Why do my HDRs look grainy?

[ajohnw]

Must admit I prefer the GIMP term - exposure blending. That's what they call a plugin that auto generates the layers needed. They then go on to enhancing "the effect" via tone mapping of the global contrast variety if neeeded. Search for a GIMP HDR plugin and an HDR look one is likely to crop up to be applied to an individual image. Of late the OS people seem to have cleaned their act up. Not only exposure blending but also dynamic range extension. And the other type simulated hdr. It hasn't always been like that. I've used the term fake hdr a few times without any complaints - 2 files from the same raw file. It can save a lot of time on some shots as strong curves can be used separately for high and low lights without finishing up with a mess.

Frankly I reckon the hdr horse has already bolted.

John
-

[dabhand]

The bottom line is - for me anyway - the more we allow misconceptions like this to stand, the harder we make it to help these people, and the less effective we are in helping them. In essence it becomes a major time-wasting exercise to have to undo the damage first, and then re-educate them from the beginning. And frankly, I'm starting to wonder why I'm bothering to give up so much personal time to pass on hard-earned knowledge when there seems to be so many working against me; but I digress ...

If you see re-educating people about HDR a personal goal that's up to you, but I personally think you will find it a real hard sell as I'm afraid one of the most common mis-conceptions in life is that people are quite happy to be told they are wrong and that they should do something differently.

The two HDR educators I mentioned above (and whose non-confrontational styles I appreciate) put their material out for those who want to learn, because you can only help and teach those who want to be helped and who are willing to learn; given the amount of people who follow their lead I really doubt they give more than a passing thought to those who don't get it.

steve

[Brev00]

I think I get your point, Colin, and it is important. I have moved from an anti-HDR bias a couple of years ago and now I occasionally dabble in it. More importantly, I have come to accept it as a technique and try to appreciate images using it on a case-by-case basis. Some I like, some I don't. Some 'overdone' examples I have found quite appealing.

Back to the op's point. I am no HDR expert, but I will prep my images for the process, fine-tuning them in ACR so any noise that exists prior to the HDR process is minimized. I find most plug-ins (Nik Color Efex, for example) will heighten noise so I always set the denoising feature in ACR to some initial value. I think it is better to minimize noise at the start rather than adjust it solely after it has been multiplied. Anyway, it might be good to be aware of the quality of the images before the process starts. There might be options within your program that might make things worse so try a very mild starting point and adjust carefully. I will have to try Colin's bracketing suggestion. I do understand the anti-HDR bias since I felt it myself. But, even if I don't like 9 HDR images, if the 10th is nice the others don't count against it.

[Saorsa]

If you see re-educating people about HDR a personal goal that's up to you, but I personally think you will find it a real hard sell as I'm afraid one of the most common mis-conceptions in life is that people are quite happy to be told they are wrong and that they should do something differently.

The two HDR educators I mentioned above (and whose non-confrontational styles I appreciate) put their material out for those who want to learn, because you can only help and teach those who want to be helped and who are willing to learn; given the amount of people who follow their lead I really doubt they give more than a passing thought to those who don't get it.

steve

I don't think it's "re-educating". It's just asking people to use correct terminology. Nothing marks you as foolish as quickly as using HDR as the definition of tone-mapping even though the same SW packages may well perform both functions. It also inhibits discussion of actual techniques used in the production of an image.

[dabhand]

I don't think it's "re-educating". It's just asking people to use correct terminology. Nothing marks you as foolish as quickly as using HDR as the definition of tone-mapping even though the same SW packages may well perform both functions. It also inhibits discussion of actual techniques used in the production of an image.

Brian - if you read Colin's post you'll see 're-educate' was his term rather than mine.

My concern for him was that it would be a hard job to get people in general to be 'correct' in their use of the word HDR, or any other issue for that matter, as 'popular English' opposed to that used in technical literature, is not really suited to the accurate communication of technique.

steve

[Manfred M]

Re-educating people as to what HDR is (and is not) as well as that the Grunge settings are not generally viewed as being in "good taste" by many serious photographers has been another mission that I've given up on. Unfortunately, there seems to be a view out there that creating an image through tone mapping software (whether the source is a single image or multiple images), that the process will magically transform a mediocre image into a great one. WRONG!!!

It's up there with my other two photographic peeves:

1. Dutch tilting will turn a mediocre image into a great one - WRONG! Just like Tone Mapping / HDR many photographers simply don't get it and use the technique with reckess abandon. Either that or there are a lot of folks out there that can't hold a camera level with the horizon.

There is a place for Dutch tilting, just as there is for HDR; in both cases I see far too much liberal application of these techniques, where better technical and compositional skills are really what is needed; and

2. Going B&W is going to turn an image with poor white balance and poor compostition into a masterpiece - WRONG (again). B&W is not a magic sauce that corrects fundamental issues (well, it can by simplifying the scene), but it certainly isn't going to work in isolation and cover up for a basic lack of basic photographic skills.

Enough ranting for now...

[ajohnw]

I laugh a little at Colin's rebuff really. I only used the term HDR look as that may well be what the OP is after. Apart from fake HDR the only other term I generally use is exposure blending which gets round all of the connotation problems. I feel that the current view of HDR held by many is here to stay especially as that sort is being put into cameras.

