• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Image Painting the BMW's

sfarson

New member
Applying HDR (High Dynamic Range) techniques on photos of BMW's I used to ride, and still ride. A short trip down memory lane.

This was my first BMW. It took me on journeys never taken before. These are often the most memorable of rides...
r1150gsguanella.jpg


Found a sweet, low mile K1200RS, and wouldn't let a little snow on the driveway prevent me from getting it out for a winter's day ride...
krsdriveway.jpg


Ahhhh.... there's something about a brisk, late afternoon, low sun ride...
krs285.jpg


But you know, some bikes really thrive in uncertain conditions and on uncertain surfaces...
hp2ebucksnort.jpg


But what can I say, I found the R1200GSADV to be a more versatile "Adventure" bike than the HP2e. What is it with all these wintertime pics? I remember it was so cold here, I left the bike running so the heated grips would stay heated...
r1200gsadvguyot.jpg


Ahhh... warm temps. My wife and I rode way out on the plains to visit the Summit Springs Battlefield site where Tall Bull and his band of Cheyenne Dog Soldiers met their end. Location is on a remote ranch, down a remote ranch road...
r1200gsadvsprings.jpg


Well, form and function in a Munich exercise to demonstrate what is possible. They nailed it IMO...
hp2sportecho.jpg


Finally, how did BMW package a bike that wins "tourer of the year" awards, yet weighs less than most sport tourers? A long distance, full featured, and still twisty road fun bike...
r1200rtwolfcreek.jpg
 
Well, it worked.....I'm not sure how or why, but I think with some more playing....
Thanks for the tip Sfarson!

RSToil.jpg
 
460... Nice work!

The HDR process simply provides another option for rendering your images. I especially like the choices that can turn images into ones looking like paintings. Have fun!
 
Dave... Thanks much for the background! It gives me something to explore versus just the "paint" effect on single exposure old images. Your examples are outstanding.
 
To me those look like more the result of Tone Mapping rather than just straight HDR, which are actually two different processes. Unfortunately most HDR programs have Tone Mapping built in as part of the process (since the HDR images themselves canÔÇÖt be rendered/displayed directly in digital format) so the image is put thru tone mapping and then compressed back down to a LDR (Low Dynamic Range) for output to jpeg, tiff, gif, etc.

If you want to play with just the HDR part (which is what I prefer over doing a lot, if any tone mapping) to get a more even/higher tonal range you can use photoshop to layer the images without having to do any tone mapping, which is very easy to get carried away with!. There are also tools such as something from the Hugin project http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ available in Linux and Windows versions or something like Enfuse http://enblend.sourceforge.net/ also available as GNU licensed Freeware. The tricky part is getting the layers matched up exactly, but there are also tools to help with that function, such the Align_image function available from the above. A quick search of HDR and LInux will bring up a lot of info on this and many of those linux tools have now been ported over to windows.

IÔÇÖve been using the linux tool sets along with Gimp on my Ubuntu home system for a while now and have gotten most of it scripted out (based on the work of others I found online) so the tedious work of sorting, layering, aligning, blending and such, is handled automatically and all I have to do is the final touch up and fine tune the images as needed.

You can even do HDR from a single image if shooting in RAW format and then there are no issues with movement, though the range is not a great as individual bracketed images would be.


RM
 
You know, reading through this thread really brought something home to me.
There is one H%#LL of a lot of knowledge available/shared on this forum!
Thanks to all on this and many other subjects!

460
 
After about the 5 millionth time I've seen HDR, it all looks like clown barf to me..

again, its not HDR that gives those images the look you are probably referring to, its the Tone Mapping that's been done.
Here is an example of HDR (without the added processing that cause many to dislike HDR because it looks "artifical" or over processed)

Note the fairly even shading, detail in the shadows without having a totally washed out sky, over saturated whites and still maintaining some depth (this was taken under bright mid morning sun). One of the big problems with HDR is that overdoing the enfusion of the images can lead to a flat image lacking any depth, the human eye and mind rely on these sorts of clues to gain perception of distance in a 2-dimentional image of something it "knows" to be 3-dimentional. it is therefore important not to lose to much of that. (See the last images for some examples of over-done HDR (or what I consider overdone) note how flat the images seems even with all the clues of the roadway and car.)

