What is the use of HDR?

[jipnet]

I'm starting to use my iPhone 15 Plus with Lightrooms' camera and HDR. HDR looks great on the phone and in a laptop (MBP M1) but the web versions are very disappointing. All of which makes me wonder what the point of using HDR is. Unless a viewer has HDR compatible hardware, you are left with gorgeous pictures for yourself but not for others. Is photography really meant to be a narcissistic activity? : )

The idea of an ecosystem is a good one. It's just hard to know how to break out of that walled structure when you want to.

Curious about others' opinions.

 

[PieterB]

The idea of an ecosystem is ultimately to make it hard to switch to another brand.

One of these things is the ridiculous US discussion about blue and green bubbles. That doesn't exist in Europe because WhatsApp is the standard.

There should be a law about interconnectivity so that regardless of the platform, you can use it on all devices. Just as email works.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I'm starting to use my iPhone 15 Plus with Lightrooms' camera and HDR. HDR looks great on the phone and in a laptop (MBP M1) but the web versions are very disappointing. All of which makes me wonder what the point of using HDR is. Unless a viewer has HDR compatible hardware, you are left with gorgeous pictures for yourself but not for others. Is photography really meant to be a narcissistic activity? : )

I am not too sure what you are getting at here.

HDR is a method of handling very high dynamic range scenes where you want to retain detail in both very bright areas and very dark areas. Typically when taking a single image you have to choose between detail in the highlights but none in the shadows or vice versa.

However, if you take multiple images at different exposures, you can merge them together to get a single image that has both details in the highlights and in the shadows. Phones do this more or less automatically. With a camera you can either output all the image files and merge them together in post processing or you can do it in camera and get a single merged jpeg. Many cameras will do both - output both a merged jpeg and the individual images. Merging in post processing from multiple raw images will give you the best possible output quality. It will also enable you to produce deliberately unnatural looking images if you want to - this was all the rage 10 or so years ago.

HDR works best with images with no movement in them. Fast moving objects in the image are liable to show motion blur to some extent depending on how good the merge software is.

It sounds as if you are picking up one of the individual images from your phone when you try to post to the web. That is a workflow problem.

 

[jipnet]

Lightroom has an HDR option for shooting photos that automates the HDR workflow:

https://helpx.adobe.com/africa/ligh...rsion 2.7, Adobe,your processed raw HDR image.

 

[Dem Bell]

I'm starting to use my iPhone 15 Plus with Lightrooms' camera and HDR. HDR looks great on the phone and in a laptop (MBP M1) but the web versions are very disappointing. All of which makes me wonder what the point of using HDR is. Unless a viewer has HDR compatible hardware, you are left with gorgeous pictures for yourself but not for others. Is photography really meant to be a narcissistic activity? : )

I am not too sure what you are getting at here.

HDR is a method of handling very high dynamic range scenes where you want to retain detail in both very bright areas and very dark areas. Typically when taking a single image you have to choose between detail in the highlights but none in the shadows or vice versa.

However, if you take multiple images at different exposures, you can merge them together to get a single image that has both details in the highlights and in the shadows. Phones do this more or less automatically. With a camera you can either output all the image files and merge them together in post processing or you can do it in camera and get a single merged jpeg. Many cameras will do both - output both a merged jpeg and the individual images. Merging in post processing from multiple raw images will give you the best possible output quality. It will also enable you to produce deliberately unnatural looking images if you want to - this was all the rage 10 or so years ago.

HDR works best with images with no movement in them. Fast moving objects in the image are liable to show motion blur to some extent depending on how good the merge software is.

It sounds as if you are picking up one of the individual images from your phone when you try to post to the web. That is a workflow problem.

It's a communication problem. The question is not about HDR technique but about processing Apple HDR raw files.

"Beginning with version 2.7, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for mobile (iOS) supports HDR raw image capture on any iPhone or iPad device that has at least a 12-megapixel camera, running at iOS 10.0 or newer."

