Image: ssHDR - a proper classification?

[michael_anthony]

How would you classify this type of photograph?
It's not HDR because it is a single exposure, though hdr processing was used.

(Also, it's not truly b&w as the RAW file was processed in color to preserve the chroma noise, then color saturation was set to zero. Intentionally, no noise reduction software was used.)

Does ssHDR - single shot high dynamic range - make sense as a category?





For comparison, here is the original:

 

[Chato]

How would you classify this type of photograph?
It's not HDR because it is a single exposure, though hdr processing was used.

(Also, it's not truly b&w as the RAW file was processed in color to preserve the chroma noise, then color saturation was set to zero. Intentionally, no noise reduction software was used.)

Does ssHDR - single shot high dynamic range - make sense as a category?

It's called "tone mapping" and was used extensively with film, as well as digital.

I'm not a big fan of the job you did on this image, but then again, taste is individual. It's an interesting effect and worth pursuing.

Dave

 

[IcyVeins]

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.

 

[michael_anthony]

How would you classify this type of photograph?
It's not HDR because it is a single exposure, though hdr processing was used.

(Also, it's not truly b&w as the RAW file was processed in color to preserve the chroma noise, then color saturation was set to zero. Intentionally, no noise reduction software was used.)

Does ssHDR - single shot high dynamic range - make sense as a category?

It's called "tone mapping" and was used extensively with film, as well as digital.

I'm not a big fan of the job you did on this image, but then again, taste is individual. It's an interesting effect and worth pursuing.

Dave

Leaving aside the question of taste, I was wondering how to classify this type of photography.

The reason that I don't think this is a tone mapped image is that I've tried getting this effect by tone mapping alone on the RAW images and I've never been able to get the same results - maybe it's just me not knowing how to create the needed tone map. Are you able to do it? I think the post after yours has my original tone mapped by a different poster, and the result isn't comparable.

My work flow is really single shot HDR, and my experiments to date with tone mapping can't duplicate this result. Technically HDR requires multiple exposures, and if you are interested in clean, noise free images, it is necessary to use a tripod and do exposure bracketing (making sure to use a fixed aperture so as not to change dof, so only shutter speed is varied). So in fact, ssHDR is the work flow.

For some background, I'm more of a 'street shooter' so tripods are out, as is shutter-speed exposure bracketing due to subject, background or foreground movement.

So now I'm experimenting with pushing and pulling a single RAW exposure to the extreme of adding chroma,quanta and sensor+ancillary electronic noise to the image. When I show my friends these results, reactions range anywhere from interesting- like yours- to requests to teach some of them how to do the same thing, as they like the look so much.

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).
Michael

 

[Cedarhill]

. . . HDR images are multiple images shot at different exposures to expand the dynamic range beyond what can be achieved with a single image. I think your proposed alteration of the term will only serve to confuse people.

By the way, the image you posted is interesting but it has none of the characteristics of an HDR image. It is not high dynamic range in any sense of the term.

 

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

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!

 

[michael_anthony]

. . . HDR images are multiple images shot at different exposures to expand the dynamic range beyond what can be achieved with a single image. I think your proposed alteration of the term will only serve to confuse people.

By the way, the image you posted is interesting but it has none of the characteristics of an HDR image. It is not high dynamic range in any sense of the term.

Not sure if you read the whole thread but in a response to a different poster I wrote "Technically HDR requires multiple exposures, and if you are interested in clean, noise free images, it is necessary to use a tripod and do exposure bracketing (making sure to use a fixed aperture so as not to change dof, so only shutter speed is varied)".

My work flow is really single shot HDR, and my experiments to date with tone mapping can't duplicate this result. Is this real HDR? In one word, yes it is. Why? Because I'm taking a single RAW shot and producing at least 3 different exposure-valued TIFFs. I'm getting at least one and a half extra stops of info from highlights and shadows as compared to a camera JPEG. I then process all of these exposure bracketed TIFFs using standard HDR work flow.

So yes, this is high dynamic range in the real sense of the term, but it is a single shot HDR, which I still think is the most logical classification ie ssHDR.

Here's another take on the same single shot RAW, exposure bracketed in the RAW developer, and HDRed.

 

[drh681]

I think your technique is worth persuing; whatever you decide to call it.

I would only suggest bumping the mid tone contrast to bring up some of the detail.

you could do like some guys and put your name on it.
--
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.

 

[Chato]

How would you classify this type of photograph?
It's not HDR because it is a single exposure, though hdr processing was used.

(Also, it's not truly b&w as the RAW file was processed in color to preserve the chroma noise, then color saturation was set to zero. Intentionally, no noise reduction software was used.)