An HDR image without Any Tone Mapping. Just three bracketed images taken at plus and minus one full appature stop apart.

boat2-enfuse.jpg


now the same image Tone Mapped

web-boatmod-tm1.jpg



now the same scene Tone Mapped Without HDR, in other words this was tone mapped using the single middle exposure of the three shots that was used to create the first two images.

web-boatmod-tm4.jpg


See the differance? In fact, you don't have to even use an HDR image to do tone mapping, as in the third example, but as I said before so many of the programs available have tone mapping as part of the process the two have become synonymous. Very unfortunate IMHO

finally examples that did NOT work out

An over done, over flattened HDR image

web-desert5-tm.JPG


And an overdone attempt to correct with Tone Mapping (which I felt fell flat on its face!) and I can say that cause they are all my own images!

web-desert5-tm_lzn2.jpg


RM
 
Rocketman,

I think the problems you are having with tone mapping stem from 2 causes:

1. The images you are using as examples only required 1 or three exposures, and the one with three exposures had exposures that were only 1 stop apart. This type of example barely needs HDR processing, if at all. The examples I posted above required 5 to 7 exposures, each 2 stops apart. There was a much higher luminance range, and HDR processing was definitely required if the full luminance range was to be captured. With this degree of HDR processing, as you point out, without tone mapping, the result, as displayed on a normal computer monitor or printed, would be horribly flat and uninteresting. So the images I posted needed tone mapping. Your examples did not. Some simple adjustments in Photoshop would have sufficed.

2. I don't know what program you used to do the tone mapping. I used Photomatix. Photomatix has a number of parameters that can be set - in other words a lot of control. I grant you that tone mapping done badly, or "overcooked", as in your examples, does not look natural. Tone mapping, when required and done properly and with some restraint, does not need to look unnatural.


I am using linux based tools rather than Windows such as enfuse, emblend, align-image etc ( see my previous post). And I am aware of the differences in my examples and what you did, along with the fact that mine don't have the range of 6 or 7 bracketed images. My point was about the differences in HDR and Tone Mapping.

Even with just three images though I can get better results than "simple adjustments in photoshop" since that requires that the areas being recovered have some detail to recover which is not always the case within any one shot. the closer you get for any one pixel being either 100% 0 or 100% 1 (totally black or totally white) the more detail you lose.

In my view even three bracketed shots will give you better results than any single shot and while my examples didn’t need any HDR. In my view I prefer the results of using three bracketed images over using image tools to try and recover detail.
And yes, while I personally prefer more subdued HDR or Tone Mapping (in so far as the images I produce) understand I have nothing against Tone Mapping or going for more surrealistic or stylized images. I've played with some rather outlandish stuff myself (some of which worked and some that did not! :lol)I am quite aware that art is very much subjective in nature, I was merely trying to give folks a better understanding of the processes involved.
I hope you understand this was not meant as a critic of your images just an attempt to inform and provide some insight into this area of photography, nor do I consider myself as having any "problems" with HDR or Tone Mapping nor understand why you think I am. (??)

here's a link to where I got interested in working with the Linux HDR/Tone Mapping software.
http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/02/hdr-and-linux.html

Some really nice work

RM
 
Steve,

I don't read all the posts on here, (who could if you work for a living )
But zeroed in on this due to your other excellent work, especially IBEWM video you produced 5 + years ago ?.

Nice Pics and thanks for that video, maybe time to repost ?
 
Steve,

I don't read all the posts on here, (who could if you work for a living )
But zeroed in on this due to your other excellent work, especially IBEWM video you produced 5 + years ago ?.

Nice Pics and thanks for that video, maybe time to repost ?

Craig... That brings back memories! Your recollection is accurate... five years ago this month. Haven't viewed it in awhile... thanks for the excuse to check out the memories of 2005 again.

I've Been Here and There - Streaming Video
 
Here is another example of an HDR image produced by method 2 described above. The subject is highly polished and nickle plated. In other words, it's one, fairly intricately shaped mirror. Subjects like this always present a challenge if you want to keep all, or most of the surface within the displayable 8 bits of dynamic range. It's almost impossible to create a non HDR image that shows detail in all the areas where you want detail. Some of the shadow areas can go black, and in fact this probably creates a stronger image. The background is dark blue fabric, darker than navy blue but not black by any means. Back in the '70s when I was doing product photography as part of my living, I handled subjects like this by building a light tent around the subject, and controlling the luminance of every point that would be reflected in the subject. That was a lot of work.

This image required 4 exposures, each 2 stops apart. It would not have been possible to produce without tone mapping.

