead and hot, cameras old and of low-class resolution. Surely, if photographers can find beauty in an imperfect world then viewers can also find it in an imperfect image.
Michael

But a number of posters are trying to point out to you, that you haven't invented the wheel. The wheel is nice. Good to have around. But you didn't invent it.

Now I'm not the most knowledgible, but some very knowledgible posters have tried, apparently without much success, to point out this simple fact.

Dave

 

[drh681]

I mean to increase the midtone contrast.
decreasing it tends to fade details into each other

--
Member of The Pet Rock Owners and Breeders Association
Boarding and Training at Reasonable Rates
Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------

if I mock you, it may be well deserved.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Tone mapping doesn't automatically imply HDR, but HDR pretty much implies tone mapping.

Maybe it's not much but I easily get an extra stop and a half out of my camera's RAW files,

All that means is that you are incorrectly processing your raw files.

so for me this is single shot HDR. This is best seen in the shadows to the left of the tree that is at the base of the building, port-side.

And getting back to the purpose of this post I would suggest defining an ssHDR image as one that has:
1. been shot in RAW format, but single shot ie just one exposure!

But it still doesn't have a high dynamic range!

If anything, your shot qualifies as LDR.

That means no exposure bracketing done in-camera and no JPEG output used from the camera. This will distinguish ssHDR from HDR as it implies that HDR is multiple camera exposures. (I like to street shoot, so ssHDR means no tripod and not having to worry about any movement of anything within the composition. HDR is definitely slower, harder and more equipment intensive!)

No, it's not. A HDR image is simply an image that has too much dynamic range to be displayed through a simple (gamma, S-Curve, etc) mapping.

Most raw files are now exceeding that range. That's why raw processing software often simply "throws away" some of the dynamic range.

2. RAW conversion of this single shot to 2 or more exposure bracketed TIFFs.

That is what indicates that you are simply not processing your raw files correctly. The only time information is ever lost when processing raw (which is not an acronym, incidentally) files is when it's clipped away. Most raw processing software does this by default. It normally takes only 1 or 2 simple adjustments to disable highlight and shadow clipping, so you can get the exact same effect as you would have by trying to boost exposure on a raw to dig out shadows, or cut exposure and chase "blown" highlights that aren't actually blown.

Okay, you will get better highlight and shadow recovery by using multiple camera exposures, but in any case a single shot RAW has more dynamic range than a camera JPEG.

That is true. However, no one, aside from you, has either stated or implied that a camera JPEG is a proper definition for a SDR or LDR shot. Right now, all you're trying to define is a difference between raw and JPEG.

Noise is also higher for a single shot HDR, as can be seen in the images I posted. Personally I'm exploring ways to use this noise instead of fighting it, so no slick-magazine pixel-perfect marketing-makeup results for me! I want to celebrate dead/hot pixels, and imperfect noisy images in an imperfect noisy world! (stepping down from my soapbox, now).

That will depend on your particular camera, more than anything else. There are a lot of cameras where the noise is highly objectionable: Nikon D200 (I used to have one) and Canon 5D II (I have one now) come immediately to mind. Their shadow noise tends to be "pattern noise", vertical bands mostly.

3. Steps 3 and on are just everybody's favorite HDR work flow. So from here on it's just standard stuff, loading bracketed TIFFS,

Standard, but unnecessary.

generating extended radiance files or whatever your software may call it and pushing all the sliders to taste.

Radiance files are an industry standard going back 25 years.

So does it deserve a name?

Since you phrased that as a question, no.

Your technique amounts to nothing more than applying a tone map to a raw file processed for maximum dynamic range. The fact that you are processing your raw files incorrectly (clipping highlights and shadows, so you need to do multiple conversions with different exposure compensation, then merge them back into what you should have been able to do in the first place) is no one's fault but your own.

I think so, and if my opinion mattered (now stepping onto soapbox again) I would also like ssHDR to be associated with imperfect noisy images, pixels dead and hot, cameras old and of low-class resolution.

Now you've moved away from any characteristics of anything that could ever have an acronym, and are trying to start a movement. That's fine, many people have started movements, and many have named them after themselves.

You can be the first "Michalist".

Or, if you don't want the movement to bear your name, you threw out a lot of other terms "imperfect noisy images", "pixels dead and hot", etc. that describe it better. You're talking about trying to use everything that comes out of the camera, the noisy pixels, the clean pixels, the deep gritty shadows. 100% of the image, no 5% black pixel clipping and 90% white pixel clipping, not 85% of the raw, but 100% raw.