I think the problem is not the processing but the displaying of images - Apple likes setting up proprietary vivid viewing profiles when displaying images. You open the same file on a "non-Apple" device and suddenly the colours look dull.

 

[Dem Bell]

Lightroom has an HDR option for shooting photos that automates the HDR workflow:

https://helpx.adobe.com/africa/ligh...rsion 2.7, Adobe,your processed raw HDR image.

Are you looking at JPEG images or 32-bit floating point DNG files?

 

[Bill Ferris]

Lightroom has an HDR option for shooting photos that automates the HDR workflow:

https://helpx.adobe.com/africa/ligh...rsion 2.7, Adobe,your processed raw HDR image.

Yup, there have been commercial HDR apps on the market for 20+ years. Photomatix was among the early popular apps. Exposure bracketing and HDR merging enabled a scene with a dynamic range far exceeding what a camera could capture in a single exposure to be rendered in a composite image that could be displayed in print or on a screen with standard dynamic range.

Today, there are monitors that can display images having much greater DR than a consumer camera can capture in a single exposure and do so without having to compress all that information and detail.

They've not been widely embraced by consumers, so the technology is still niche in its application. A factor influencing the public's limited demand for this tech is that photos with 10-12 stops of dynamic range look awesome. Even photos with 7-9 stops of DR can be award-winning at the highest levels. In short, standard DR is more than good enough for 99% of people who enjoy and practice the medium.

This isn't to say you and others shouldn't pursue an interest in pushing the technical limits of HDR. It just may be a few years - or many - before that work finds a large audience. The small audience of enthusiasts will have to do for awhile.

 

[jipnet]

Lightroom has an HDR option for shooting photos that automates the HDR workflow:

https://helpx.adobe.com/africa/ligh...rsion 2.7, Adobe,your processed raw HDR image.

Are you looking at JPEG images or 32-bit floating point DNG files?

In Lightroom web shared albums, photos are always displayed as JPEGs. However, you can give people the option to download the original DNG files, including any floating-point data.

Regardless, my question is what the point of HDR photos or any non-JPEG output is. No question that RAW (DNG) and HDR-shot and processed files look stunning when viewed in a system capable of those displays. But (to go back to the idea of eco-system), does this mean that photographers use these rich formats to view and enjoy them for themselves or to share in those rich formats with others? I gather that printing from processed RAW files causes IQ loss (much the way sound files that are downsized/compressed are). The same is true of shared files (barring the ability to view them on the right screen). The eco-system here is not LR but the digital eco-sphere itself.

Let's say I process an image and want to share it with you. I upload it somewhere; the display values will be inferior unless you download the files and open them on a capable digital platform (your computer, your phone, etc). It does feel like a closed circuit. Just trying to understand the logic. Thanks.

 

[jipnet]

Lightroom has an HDR option for shooting photos that automates the HDR workflow:

https://helpx.adobe.com/africa/ligh...rsion 2.7, Adobe,your processed raw HDR image.

Yup, there have been commercial HDR apps on the market for 20+ years. Photomatix was among the early popular apps. Exposure bracketing and HDR merging enabled a scene with a dynamic range far exceeding what a camera could capture in a single exposure to be rendered in a composite image that could be displayed in print or on a screen with standard dynamic range.

Today, there are monitors that can display images having much greater DR than a consumer camera can capture in a single exposure and do so without having to compress all that information and detail.

They've not been widely embraced by consumers, so the technology is still niche in its application. A factor influencing the public's limited demand for this tech is that photos with 10-12 stops of dynamic range look awesome. Even photos with 7-9 stops of DR can be award-winning at the highest levels. In short, standard DR is more than good enough for 99% of people who enjoy and practice the medium.

This isn't to say you and others shouldn't pursue an interest in pushing the technical limits of HDR. It just may be a few years - or many - before that work finds a large audience. The small audience of enthusiasts will have to do for awhile.

