Old 08-25-2008, 02:55 AM   #1
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default HDR shots accepted?

If this has been discussed excuse me. I've been away for a bit, mostly doing landscape photography. But I was curious are HDR RR shots getting accepted here?

I've just started doing HDR landscapes and can say I'm blown away by the results. A shot that is crap can be made into something spectacular.

Comments?
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 03:27 AM   #2
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Detailed Photo Submission Guidelines

Manipulation:

The purpose of our website is to display genuine, authentic photographs of trains and railroad related scenes. Bearing this in mind, digital manipulation of photographs (beyond standard post-processing techniques such as levelling, sharpening, dust removal, etc.) is not permitted on photographs submitted to RailPictures.Net.

-------------------------

I'm not sure where this sudden rush of interest in HDR images has come from on RP.net but it seems as though in the last month it's the most popular thing to mention in a thread. Hmm.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 03:32 AM   #3
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Maybe because it can do some amazing things?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero
I'm not sure where this sudden rush of interest in HDR images has come from on RP.net but it seems as though in the last month it's the most popular thing to mention in a thread. Hmm.
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 04:11 AM   #4
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

HDR done right that looks right shouldn't be a problem I wouldn't think. But this isn't my site. I am sure it is all up to the screener and what the shot actually looks like.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 04:40 AM   #5
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

I'm the reason HDR has become such a hot topic here recently, followed by Knapp =)
Just make sure not to overdo it, and pray you get a screener who doesn't mind it, and voila!
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 05:36 AM   #6
tim2002
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
I'm the reason HDR has become such a hot topic here recently, followed by Knapp =)
Just make sure not to overdo it, and pray you get a screener who doesn't mind it, and voila!
Shadow-highlighting and/or saturating the crap out of a photo isn't HDR.

TDS
tim2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 07:14 AM   #7
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Someone missed the boat on my 9000 viewed PCA#1 HDR shot. =)
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 07:51 AM   #8
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
Someone missed the boat on my 9000 viewed PCA#1 HDR shot. =)
That's a horrible HDR job. If it was good, you wouldn't even think it's a HDR.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 12:35 PM   #9
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
Someone missed the boat on my 9000 viewed PCA#1 HDR shot. =)
For the millionth time...that is NOT HDR.

I've YET to see an HDR of a moving object...and there's a reason for that.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 12:53 PM   #10
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Couldn't you use hdr of a moving objeect if the whole moving object is in the dark or bright part of the one of the photos that you combine.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 12:58 PM   #11
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz
Couldn't you use hdr of a moving objeect if the whole moving object is in the dark or bright part of the one of the photos that you combine.
Have you ever tried to combine three exposures that you took trackside, with ONE of them including the train (and the other two under and overexposed)?

The only way you can successfully produce an HDR of a train is if it is parked. The first successful one that I see with a moving train will be the first one that I'm blown away with. As far as on RP, I've YET to see an HDR photo.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 02:50 PM   #12
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
For the millionth time...that is NOT HDR.

I've YET to see an HDR of a moving object...and there's a reason for that.

Are you referring to this photo?

Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 230900
Photograph © Matthew Hicks


I think some of you need to do your homework first on what HDR is...
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 03:16 PM   #13
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero
Are you referring to this photo?

Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 230900
Photograph © Matthew Hicks


I think some of you need to do your homework first on what HDR is...
If he defines HDR as 'Hardly Defines Reality,' then yes, it's an HDR shot...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 03:20 PM   #14
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

If Jim could manage his pique and somehow find the energy to state what HDR is and isn't, the thread might make some progress...

As I understand it:

If one takes two shots of the same scene (so the camera must be locked down tight on a tripod or otherwise held motionless), with one exposure darker than the other, one can combine the two versions of the image into one and capture the entire dynamic range of the original scene. That is HDR.

What is not HDR is to take the same raw file, process it twice, once in a dark version and once in a light version, and then combine those two images in a way which captures a larger dynamic range. And that is what Jim complains about.

Although the latter technique can be effective in making a nice image out of something where otherwise the bright areas are blown out or the dark areas lose detail. Jim's complaint is only about the term used, I think.

BTW, I say capture a larger dynamic range because I am trying to avoid saying expand the dynamic range. There is a limited range of light that can be shown online, and doesn't this process actually compress the dynamic range so that it all fits?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 03:23 PM   #15
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

And, it is the complexity of taking a wider dynamic range and squeezing it into the range that a jpg can support that causes an image to look unreal. Our eye are accustomed to the reality of a wider dynamic range. Compressing that range can easily lead to weird results because it throws things off compared to what our eyes expect.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 06:54 PM   #16
tim2002
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero
Are you referring to this photo?

Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 230900
Photograph © Matthew Hicks


I think some of you need to do your homework first on what HDR is...
Bingo!

TDS
tim2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 08:04 PM   #17
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
If Jim could manage his pique and somehow find the energy to state what HDR is and isn't, the thread might make some progress...
As I understand it:

If one takes two shots of the same scene (so the camera must be locked down tight on a tripod or otherwise held motionless), with one exposure darker than the other, one can combine the two versions of the image into one and capture the entire dynamic range of the original scene. That is HDR.

What is not HDR is to take the same raw file, process it twice, once in a dark version and once in a light version, and then combine those two images in a way which captures a larger dynamic range. And that is what Jim complains about.