Actually, that's a cool name. "100% raw".

Full on raw.

Maximum raw.

Rawist (not "rawest", but "ist", like "strobist").

Just not "no pixel left behind". To PC...

Surely, if photographers can find beauty in an imperfect world then viewers can also find it in an imperfect image.*

No one said that they couldn't.

But that's not a characteristic of HDR, even "single shot" HDR techniques. That's your "thing".

It's like no one would look at your image and say "that looks like HDR". They might like it, they might hate it, but they won't recognize HDR as a part of it, and your ssHDR label just gets in the way of what you're actually trying to accomplish.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

But a number of posters are trying to point out to you, that you haven't invented the wheel. The wheel is nice. Good to have around. But you didn't invent it.

Now I'm not the most knowledgible, but some very knowledgible posters have tried, apparently without much success, to point out this simple fact.

Dave,

This is the second time today that I've posted, and after I post, find that you snuck a quick one in above mine.

Keep up the good work.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Chato]

But a number of posters are trying to point out to you, that you haven't invented the wheel. The wheel is nice. Good to have around. But you didn't invent it.

Now I'm not the most knowledgible, but some very knowledgible posters have tried, apparently without much success, to point out this simple fact.

Dave,

This is the second time today that I've posted, and after I post, find that you snuck a quick one in above mine.

Keep up the good work.

You shouldn't be offended. Personally, I've invented the wheel on many occasions. Strangely enough my wheels are always square. While this may present some "purists" with problems, I've noticed that I can safely dispense with brakes...

Dave

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[portlandscanner]

Some of the software downloads refer to this as "single image HDR"-- so from where I sit there's no need for any new terminology.

As others have mentioned, none of this is much different than what Ansel Adams accomplished with visualization, changing the chemistry during the developing process, and them more manipulation of the highlights and shadows during the printing process. It's been awhile since I've read his book ( I believe it was called "The exposure"). As I recall, he used 5 different formulas while processing his sheet film, marked as +2, +1, 0, -1, & -2. He would mark each exposure on the film holder based on his experience with how each of these increased the tone range (the zone system) & then use the appropriate chemistry. Suffice it to say, a lot more work than working with HDR.

 

[michael_anthony]

All that means is that you are incorrectly processing your raw files.

I don't claim to be an expert on raw processing by any means, but I can output linear raw files, so there is no clipping of any shadows or highlights. And I've tried tone mapping these raw files without getting the results I'm getting from the HDR processing. I suspect there is more going on in HDR processing than you assume.

1. been shot in RAW format, but single shot ie just one exposure!

But it still doesn't have a high dynamic range!
If anything, your shot qualifies as LDR.

I think we can agree that JPEGs are low dynamic range. The fact that you can't notice the extra eV range on this particular shot, as seen in a gallery photo, doesn't mean that it isn't there. The point is simply that a single raw file, whether through linear output or exposure-adjusted TIFFs is HDR. Some may argue that true HDR requires camera multiple exposures, the ssHDR moniker leaves no room for misunderstanding- ssHDR isn't true HDR. And ssHDR has more range than JPEG. Simple and clean, HDR> ssHDR> JPEG when it comes to dynamic range.

Most raw files are now exceeding that range. That's why raw processing software often simply "throws away" some of the dynamic range.

2. RAW conversion of this single shot to 2 or more exposure bracketed TIFFs.

That is what indicates that you are simply not processing your raw files correctly.

See above, I get linear output from my raw conversion process.

Okay, you will get better highlight and shadow recovery by using multiple camera exposures, but in any case a single shot RAW has more dynamic range than a camera JPEG.

That is true. However, no one, aside from you, has either stated or implied that a camera JPEG is a proper definition for a SDR or LDR shot. Right now, all you're trying to define is a difference between raw and JPEG.

Not so fast and loose! I've only defined ssHDR. In the process I've only stated the well-known fact that raw files have more dynamic range than JPEG files. In my book that means that an image made from all the info in a raw file has a higher dynamic range. By the way LDR is an accepted acronym, SDR isn't.

Noise is also higher for a single shot HDR, as can be seen in the images I posted. Personally I'm exploring ways to use this noise instead of fighting it, so no slick-magazine pixel-perfect marketing-makeup results for me! I want to celebrate dead/hot pixels, and imperfect noisy images in an imperfect noisy world! (stepping down from my soapbox, now).

That will depend on your particular camera, more than anything else. There are a lot of cameras where the noise is highly objectionable: Nikon D200 (I used to have one) and Canon 5D II (I have one now) come immediately to mind. Their shadow noise tends to be "pattern noise", vertical bands mostly.

