Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D3100
Hdr
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 371996" data-attributes="member: 31330"><p>I'm not missing the point. I'm saying that HDR does come at a cost and the broader the range you captured, the higher that cost will be.</p><p></p><p>When I have a broad range in a shot (0-255 to make it simple) underexposing or overexposing might stretch that range at one side but it simultaneously has to squeeze the other. When I want to get more detail in the sky, I can not do so without losing detail in the darker areas. What happens is a previously more divers range now being squeezed into a less diverse, more uniform range. The same happens when the opposite is done.</p><p></p><p>The problem with a full tonal ranged shot is that to gain some, I have to sacrifice something else. When I merge those in HDR, it's like me trying to extend the ranges from both ends towards the middle. That's not possible unless something gives. Either the middle will suffer or a portion of the end has to be cut to allow it to happen. Or a bit of both. My merged shot is having the exact same limitations as a HDR merge as it had as a single shot. Just like we have to squeeze all the info of a RAW into a lesser format in order to show it, no matter what dynamic range increase HDR has, it has to be squeezed into one not able to support that range. In HDR it clearly shows what goes down the drain which is why many shots look like a typical 90ies rendering. Room has to be made and since the program doesn't think, it does it all over the shot. It has no clue what is what and just compares values and adjusts those to new ones. It doesn't care if that happens in the sky I'd actually prefer to adjust or in a portion of the image that requires no adjustment.</p><p></p><p>The only sensible way to "enhance" a ranged shot is to do everything manually. Either brighten or darken using whatever digital tool at our disposal or when shooting multiple exposures, doing somewhat of a cut and paste job only merging or blending in those parts required. It'll still come at a price but a much lower one than clicking some button and hoping the merge is tolerable.</p><p></p><p>The only advantage of HDR is when there's no full range and I'm not disagreeing with that. The moment a part of the tonal range is flat-lining, exposure compensation has the room required to stretch out that squeezed range without loss. Without multiple exposures it's simply not possible to enhance such a shot because there's too much information lacking.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-see, post: 371996, member: 31330"] I'm not missing the point. I'm saying that HDR does come at a cost and the broader the range you captured, the higher that cost will be. When I have a broad range in a shot (0-255 to make it simple) underexposing or overexposing might stretch that range at one side but it simultaneously has to squeeze the other. When I want to get more detail in the sky, I can not do so without losing detail in the darker areas. What happens is a previously more divers range now being squeezed into a less diverse, more uniform range. The same happens when the opposite is done. The problem with a full tonal ranged shot is that to gain some, I have to sacrifice something else. When I merge those in HDR, it's like me trying to extend the ranges from both ends towards the middle. That's not possible unless something gives. Either the middle will suffer or a portion of the end has to be cut to allow it to happen. Or a bit of both. My merged shot is having the exact same limitations as a HDR merge as it had as a single shot. Just like we have to squeeze all the info of a RAW into a lesser format in order to show it, no matter what dynamic range increase HDR has, it has to be squeezed into one not able to support that range. In HDR it clearly shows what goes down the drain which is why many shots look like a typical 90ies rendering. Room has to be made and since the program doesn't think, it does it all over the shot. It has no clue what is what and just compares values and adjusts those to new ones. It doesn't care if that happens in the sky I'd actually prefer to adjust or in a portion of the image that requires no adjustment. The only sensible way to "enhance" a ranged shot is to do everything manually. Either brighten or darken using whatever digital tool at our disposal or when shooting multiple exposures, doing somewhat of a cut and paste job only merging or blending in those parts required. It'll still come at a price but a much lower one than clicking some button and hoping the merge is tolerable. The only advantage of HDR is when there's no full range and I'm not disagreeing with that. The moment a part of the tonal range is flat-lining, exposure compensation has the room required to stretch out that squeezed range without loss. Without multiple exposures it's simply not possible to enhance such a shot because there's too much information lacking. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D3100
Hdr
Top