Thanks. I just visited your site. Really great photos! My question (see previous post by me in this chain) is what I am looking at? Either JPEGs or JPEG XL, but not the original photo. If you compare your originals (processed) with the web images, do you not notice a huge difference? How do you reconcile this in your mind? What is the thinking here?

I've never seen a photo with 10-12 stops of DR. LR does 4 as the preset; perhaps it can do more. I was surprised at how small my files are (under 20 kb). I imagine if I increase the stops they will balloon in size and will try nonetheless.

I'm not a perfectionist, and my ears are shot, so pursuing the highest DR for sound files is not what I look for to enjoy music. But my eyes work very well, and they do appreciate amazing visuals. Maybe the limitations on the media currently available is a good thing: we are obliged to appreciate the framing of images rather than their pyrotechnical displays. But the pyrotechnics get us so much closer to actual vision, it's hard not to want them. tx

PS: I am thinking of Ansel Adams' work: b/w, richly saturated, beautifully framed, etc., but not in HDR. Perhaps that is an old and dated target for photographers to aim at (though I doubt I could rival his work with my newfangled technology).

 

[jipnet]

LR has its own RAW (DNG) format; you can use Apple's but don't have to. I don't.

But yes, it's all about display. I'm asking a question about the logic of photographic display, a kind of cui bono question: do we use RAW processing for our personal pleasure and occasional sharing? Is that it?

 

[Bill Ferris]

Lightroom has an HDR option for shooting photos that automates the HDR workflow:

https://helpx.adobe.com/africa/ligh...rsion 2.7, Adobe,your processed raw HDR image.

Yup, there have been commercial HDR apps on the market for 20+ years. Photomatix was among the early popular apps. Exposure bracketing and HDR merging enabled a scene with a dynamic range far exceeding what a camera could capture in a single exposure to be rendered in a composite image that could be displayed in print or on a screen with standard dynamic range.

Today, there are monitors that can display images having much greater DR than a consumer camera can capture in a single exposure and do so without having to compress all that information and detail.

They've not been widely embraced by consumers, so the technology is still niche in its application. A factor influencing the public's limited demand for this tech is that photos with 10-12 stops of dynamic range look awesome. Even photos with 7-9 stops of DR can be award-winning at the highest levels. In short, standard DR is more than good enough for 99% of people who enjoy and practice the medium.

This isn't to say you and others shouldn't pursue an interest in pushing the technical limits of HDR. It just may be a few years - or many - before that work finds a large audience. The small audience of enthusiasts will have to do for awhile.

Thanks. I just visited your site. Really great photos! My question (see previous post by me in this chain) is what I am looking at? Either JPEGs or JPEG XL, but not the original photo. If you compare your originals (processed) with the web images, do you not notice a huge difference? How do you reconcile this in your mind? What is the thinking here?

Personally, I think a photo really comes to life when printed or displayed large.



Size allows a viewer to immerse themselves in an image. It rarely equals the power of being in the place and experiencing the moment in person, but a quality photo made large at least gives a taste of what that must have been like.

If you've got a large HDR res monitor, I would imagine your best photos look pretty impressive on that display. An advantage of that method of display is that you can cycle through a collection of high quality images. I can't do that with a physical print.

I do cycle through exported JPEGs as backgrounds on my 27" Asus monitor. That allows me a taste of the quality of those images.

It's not an HDR display but, quite frankly, I don't seek out lighting and subjects that push the DR limits of my gear. I'm often at ISO 800 with my Z9, which has a maximum DR of about 9 stops. I'm at ISO 12800 (5 stops) for some keepers.

I've never seen a photo with 10-12 stops of DR. LR does 4 as the preset; perhaps it can do more. I was surprised at how small my files are (under 20 kb). I imagine if I increase the stops they will balloon in size and will try nonetheless.