3. Steps 3 and on are just everybody's favorite HDR work flow. So from here on it's just standard stuff, loading bracketed TIFFS,

Standard, but unnecessary.

generating extended radiance files or whatever your software may call it and pushing all the sliders to taste.

Radiance files are an industry standard going back 25 years.

So does it deserve a name?

Since you phrased that as a question, no.

Your technique amounts to nothing more than applying a tone map to a raw file processed for maximum dynamic range. The fact that you are processing your raw files incorrectly (clipping highlights and shadows, so you need to do multiple conversions with different exposure compensation, then merge them back into what you should have been able to do in the first place) is no one's fault but your own.

Your assumption is wrong on my raw file conversion process. You might have checked with me to verify my work flow, before saying it is incorrect. All HDR uses tone mapping to output to prints or monitors. So just what is your objection to ssHDR? The only thing I can gather from your response is that true HDR requires multiple exposure shots from the camera. Since everything else in the process is exactly the same work flow, sure seems like single shot HDR is a very descriptive and rational category for this type of photography.

I think so, and if my opinion mattered (now stepping onto soapbox again) I would also like ssHDR to be associated with imperfect noisy images, pixels dead and hot, cameras old and of low-class resolution.

Now you've moved away from any characteristics of anything that could ever have an acronym, and are trying to start a movement. That's fine, many people have started movements, and many have named them after themselves.

As I stated, it was wishful thinking. On a less serious note, it was also meant to add some humor. Just like your amusingly sarcastic diatribe.

But that's not a characteristic of HDR, even "single shot" HDR techniques. That's your "thing".

It's like no one would look at your image and say "that looks like HDR". They might like it, they might hate it, but they won't recognize HDR as a part of it, and your ssHDR label just gets in the way of what you're actually trying to accomplish.

Sorry to inform you that your assumptions are wrong, again. Most people that know HDR do recognize it. The moniker says it all: ssHDR.
Michael

 

[Chato]

Sorry to inform you that your assumptions are wrong, again. Most people that know HDR do recognize it. The moniker says it all: ssHDR.
Michael

Are your wheels square like mine? Your argument is going nowhere.

This question has been thrashed out for years; don't blame other people for your not being aware of it.

Dave

 

[michael_anthony]

Hence the need to find a name for this 'thing', a name that other photographers will understand. Since the work flow is ssHDR, it seems like a logical choice, unless you can duplicate this effect with tone mapping (I know that I can't).

I'm not going to put a lot of time into it. Here's a basic Mantiuk and Miskowski tone mapping algorithm, contrast equalization 6.381, saturation factor 0.485, detail factor 1.0. It takes about 10 seconds to display an image after changing the settings, so I only took 4 or 5 shots at it. Working from a JPEG is nonoptimal, the JPEG block noise triggers local contrast detection, as you can see in the upper left and lower right corners, and that throws the entire image off.

So the entire image is off because of the JPEG you worked from. Are you implying that a TIFF file (which wouldn't have the JPEG blocks) processed with this algorithm would give exactly the same results as those gotten from the work flow I used? There is some dynamic range that I recovered from the raw file that just won't be there in the TIFF, so I suspect that the algorithm won't give the same output image. In any case, it looks like an interesting tool to have in the shed!

In any case, getting back to the nitty-gritty details of what this post was about, HDR image is the accepted name for pictures that result from tone mapping high dynamic range images to low dynamic range medium. So just what is the problem with classifying single shot high dynamic range images that have been tone mapped to low dynamic range medium, as ssHDR images?

 

[michael_anthony]

Post processing a RAW image three different ways to achieve three different pseudo exposures is absolutely not the same thing as shooting multiple images at different exposure levels. It is simple to demonstrate that fact. Shoot three images of the same thing and vary the exposure by 1or 2 stops. Then choose one of those three images and try to make it look like the other two by post processing. You can get darker or lighter images but you can't reproduce the shadow and highlight detail of the seperate images. That is why HDR was developed in the first place.

This was stated right from the beginning of this thread, along with the fact that raw files have more dynamic range than LDR monitors or prints. Raw files, even a single shot, can effectively use HDR processing to create new types of images. The intent of this post is to recognize this and give it a name.

Your sample looks kind of like an ink drawing created from a photograph. I won't deny that the effects are interesting or appealing but they are not HDR imagery and should not be labeled as such.

We have enough confusion in the photographic world already. We don't need to invent new terminology that alters the definition of usefu terminology.