Does ssHDR - single shot high dynamic range - make sense as a category?

It's called "tone mapping" and was used extensively with film, as well as digital.

I'm not a big fan of the job you did on this image, but then again, taste is individual. It's an interesting effect and worth pursuing.

Dave

Leaving aside the question of taste, I was wondering how to classify this type of photography.

The reason that I don't think this is a tone mapped image is that I've tried getting this effect by tone mapping alone on the RAW images and I've never been able to get the same results - maybe it's just me not knowing how to create the needed tone map. Are you able to do it? I think the post after yours has my original tone mapped by a different poster, and the result isn't comparable.

As I said this has been done since the days of film. The most famous proponent is Ansel Adams. Take a look at his work on the net.

My work flow is really single shot HDR, and my experiments to date with tone mapping can't duplicate this result.

No offense, but because you can't do it, it can't be done?

Technically HDR requires multiple exposures, and if you are interested in clean, noise free images, it is necessary to use a tripod and do exposure bracketing (making sure to use a fixed aperture so as not to change dof, so only shutter speed is varied). So in fact, ssHDR is the work flow.

You can get vaguely the same effect by using one RAW image saved three times with different exposures. You can then create a pseduo HDR which is often indistinguishable from a three shot bracketed series of images.

For some background, I'm more of a 'street shooter' so tripods are out, as is shutter-speed exposure bracketing due to subject, background or foreground movement.

So now I'm experimenting with pushing and pulling a single RAW exposure to the extreme of adding chroma,quanta and sensor+ancillary electronic noise to the image. When I show my friends these results, reactions range anywhere from interesting- like yours- to requests to teach some of them how to do the same thing, as they like the look so much.

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).

Tone mapping can immitate HDR, as I said take a look at the work of Adams.

Dave

Michael

 

[IcyVeins]

Just wondering, but how would a real HDR be any different from the method of using three RAW shots at different exposures? You said it would be vaguely similar and often indistinguishable but to me it seems like the same thing, just doing it after the fact.

 

[drh681]

I know you meant that for somebody else but the fact always remains exposure is on a per frame basis.
Jiggering in RAW is not actually changing the exopsure.

That's the point of the "true" HDR technique you have "proper exposure" for several different tonal values.

The magic comes form the algorithms that blend those values according to your setting in the interface.

single image HDR uses the "latitude" of a good exposure and some algorithm to extend the tonal range each way.

But severe under or over exposure will never have enough detail in the "lost" end to bring it back from a single image. It is just not there to even make a good guess at.
--
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]

How would you classify this type of photograph?
It's not HDR because it is a single exposure, though hdr processing was used.

(Also, it's not truly b&w as the RAW file was processed in color to preserve the chroma noise, then color saturation was set to zero. Intentionally, no noise reduction software was used.)

Does ssHDR - single shot high dynamic range - make sense as a category?

It's called "tone mapping" and was used extensively with film, as well as digital.

I'm not a big fan of the job you did on this image, but then again, taste is individual. It's an interesting effect and worth pursuing.

Dave

Leaving aside the question of taste, I was wondering how to classify this type of photography.

It's not a "type" of photography. It's the application of one algorithm. We don't declare a "type" for B&W conversions.

The reason that I don't think this is a tone mapped image is that I've tried getting this effect by tone mapping alone on the RAW images

How did you do your "tone mapping"?

Your image looks pretty much like a small radius local contrast enhancement tone mapping.

and I've never been able to get the same results - maybe it's just me not knowing how to create the needed tone map.

You don't normally "create" the tone map. Most tone mapping algorithms won't even let you see it.

Are you able to do it? I think the post after yours has my original tone mapped by a different poster, and the result isn't comparable.

My work flow is really single shot HDR,

No, it really isn't. Your original image appears to be quite low dynamic range.

and my experiments to date with tone mapping can't duplicate this result. Technically HDR requires multiple exposures,

Technically, it requires a "high dynamic range". There are techniques to do that in one exposure, dating back to the film days.

and if you are interested in clean, noise free images, it is necessary to use a tripod and do exposure bracketing (making sure to use a fixed aperture so as not to change dof, so only shutter speed is varied). So in fact, ssHDR is the work flow.

For some background, I'm more of a 'street shooter' so tripods are out, as is shutter-speed exposure bracketing due to subject, background or foreground movement.

So now I'm experimenting with pushing and pulling a single RAW exposure to the extreme of adding chroma,quanta and sensor+ancillary electronic noise to the image. When I show my friends these results, reactions range anywhere from interesting- like yours- to requests to teach some of them how to do the same thing, as they like the look so much.

