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
Learning
Computers and Software
LR CC HDR Merge - A bit of an oversell
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="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 444010" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>I played with this for a while last night and I'm convinced I understand the basics of what this process is doing, and what it's not doing. This seams to be true regardless of the number of stops of dynamic range offered.</p><p></p><p>I'll start with what it's not doing - it's not, under any circumstances, giving you a complete, finished and balanced HDR image. I'll explain what I mean by that while I explain what it is doing.</p><p></p><p>What this merge process does that every HDR program does (either well or poorly):</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Auto-aligns exposures</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deghosts as specified</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Accumulates and allows access to the full range of light information from across all images passed</li> </ul><p>And it seems to do this rather well. Given that most RAW file being passed at 16-bit files, the resulting 32-bit DNG "RAW" file has more than enough capacity to store the full dynamic range of light data for each pixel, and that's really what you want in HDR photography. </p><p></p><p>But that's where the HDR experience ends. Once the full dynamic range of light information is merged together, LR produces a 32-bit DNG file with the exposure set to the original 0EV shot. This seems to happen rather well regardless of whether you pass in the full series of exposures or just 2 from either end. I shot a +/-7 EV set last night in 1 stop increments and it produced almost identical images from the from the full set and from only the +7 and -7 images. The resulting image will differ from the actual 0EV shot from the series primarily where in areas where highlights are blown out - otherwise they appear nearly identical. What differs is the amount of light information available to subsequent editing programs that must be used to coax components out of the shadows and white areas.</p><p></p><p>In the merge dialog there is an "Auto Tone" option, which isn't really an "option" as much as it is a filter preset. To an image last night, if I selected Auto Tone what I would see is the basic '0' image described above appear in my catalog, and then a second later it would look toned for HDR. To an image the sliders in the <strong>Basic</strong> section of the <strong>Develop</strong> module looked like this:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Contrast = 0</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Highlights = -100</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shadows = +70</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Whites = +15</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Blacks = -15</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Clarity = 0</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Vibrance = 0</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Saturation = 0</li> </ul><p>The only variation would be in the Exposure slider which generally fell between +0.10 to +0.25. These slider settings, as I mentioned in earlier posts, make it near impossible to apply any significant level of additional light edits to the resulting image if you're not happy with it. <strong><em>But</em></strong>, Adobe seems to have done a lot of hard work in the math to make sure that the Auto Tone'd image is actually pretty close to a normal looking HDR image with that preset applied.</p><p></p><p>The good news is that the 32-bit file, when sent to Photoshop, gives you a ton of information to look at if you want to do the HDR toning from scratch yourself, even if you start by not using Auto Tone at all (a couple people who have done videos on this feature actually recommend that you don't use it). If you like the Auto Tone look but want more room to edit then you can simply export the file as a TIFF as-is and then edit that in Lightroom, or simply choose Edit In... and open the 32-bit file in a compatible program like Photoshop using the "Edit a copy with Lightroom adjustments" option. It's certainly better than having just the single 16-bit RAW file even when your camera has the dynamic range of a D810, because hey, more light information is always better.</p><p></p><p>Is it a time saver? I'm guessing it can be if you're doing basic, natural looking HDR shots for Real Estate or something similar - at least once you learn what it likes and doesn't like in order to get the best image (it has been said that, unlike most HDR programs, this merge tends to like fewer images with more extreme exposures rather than complete series). But if you're into the hardcore, highly structured HDR look then you're probably going to need to send your series into your editor of choice anyway, so you might as well do that up front and skip LR for it.</p><p></p><p>I'm going to keep playing, and if I come up with something interesting I'll let you all know.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 444010, member: 9240"] I played with this for a while last night and I'm convinced I understand the basics of what this process is doing, and what it's not doing. This seams to be true regardless of the number of stops of dynamic range offered. I'll start with what it's not doing - it's not, under any circumstances, giving you a complete, finished and balanced HDR image. I'll explain what I mean by that while I explain what it is doing. What this merge process does that every HDR program does (either well or poorly): [LIST] [*]Auto-aligns exposures [*]Deghosts as specified [*]Accumulates and allows access to the full range of light information from across all images passed [/LIST] And it seems to do this rather well. Given that most RAW file being passed at 16-bit files, the resulting 32-bit DNG "RAW" file has more than enough capacity to store the full dynamic range of light data for each pixel, and that's really what you want in HDR photography. But that's where the HDR experience ends. Once the full dynamic range of light information is merged together, LR produces a 32-bit DNG file with the exposure set to the original 0EV shot. This seems to happen rather well regardless of whether you pass in the full series of exposures or just 2 from either end. I shot a +/-7 EV set last night in 1 stop increments and it produced almost identical images from the from the full set and from only the +7 and -7 images. The resulting image will differ from the actual 0EV shot from the series primarily where in areas where highlights are blown out - otherwise they appear nearly identical. What differs is the amount of light information available to subsequent editing programs that must be used to coax components out of the shadows and white areas. In the merge dialog there is an "Auto Tone" option, which isn't really an "option" as much as it is a filter preset. To an image last night, if I selected Auto Tone what I would see is the basic '0' image described above appear in my catalog, and then a second later it would look toned for HDR. To an image the sliders in the [B]Basic[/B] section of the [B]Develop[/B] module looked like this: [LIST] [*]Contrast = 0 [*]Highlights = -100 [*]Shadows = +70 [*]Whites = +15 [*]Blacks = -15 [*]Clarity = 0 [*]Vibrance = 0 [*]Saturation = 0 [/LIST] The only variation would be in the Exposure slider which generally fell between +0.10 to +0.25. These slider settings, as I mentioned in earlier posts, make it near impossible to apply any significant level of additional light edits to the resulting image if you're not happy with it. [B][I]But[/I][/B], Adobe seems to have done a lot of hard work in the math to make sure that the Auto Tone'd image is actually pretty close to a normal looking HDR image with that preset applied. The good news is that the 32-bit file, when sent to Photoshop, gives you a ton of information to look at if you want to do the HDR toning from scratch yourself, even if you start by not using Auto Tone at all (a couple people who have done videos on this feature actually recommend that you don't use it). If you like the Auto Tone look but want more room to edit then you can simply export the file as a TIFF as-is and then edit that in Lightroom, or simply choose Edit In... and open the 32-bit file in a compatible program like Photoshop using the "Edit a copy with Lightroom adjustments" option. It's certainly better than having just the single 16-bit RAW file even when your camera has the dynamic range of a D810, because hey, more light information is always better. Is it a time saver? I'm guessing it can be if you're doing basic, natural looking HDR shots for Real Estate or something similar - at least once you learn what it likes and doesn't like in order to get the best image (it has been said that, unlike most HDR programs, this merge tends to like fewer images with more extreme exposures rather than complete series). But if you're into the hardcore, highly structured HDR look then you're probably going to need to send your series into your editor of choice anyway, so you might as well do that up front and skip LR for it. I'm going to keep playing, and if I come up with something interesting I'll let you all know. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
LR CC HDR Merge - A bit of an oversell
Top