<img src="http://www.gallery1700.net/linkto/colt2008.jpg" alt="Model 1873 Colt">

Dave... Your images continue to impress. I think I can see your tripod!

Steve
 
rocketman,

I don't mean to criticize either. I think we both intend to convey information about this process, and not create confusion or misconceptions.

I guess what I have taken some issue with is your assertion in both of your posts that tone mapping is not part of the HDR process. You even called it unfortunate that it was included in HDR software. Granted, HDR is still new enough, at least in its present form, that some disagreement about terminology is legitimate and inevitable. However, I continue to assert strongly that tone mapping is a necessary and integral part of one HDR workflow, and that many of the very best HDR images cannot be produced without it.

Let's separate the two HDR work sequences (methods), at least the two that I am aware of.

1. Blending. As we both have mentioned in previous posts, one way to achieve HDR is to stack multiple exposures as layers, and then remove the overexposed and underexposed areas of all the layers, leaving an image that captures detail in all areas from the darkest to the lightest. This can be done manually with a good photo editor. There are also programs that do it automatically. It is the simpler of the two HDR processes. An image produced in this way should not need tone mapping, since all the inputs are 8 bit per channel images, and you are only selecting the areas from each one that is most appropriate for the final image. Any of the original images will display on a normal computer monitor, and nothing in this process adds any bit depth. That's one way to do HDR.

2. The second method of producing an HDR image involves using the original input exposures to create an image that encompasses the entire luminance range from all the input images. In order to do that the program (this really can't be done manually) creates a file in a proprietary format with whatever bit depth is needed to hold the full total luminance range of the subject. If there is sufficient tonal range in the input images, the program will allocate 128 bits per channel per pixel. There are two things that are true of this approach. The file produced tends to be quite large. And the image cannot be displayed on equipment that can only display 8 bits per channel per pixel. Photomatix will create a highly squished representation of the full tonal range image for display, so that you can inspect what it has done, but that display looks so flat and lifeless (lacking any reasonable contrast at all) that it's really rather unpleasant to look at. In order to go from that image file to one that looks natural, there must be a process that intelligently selects areas in the image and expands the contrast to levels that look right. This process must recognize which areas are, in fact, the brightest and darkest and, while keeping detail in those areas, still leave them brighter and darker than other areas. At the same time the software must expand the contrast in all areas of the image, while keeping the identified areas in the proper sequence of light to dark generally. This is called tone mapping. If done right it is a very sophisticated process. Photomatix is capable of doing it right, but one must use the controls the program has to achieve good results.

If the number of input images is small and only one stop apart (the luminance range of the subject doesn't exceed the dynamic range of the camera by more than a few stops) blending (method 1) can work very well, and may be preferable. If there is a huge luminance range in the subject, and several input images are required, each 2 stops apart, then the second method will almost always yield a better result. Photomatix supports both methods, and when I was experimenting with this I tried both methods on the same inputs, so I had a chance to get a feel for the merits of either method.

So, my point is that, for HDR images that require several input images 2 stops apart, due to a very high luminance range in the subject, tone mapping is in fact an integral, necessary, and highly desirable part of the best workflow for getting the best result, which is method 2 described above.

I grant, and I think this is the point you really want to convey, that tone mapping, if used when it is not needed (such as on single exposures or HDR images created with the blending method) will probably produce an unnatural looking result, and is best not used at all.

Ok I think we are basically in agreement on this, my point was simply that the results of a highly edited HDR image taken with larger numbers of or higher bracketing valve as one often sees have had (what I see as unfortunate) the affect of misleading the general viewer into believing the HDR process (in and of itself) almost invariably leads to such stylized images whereas I see the two as individual processes, even where the one is dependant on the other.

As the image you displayed below in your follow up post shows, HDR and the resultant tone mapping does not have to lead to an “artificial” looking or “stylized” image but can in fact lead to an even more realistic one. (very nice image by the by, ((we won't touch on the subject matter hopefully images of same aren't taboo! :lol)) ).

Since the way we perceive a dynamic image with our eyes constantly adjusting to changes in shadow and light can not be captured in a static image of the same scene HDR is nothing more an attempt to bridge that gap.

I guess its a reaction to such comments as that made by that crazydrummercrimial dude and just feel HDR or the process of trying bring together a set of images that come closer to what the human eye sees has gotten a "bad rap".
See, its all that crazy drummers fault! :lol

RM
 
Back
Top