Although the latter technique can be effective in making a nice image out of something where otherwise the bright areas are blown out or the dark areas lose detail. Jim's complaint is only about the term used, I think.

BTW, I say capture a larger dynamic range because I am trying to avoid saying expand the dynamic range. There is a limited range of light that can be shown online, and doesn't this process actually compress the dynamic range so that it all fits?
Sorry, I know I've quickly explained it before and even provided a link to an HDR site, so that's why I didn't reiterate anything that i've already said.

You've pretty much nailed it on the head. Some people on this site have issues with locomotives being incorrectly indentified. Well, the same thing goes for me when people incorrectly indentify a photo as being HDR. I know it's splitting hairs to some degree, but people must understand that what's being referred to here as HDR is technically NOT.

You're correct that it's possible to create an HDR image with two exposures, but 3 or more is generally better to get the greatest range of exposure in a photo as possible, making it closer to what the human eye actually sees.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 08:09 PM   #18
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
You're correct that it's possible to create an HDR image with two exposures, but 3 or more is generally better to get the greatest range of exposure in a photo as possible, making it closer to what the human eye actually sees.
Oops, I had actually intended to mention that one can go more than two.

Have you, or anyone else, seen a website or document that explains why the compression process can work out well in some instances and so badly in others? Is it primarily a matter of how much range is being compressed, or does it have to do with the type of image, the way brights and darks are mixed in the frame, or what?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 08:22 PM   #19
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

I have always been under the impression this was an HDR shot, but then again it could be a RAW that was separated into three exposures and combined as was mentioned. I have certainly never seen lighting like that before but then again I've never been to the UK!
Image © Alan-Crotty
PhotoID: 214116
Photograph © Alan-Crotty


As for the orginal question: Are HDR RR shots being accepted? Well, yes and no. No, they aren't technically in the realm of what would be accepted as it violates the manipulated 'guidelines' (HA!) but then again, if it is doen the RIGHT way meaning one wouldn't be able to tell that is actually an HDR shot. My guess would be that there are some that have been accepted but the majority of people who would actually try would fail. I could be wrong but if they were a good enough photographer they wouldn't need to fiddle with HDRs in the first place.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 08:25 PM   #20
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Oops, I had actually intended to mention that one can go more than two.

Have you, or anyone else, seen a website or document that explains why the compression process can work out well in some instances and so badly in others? Is it primarily a matter of how much range is being compressed, or does it have to do with the type of image, the way brights and darks are mixed in the frame, or what?
I think it's completely dependent on the scene, the colors, the lighting, etc. I'm certainly no expert at creating them, but I have had some decent luck...and other times they've looked really foul. There are probably dozens of sites out there with information on how to create them, but I haven't really invested much time in researching it.

I DID come across this site a few years ago, and there are some really cool photos and tutorials on it, specifically one for HDR:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...amic-range.htm
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2008, 08:30 PM   #21
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
I have always been under the impression this was an HDR shot, but then again it could be a RAW that was separated into three exposures and combined as was mentioned. I have certainly never seen lighting like that before but then again I've never been to the UK!
Image © Alan-Crotty
PhotoID: 214116
Photograph © Alan-Crotty
Unless Alan took several exposures at the scene and combined them in a program like Photomatix of CS2 or 3, then no, it's not HDR. It's also quite likely anything moving (the workers) in the photo would be blurred to some extent if it was HDR.

Here is an example of that. Five exposures combined, a few of them long exposures showing motion in the water. The "streaks" from the leaves and other stuff moving in the water were extended due to the combined exposures:

JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 12:26 AM   #22
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

First, before you start to decide for yourself what is and what is not an HDRI you should first know what a real HDRI looks like. I've attached two good examples below. CS2, CS3 or a specific HDRI program are required to make an HDRI. Overusing the shadow highlight and saturation tool does not make a normal, single exposure photograph an HDRI. The whole idea of HDR images is that there are multiple exposures (3+). Also, HDR images use 32-bit color. So, Matt, unless that train was stopped in your image, there is no way you could get that result after running your images through the HDRI process.



__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos

Last edited by PLEzero; 08-26-2008 at 12:29 AM.
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 01:11 AM   #23
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero
First, before you start to decide for yourself what is and what is not an HDRI you should first know what a real HDRI looks like. I've attached two good examples below. CS2, CS3 or a specific HDRI program are required to make an HDRI. Overusing the shadow highlight and saturation tool does not make a normal, single exposure photograph an HDRI. The whole idea of HDR images is that there are multiple exposures (3+). Also, HDR images use 32-bit color. So, Matt, unless that train was stopped in your image, there is no way you could get that result after running your images through the HDRI process.
Thank you.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 01:32 AM   #24
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero




Those are beautiful shots!
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2008, 01:34 AM   #25
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Unless Alan took several exposures at the scene and combined them in a program like Photomatix of CS2 or 3, then no, it's not HDR. It's also quite likely anything moving (the workers) in the photo would be blurred to some extent if it was HDR.

Here is an example of that. Five exposures combined, a few of them long exposures showing motion in the water. The "streaks" from the leaves and other stuff moving in the water were extended due to the combined exposures:

Jim, I am impressed. Show me some more!
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.