HDR image is the accepted name for pictures that result from tone mapping merged multiple camera exposure dynamic range images to low dynamic range medium. So just what is the problem with classifying single shot high dynamic range raw images that have been tone mapped to low dynamic range medium, as ssHDR images? It defines precisely what it is and how it was made.

 

[michael_anthony]

Some of the software downloads refer to this as "single image HDR"-- so from where I sit there's no need for any new terminology.

As others have mentioned, none of this is much different than what Ansel Adams accomplished with visualization, changing the chemistry during the developing process, and them more manipulation of the highlights and shadows during the printing process. It's been awhile since I've read his book ( I believe it was called "The exposure"). As I recall, he used 5 different formulas while processing his sheet film, marked as +2, +1, 0, -1, & -2. He would mark each exposure on the film holder based on his experience with how each of these increased the tone range (the zone system) & then use the appropriate chemistry. Suffice it to say, a lot more work than working with HDR.

Single image HDR or single shot HDR, from where you and I sit are the same animal. Don't know if you read all the posts in this thread but you are the first person to find this terminology understandable. I'm still tying to understand exactly why it is so objectionable to the other posters.

 

[michael_anthony]

I like your effect but I think you should adjust the different color levels under the "black and white" option in the adjustments menu, to create more contrast between the building, grass, mountain, and sky. I attempted to do as much with your original but I couldn't get as good of an HDR effect as you.

Hmmm, can't find those adjustments, what application are you using?

The HDR effect is because I'm using HDR software on a single exposure RAW file, which is the reason why I classify this image as ssHDR.

You may "classify" it as such, but I disagree, for two reasons.

1. Your original image is not HDR. It's flat, it's softly lit on a hazy day.
2. You're using the "tone mapping" feature of the HDR program. You could feed an image with a very low dynamic range into those same tone mapping algorithms, and you'd end up increasing the local contrast and the overall dynamic range of the image.

And if we started with a single raw file that in your opinion had additional dynamic range? Would you then agree to call the resultant image ssHDR? Or do you object to any single raw file source that's been processed with HDR work flows and techniques getting the ssHDR moniker?

I started this post to see if this name seems reasonable to other photographers, what do you think?

Sounds totally unreasonable to me.

• All HDR programs have tone mapping algorithms built in. Because you've used an HDR program's tone mapping ability does not mean that you have performed HDR.
• All cars have headlights. Because you have shined the headlights on something does not mean that you have driven the car.

So your criterion is the dynamic range of the original single raw file? As long as it has more dynamic range than a JPEG, it seems to me to be very reasonable to give it the HDR title, especially if one uses the same work flow and algorithms as HDR images to be able to extract and express that additional imagery. And not to confuse all things HDR, ssHDR is crystal clear, just like single image HDR, 2 synonyms for the same concept.

The problem with the original photo is that it was shot facing the sun, which is just off-frame to the upper-left. This left the building face in the shadows, so I used HDR software to extract some detail from there.

Here's a different processing to get more contrast between the sunlit grass and building, hope you enjoy it!

Playing with qtpfsgui, are we?

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[portlandscanner]

Some of the software downloads refer to this as "single image HDR"-- so from where I sit there's no need for any new terminology.

As others have mentioned, none of this is much different than what Ansel Adams accomplished with visualization, changing the chemistry during the developing process, and them more manipulation of the highlights and shadows during the printing process. It's been awhile since I've read his book ( I believe it was called "The exposure"). As I recall, he used 5 different formulas while processing his sheet film, marked as +2, +1, 0, -1, & -2. He would mark each exposure on the film holder based on his experience with how each of these increased the tone range (the zone system) & then use the appropriate chemistry. Suffice it to say, a lot more work than working with HDR.

Single image HDR or single shot HDR, from where you and I sit are the same animal. Don't know if you read all the posts in this thread but you are the first person to find this terminology understandable. I'm still tying to understand exactly why it is so objectionable to the other posters.

I should have added "or compressed" in my comments on Ansel Adams & his 5 chemistries designed to handle differing levels of contrast.

I don't do a lot of post-processing--Primarily, I suppose, from shooting so many transparencies-- they are so unforgiving essentially because you are left with the film-- with no chance to correct. I really appreciate how easy stuff post -processing is today as compared to how much work fine-tuning in the darkroom was! I can imagine that Adams would have embraced digital in a big way.

 

[sophia0]

yeah'wonderful share

 

[michael_anthony]

Some of the software downloads refer to this as "single image HDR"-- so from where I sit there's no need for any new terminology.