Tone mapping is also context sensitive. What are we doing when we apply an S curve to a raw file or use on of the commonly provided standard ones? The results are similar and have a similar problem. Contrast in one area at the expense of another. Conventional tone mapping can have variations as well. One I often use applies it according to the level of contrast in the image. Generally more to low contrast and virtually zero to hight contrast with scope for varying the degree in between plus of course the overall degree. I do watch PS video's at times for ideas. I have seen what Adobe PS does by default to images - does that help disassociate tone mapping from HDR. It didn't on the one I watched. Used on the way to black and white - don't use defaults - use the features behind like this - result one building went very cartoon rather than everything. Many packages have tone mapping facilities that work in a similar fashion.

The only answer really is more verbosity, take it as it's meant in context or use different words. More verbosity isn't all that popular. I'd guess actually that the open source people do not want to be associated with the term HDR unless it's simulated HDR all due to the connotations. Can't say as I blame them. It does have a lot of disrepute in places and often the people that write this code are serious photographers.

I'd strongly guess that over time terms like dynamic rang extension and exposure blending will spread. That might result in more decent software to do just that.

John
-

[dabhand]

Couldn't agree with you more Manfred.

steve

[FrankMi]

I feel that the original question has been largely ignored and that is "why is his image grainy?".

Until we get the requested feedback from him/her and hopefully samples of the SOOC and processed images, we won't be able to accurately address the source of the grain question.

[IzzieK]

I feel that the original question has been largely ignored and that is "why is his image grainy?".

Until we get the requested feedback from him/her and hopefully samples of the SOOC and processed images, we won't be able to accurately address the source of the grain question.

Like Frank I am also wondering what happened to the original question....

[Colin Southern]

If you see re-educating people about HDR a personal goal that's up to you, but I personally think you will find it a real hard sell as I'm afraid one of the most common mis-conceptions in life is that people are quite happy to be told they are wrong and that they should do something differently.

I'm not out to "re-educate the world" when it comes to correct HDR / tone-mapping terminology - but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and just let it slide on THIS site. One of the things that stands this site above most is higher standards - and higher standards of accuracy and education help produce higher standards of images.

[Colin Southern]

I feel that the original question has been largely ignored and that is "why is his image grainy?".

I think it was well answered in the very first reply (if I do say so myself!)

Until we get the requested feedback from him/her and hopefully samples of the SOOC and processed images, we won't be able to accurately address the source of the grain question.

Yep - in a nutshall.

[Richard Lundberg]

Colin's example looks like it could have been obtained almost as well with highlight and shadow recovery. That's what I do on anything that is suspect.

[Colin Southern]

Colin's example looks like it could have been obtained almost as well with highlight and shadow recovery.

If you want to deal with a truckload of noise.

That's what I do on anything that is suspect.

Suspect of what?

[HaseebM]

I'm not out to "re-educate the world" when it comes to correct HDR / tone-mapping terminology - but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and just let it slide on THIS site. One of the things that stands this site above most is higher standards - and higher standards of accuracy and education help produce higher standards of images.

Is there such a thing as "correct HDR / Tone mapping"? If what our eyes perceive is in fact what needs to be produced in images, then BW is straightaway out. Many times I have read here on C&C that images should be processed the way the photographer intends to show and desires. To each his own. Some may prefer to use HDRI to make there images look more natural and some may prefer over processed colours. There are images all over the internet which I quite like to see this effect being applied, whether that is right or wrong is immaterial to me, I just like it. Is this an argument about terminology misused in a creative way? I am not familiar with paintings but I am sure there must be famous painters who had their canvas covered in splashes of vibrant colours which were unnatural but still fetch a high price.

[Colin Southern]

Is there such a thing as "correct HDR / Tone mapping"? If what our eyes perceive is in fact what needs to be produced in images, then BW is straightaway out. Many times I have read here on C&C that images should be processed the way the photographer intends to show and desires. To each his own. Some may prefer to use HDRI to make there images look more natural and some may prefer over processed colours. There are images all over the internet which I quite like to see this effect being applied, whether that is right or wrong is immaterial to me, I just like it. Is this an argument about terminology misused in a creative way? I am not familiar with paintings but I am sure there must be famous painters who had their canvas covered in splashes of vibrant colours which were unnatural but still fetch a high price.

Hi Haseeb,

Nobody has any issue with how anybody wants to process an image. My issue is when they refer to ultra tone-mapped (that gives the exaggerated tones) as the "HDR Look", when HDR doesn't have any kind of "look". As mentioned before, HDR is a set of capture and representation techniques - not a processing look. It's the tone-mapping that produces that "look" - which can be applied just as easily to a normal dynamic range single exposure. HDR capture techniques and ultra tone-mapping are completely different animals.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Is there such a thing as "correct HDR / Tone mapping"? If what our eyes perceive is in fact what needs to be produced in images, then BW is straightaway out. Many times I have read here on C&C that images should be processed the way the photographer intends to show and desires. ............................................

To each his own. Some may prefer to use HDRI to make there images look more natural and some may prefer over processed colours. ....

Yes. Absolutely.

On the other hand, whenever I get comments/advice, I go thru it and see if it adds to/improves my image.

[Manfred M]

Is there such a thing as "correct HDR / Tone mapping"?

Of course not. With any of the HDR software, there are numerous ways of processing a set of images to give you the result that you like.

Colin's main beef is purely around the incorrect use of the term "HDR", and this has (unfortunately) passed into faily common use by the uniformed masses. Show someone a tone mapped image from a single shot that has a funky look, people will call it HDR or an HDR look, when it clearly is not. HDR is a technique of combining multiple images into a single image with a greater amount of dynamic range than is possible using a single exposure; it is NOT a look.