I'm not a perfectionist, and my ears are shot, so pursuing the highest DR for sound files is not what I look for to enjoy music. But my eyes work very well, and they do appreciate amazing visuals. Maybe the limitations on the media currently available is a good thing: we are obliged to appreciate the framing of images rather than their pyrotechnical displays. But the pyrotechnics get us so much closer to actual vision, it's hard not to want them. tx

PS: I am thinking of Ansel Adams' work: b/w, richly saturated, beautifully framed, etc., but not in HDR. Perhaps that is an old and dated target for photographers to aim at (though I doubt I could rival his work with my newfangled technology).

One of the reasons I enjoy visiting photo galleries and museum exhibits of photos is the opportunity to see them in person. There's something special about being in the presence of a truly great photo.

--
Bill Ferris Photography

https://billferrisphotography.pixieset.com/arizonaslittleserengeti/

 

[rsn]

I have used in camera - Canon 5D mk 4 - roughly about 40 times so far. I shoot forest scenes on Vancouver Island, most at an area called Cathedral Grove. This area has many old growth trees as well as old secondary growth as well. The trees, like Douglas Fir grow very tall with a broad canopy resulting in many dark areas even on the brightest of full noon sun days with no clouds. And the area gets a wee bit of rain so some wonderful moss around.

I actually bought a flash to use in the forest with a variety of results from good to okay to not so good. I haven't tried the flash while shooting in camera HDR, that's my next experiment, probably will use some kind of snoot to focus the light to a specific area.

Why shoot in camera HDR from my perspective? My Fuji cameras have spoiled me with the sims available, I usually shoot using Velvia slightly underexposed. But Fuji taught me I can get an out of camera image with no further in computer software work, my kind of photography. I also learned JPEG isn't the big boogeyman reported. So I now shoot JPEG with my Canon camera, in landscape picture style, manually playing with light balance. I know, I know - a sin!

Here is my technically shaky explanation of what happens. I will find darker scenes even though noon day sun. I set the camera HDR to plus and minus 3 stops. The camera is on a tripod using an electronic remote shutter trigger. The camera is set manually to shutter speed and f stop with auto ISO on. When I hit the electronic shutter, I can hear the clicks. But what surprised me was how long one of the exposures takes, easily 15 seconds or more. I suspect the camera overrides the manual settings of the camera.

The camera "brains" I believe searches in the exposures taken - 3 - for middle gray, 18% gray. This lightens the scene as even though the area is darkened, once the brains finds the 18% gray area, the resulting image in dynamic range is organized around this "set" point. And bright areas in the image that would normally be clipped aren't, and areas that are underexposed black aren't because the brains can choose what to give appropriate emphasis on for detail and dynamic range.

I find my in camera HDR is very effective and the results aren't toy like as the old HDR images displayed. Because where I shoot is a popular public area and the tripod is set up on a boardwalk occasionally people will stop by to see the resulting photo from the scene which appears dark to them. They have been impressed with the results.

 

[mreynolds767]

Is not shocking at all but this thread got way off topic with half the people talking about HDR photos - a new thing of editing images specifically for HDR displays which LR now offers, that can display photos with an extended histogram on certain HDR capable screens and websites - which I believe the OP was asking about and I have never heard until the last 12 months or so in the photo world.

And then others talking about HDR as many of us have referred to over a decade often achieved by bracketing photos and blending them manually or automatically to achieve more dynamic range in a single shot.

To the OP's "HDR" - I don't understand the point. You are creating an image that only looks good on certain monitors/screens and you can never print it. Maybe when every screen and every website shows HDR it will make more sense but gonna suck then because you would always have the issue of not being able to print the extended range on either side.

I have not bothered to edit any of my photos in the HDR display format.

--
Online Gallery here
https://www.mattreynoldsphotography.com/

 

[dv9973]

I'm starting to use my iPhone 15 Plus with Lightrooms' camera and HDR. HDR looks great on the phone and in a laptop (MBP M1) but the web versions are very disappointing. All of which makes me wonder what the point of using HDR is. Unless a viewer has HDR compatible hardware, you are left with gorgeous pictures for yourself but not for others. Is photography really meant to be a narcissistic activity? : )

The idea of an ecosystem is a good one. It's just hard to know how to break out of that walled structure when you want to.