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.





--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

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

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[michael_anthony]

I think your technique is worth persuing; whatever you decide to call it.

I would only suggest bumping the mid tone contrast to bring up some of the detail.

you could do like some guys and put your name on it.

Do you mean to say that someone will steal it?
Anyway, here's the same shot with the mid tone contrast bumped up and down.
Which is the one you're suggesting?
By the way, does ssHDR make sense to you?

 

[Cedarhill]

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.

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.

 

[Chato]

Just wondering, but how would a real HDR be any different from the method of using three RAW shots at different exposures? You said it would be vaguely similar and often indistinguishable but to me it seems like the same thing, just doing it after the fact.

I referred to that technique as "psuedo HDR." I say this because a Raw is not the same as an actual exposure. Pushing back a RAW or pushing it forward is not as effective as an actual exposure.

Even so, often enough the results are excellent.

Dave

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The reason that I don't think this is a tone mapped image is that I've tried getting this effect by tone mapping alone on the RAW images and I've never been able to get the same results - maybe it's just me not knowing how to create the needed tone map. Are you able to do it? I think the post after yours has my original tone mapped by a different poster, and the result isn't comparable.

As I said this has been done since the days of film. The most famous proponent is Ansel Adams. Take a look at his work on the net.

My work flow is really single shot HDR, and my experiments to date with tone mapping can't duplicate this result.

No offense, but because you can't do it, it can't be done?

Scroll up a post

Technically HDR requires multiple exposures, and if you are interested in clean, noise free images, it is necessary to use a tripod and do exposure bracketing (making sure to use a fixed aperture so as not to change dof, so only shutter speed is varied). So in fact, ssHDR is the work flow.

You can get vaguely the same effect by using one RAW image saved three times with different exposures. You can then create a pseduo HDR which is often indistinguishable from a three shot bracketed series of images.

This is true. Some cameras have a high enough dynamic range now to qualify as HDR in a single shot.

Generally, it's not necessary to play all the games you see people doing, processing the same raw file with 2 or 3 different exposure compensations. Mostly, that's done so that you can "manually" tone map, punching something from a more or less exposed layer. That's done because a full fledged HDR image is, overall, flat, and difficult to work with visually. Each of the different exposures on their independent layers correspond to a different "simple" tone mapping (maybe as simple as just gamma).

For some background, I'm more of a 'street shooter' so tripods are out, as is shutter-speed exposure bracketing due to subject, background or foreground movement.

So now I'm experimenting with pushing and pulling a single RAW exposure to the extreme of adding chroma,quanta and sensor+ancillary electronic noise to the image. When I show my friends these results, reactions range anywhere from interesting- like yours- to requests to teach some of them how to do the same thing, as they like the look so much.

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).

Tone mapping can immitate HDR, as I said take a look at the work of Adams.

Tone mapping is just mapping visual tones to the image. It can be done simply, as in the case of a gamma function, or very complex, by hunting down different regions and altering their tone relative to other nearby regions. If this is done manually, it's "burning" and "dodging". If it's done automatically, by a program, it's what's commonly called "tone mapping", but is really "complex" tone mapping, instead of the "simple" tone mapping that would leave an image too flat.

A good working definition of HDR is any image with a high enough dynamic range that a simple video monitor "gamma curve" or film and paper "S curve" can't turn it into a visually pleasing representation.

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.

--
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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

By definition . . .

. . . HDR images are multiple images shot at different exposures to expand the dynamic range beyond what can be achieved with a single image.

Actually, "by definition", HDR images are images that have too high a dynamic range to be displayed conventionally, i.e. by a combination of graphics card and monitor with a simple gamma curve or by a combination of film and paper with an "S curve".

The first HDR imaging I encountered was illumination maps for 3D graphics rendering, and they weren't "shots" at all.

There are several cameras currently on the market whose raw output qualifies as HDR, if you simply gamma curve the whole range of the file, it's too flat to be considered usable.

I think your proposed alteration of the term will only serve to confuse people.

I agree.

He's taking a fairly low dynamic range image, and just using the "tone mapping" feature of an HDR program to process it.

By the way, the image you posted is interesting but it has none of the characteristics of an HDR image. It is not high dynamic range in any sense of the term.

Agreed.

Surprisingly, the Wikipedia actually has a pretty good definition of high dynamic range imaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging

Often, Wikipedia articles get me so steamed that I start rewriting them

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

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

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[michael_anthony]

You say pseudo HDR, I find ssHDR more descriptive of the work flow.
To be precise 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

 

[michael_anthony]

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