As others have mentioned, none of this is much different than what Ansel Adams accomplished with visualization, changing the chemistry during the developing process, and them more manipulation of the highlights and shadows during the printing process. It's been awhile since I've read his book ( I believe it was called "The exposure"). As I recall, he used 5 different formulas while processing his sheet film, marked as +2, +1, 0, -1, & -2. He would mark each exposure on the film holder based on his experience with how each of these increased the tone range (the zone system) & then use the appropriate chemistry. Suffice it to say, a lot more work than working with HDR.

Single image HDR or single shot HDR, from where you and I sit are the same animal. Don't know if you read all the posts in this thread but you are the first person to find this terminology understandable. I'm still tying to understand exactly why it is so objectionable to the other posters.

I should have added "or compressed" in my comments on Ansel Adams & his 5 chemistries designed to handle differing levels of contrast.

I don't do a lot of post-processing--Primarily, I suppose, from shooting so many transparencies-- they are so unforgiving essentially because you are left with the film-- with no chance to correct. I really appreciate how easy stuff post -processing is today as compared to how much work fine-tuning in the darkroom was! I can imagine that Adams would have embraced digital in a big way.

I used to do b&w darkroom work myself, though I never got around to printing/developing with different bath formulations. The biggest advantage of digital for me is that experimentation is so easy and the feedback so fast.

Adams would have found that a laptop weighs less than the tripods he carried on location! If I remember correctly, he needed a mule to carry his equipment for his 'national park' shots.

 

[Chato]

Some of the software downloads refer to this as "single image HDR"-- so from where I sit there's no need for any new terminology.

As others have mentioned, none of this is much different than what Ansel Adams accomplished with visualization, changing the chemistry during the developing process, and them more manipulation of the highlights and shadows during the printing process. It's been awhile since I've read his book ( I believe it was called "The exposure"). As I recall, he used 5 different formulas while processing his sheet film, marked as +2, +1, 0, -1, & -2. He would mark each exposure on the film holder based on his experience with how each of these increased the tone range (the zone system) & then use the appropriate chemistry. Suffice it to say, a lot more work than working with HDR.

Single image HDR or single shot HDR, from where you and I sit are the same animal. Don't know if you read all the posts in this thread but you are the first person to find this terminology understandable. I'm still tying to understand exactly why it is so objectionable to the other posters.

I should have added "or compressed" in my comments on Ansel Adams & his 5 chemistries designed to handle differing levels of contrast.

I don't do a lot of post-processing--Primarily, I suppose, from shooting so many transparencies-- they are so unforgiving essentially because you are left with the film-- with no chance to correct. I really appreciate how easy stuff post -processing is today as compared to how much work fine-tuning in the darkroom was! I can imagine that Adams would have embraced digital in a big way.

When someone uses the word "HDR," they are referring to a specific form of image. A tone mapped image can sometimes look like an HDR, but it really lacks the real depth of such an image.

Why not call a water color painting an oil painting? We don't because the two forms of painting, while sometimes you can confuse the two, usually "look" differently.

In addition, try to remember that a Raw file is NOT an image file. It only becomes an image after you export it to an image processing program. When you create your so called single shot HDR, you are combining three or more JPEG's in which the data has been frozen - Whereas three separate Raw shots contain far more data than only one in which you are simply pushing the data.

Let's not confuse things more than they already are.

Dave

 

[Cedarhill]

You are confusing tone mapping, which is a software function, with HDR photography, which is a camera and software function. What you did was use software to process a photograph into something that looks something like a drawing. There is nothing special or unique about your technique that would merit giving a special name. Software exists which will do similar things automatically (eg Fotosketcher). It just isn't that big a deal. You can call it whatever you wish but calling it HDR will not make it an HDR image. There are a few other people who erroneously apply the HDR label to a single image but all they (and you) are doing is creating confusion among other beginners.

 

[Cedarhill]

Okay, I will buy your definition. What cameras are you referring to that will capture this wide dynamic range? I wish I could buy a camera that could approach the dynamic range of human perception.

 

[Chato]

Okay, I will buy your definition. What cameras are you referring to that will capture this wide dynamic range? I wish I could buy a camera that could approach the dynamic range of human perception.

Human perception only has a one or two stop advantage on the best cameras out there.

The human eye has to alter it's perception to go from highlights to shadows, but this process is, err, transparent to the user. So whereas we "shoot" to capture the shadows, or "shoot" to capture the highlights, the human eye makes these changes automatically.

This is one of the reasons that poorly done HDR are often criticised as being "unreal." They ARE un real. They are capturing a greater DR then our eye can see at any one time.

Dave