Curious about others' opinions.

What do you mean by WEB version? Is there some WEB standard that prevents displaying HDR?

 

[dv9973]

Is not shocking at all but this thread got way off topic with half the people talking about HDR photos - a new thing of editing images specifically for HDR displays which LR now offers, that can display photos with an extended histogram on certain HDR capable screens and websites - which I believe the OP was asking about and I have never heard until the last 12 months or so in the photo world.

And then others talking about HDR as many of us have referred to over a decade often achieved by bracketing photos and blending them manually or automatically to achieve more dynamic range in a single shot.

To the OP's "HDR" - I don't understand the point. You are creating an image that only looks good on certain monitors/screens and you can never print it. Maybe when every screen and every website shows HDR it will make more sense but gonna suck then because you would always have the issue of not being able to print the extended range on either side.

I have not bothered to edit any of my photos in the HDR display format.

Many innovations take time to be accepted. For example, automatic car transmissions. There are still people who don't want them.

 

[jipnet]

Lightroom's web display option permits for display low res JPEGs only. I haven't tried sharing images via other webpage services, but I doubt they do much better in terms of preserving DR. LR does permit viewers to download larger JPEGs or the original DNG files, which is definitely a convenience.

 

[jipnet]

Like I said, I am not seeking perfection, just trying to arrive at a stable workflow that I can then put to work (set it and forget it, so to speak) while concentrating on the images in the viewfinder, which is the ultimate goal. It's all very new to me too.

I may be making too much of the HDR display question (but possibly not). In the past I shared photos via Apple apps (Aperture while it lasted, Photos App since then; rarely, Google Photos). It's just that now that I've opened the pandora's box and have been stunned by the quality of high-res images, I've had to rethink everything all over again—and then encountered the question—one might say, the philosophical question—what is the use of HDR? It's been helpful to read the various responses on this forum.

 

[jipnet]

Great idea: the immersive experience of a large printed photo. It is good to know that high-res photos can be blown up to a larger scale. I wonder how they compare with the on-screen experience.

 

[ADD9]

I think most households have had a TV that can display HDR images for the last 12 years or so. Most people, even photographers, just didn't realize it. Computer monitors were slower in adopting HDR capability because most of them were designed for office work, and monitors for photo editing were focused on color accuracy. It was the boom in HDR gaming that induced monitor companies to adopt HDR. Nowadays of course, most phone, tablet and laptop screens are HDR capable, but it was the TV and video-film industry that embraced it first. The problem in photography was the workflow aspect as several DPR articles have written about. Adobe is a relatively more recent adopter, and most camera companies have only started introducing native file types like HEIC/HEIF in the last generation of bodies for still photography.

In this case, I am talking about HDR in the context of displays, not in the context of exposure bracketing, nor in the context of tone mapping. The latter two are the contexts most photographers are familiar with in terms of word usage. DPR though is one of the sites that have been writing about HDR display aspects and associated workflow. I think their first article about it was 3 to 5 years ago if I remember right. Ask Richard Butler. A recent google search showed that most web browsers are now HDR capable. Of course, I am sure that quality of implementation will vary throughout the whole software stack, display hardware and origin hardware (cameras).

 

[meow]

I'm starting to use my iPhone 15 Plus with Lightrooms' camera and HDR. HDR looks great on the phone and in a laptop (MBP M1) but the web versions are very disappointing. All of which makes me wonder what the point of using HDR is. Unless a viewer has HDR compatible hardware, you are left with gorgeous pictures for yourself but not for others. Is photography really meant to be a narcissistic activity? : )

The idea of an ecosystem is a good one. It's just hard to know how to break out of that walled structure when you want to.

Curious about others' opinions.

What do you mean by WEB version? Is there some WEB standard that prevents displaying HDR?

I think the OP is talking about the file format HDR, not what we generally mean when we talk about HDR images, a composite image to get details in both highlights and shadows.

https://docs.fileformat.com/image/hdr/

I could, of course, be wrong...