- This topic is empty.
Which is tonemapped?
-
SteveD wrote:
…..who said anything about HDR? Tonemapping and HDR are not the same thing!
Please enlighten me Steve. Do you ‘tonemap’ in photomatix HDR software, or by some other method? And what is the difference? Surely by retaining more detail in the white water and other bright areas, you are creating an image with greater dynamic range, which means HDR? (I’m asking questions from ignorance by the way).
nfl-fan wrote:
might have to go down as the most random statement of 2008 on the forum (IMO!)
There’s a lot of statements on this forum… I’m just wondering have you read them all?
:D
Haha, well as a matter of fact….
Rossco wrote:
SteveD wrote:
…..who said anything about HDR? Tonemapping and HDR are not the same thing!
Please enlighten me Steve. Do you ‘tonemap’ in photomatix HDR software, or by some other method? And what is the difference? Surely by retaining more detail in the white water and other bright areas, you are creating an image with greater dynamic range, which means HDR? (I’m asking questions from ignorance by the way).
Ross, this guy can explain it better than I can!!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=29599114
Sorry, I’ll try to get my terminology right, I was using HDR as a generic term.
So what do I win? ;-)
AndyL wrote:
So what do I win? ;-)
I will have to get back to you on that one!
I’m not sure that he did explain it in that article……or maybe I’m stupid :?
Are we talking about Photomatix software here (for tonemapping)? Do you not have to generate a HDR image first, before tonemapping? If not, then how do you tonemap an image? I’m clearly missing something.Rossco wrote:
I’m not sure that he did explain it in that article……or maybe I’m stupid :?
Are we talking about Photomatix software here (for tonemapping)? Do you not have to generate a HDR image first, before tonemapping? If not, then how do you tonemap an image? I’m clearly missing something.Tone mapping takes an image and redistributes the tones in an image. The input can either be a HDR file, or a single JPEG/TIFF etc.
In the case of the HDR file, which Photomatix etc would have generated, it cannot be displayed on the screen or in print. This means an HDR file must be tone mapped to create an image which can be displayed on your monitor. Tone mapping allows the HDR file to be displayed in a ‘low dynamic range’ environment.
In the case of a single image, which isn’t HDR, tone mapping can again be used to redistribute the tones to ‘improve’ an image, depending on your own tastes! In a way, it is like an advanced version of Photoshop’s shadow/highlight tool.
So, HDR requires tone mapping, but tone mapping doesn’t necessarily require a HDR file.
I still dont understand how you tone map a single image? If I open a single image in photomatix, the tonemap option is greyed out, and cannot be used???
Rossco wrote:
I still dont understand how you tone map a single image? If I open a single image in photomatix, the tonemap option is greyed out, and cannot be used???
Ahh ok, it seems you can only tone map 16-bit TIFFs. These are always the file type I create from RAW, so just assumed JPEGs would be ok also.
I have concluded that I clearly havent a clue how to use photomatix. I opened a 16 bit TIFF single image in photomatix and no matter what settings I used, I ended up with a weird, washed-out looking piece of crap. :oops:
What sort of a ‘start’ image do you need to do this with? One with blown highlights, or one with low contrast, or under-exposed shadows or what?
“
At the end of the day, if someone’s images are generally heavily saturated (and this is not directed at anyone in particular!), then so what!? That is their preference, and if it is clear it is being used ‘creatively,’ rather than being some sort of lack of technical understanding, then surely it is valid? “
Moving onto your point BM, about the non-photographers, it might have to go down as the most random statement of 2008 on the forum (IMO!) . If the implication is that more photographers would avoid a highly saturated image, I think that is nonsense.
Oops, a little bit quick with my comment – not enough detail. What I meant was that the style of the picture will be very popular with those of us who do not have the experience, skills or eye of a capable photographer like Martin. They might not necessarily appreciate the extent of processing involved in being so creative but would certainly appreciate the picture as presented. Put another way, many will like the picture but not understand the processing that brings the image about; what is important is their appreciation of the outcome.
I think that you unfairly reversed my statement. I said: “more non-photographers would probably purchase A over B or C.”
You suggested an implication that: “more photographers would avoid a highly saturated image”.My statement most certainly did not contain such an implication. Perhaps your statement was a bit too random.
For what it’s worth, I voted for: “I think A is tonemapped, and is stronger than B” precisely because I think that the saturation you apply to your pictures is indicative of your style (that I admire) and which in turn enhances the pictures that you present.
BM wrote:
I think that you unfairly reversed my statement. I said: “more non-photographers would probably purchase A over B or C.”
You suggested an implication that: “more photographers would avoid a highly saturated image”.Yes I was taking liberties there, fair call. Sorry for that.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
