All Forum Comments
Comment by MrB posted on Stained glass windows and HDR at 26/05/2014 - 22:40
McGregNi wrote:
Lets think about what we actually want today ... technology has changed and our options are wider. The aim here was to reproduce the scene 'as the eye would see it'. I believe that what some here are in fact wanting is to simply reproduce it 'as the camera would see it' In other words, they have assimilated over years of film shooting how the technology of the day was capable of dealing with such a scene, to the extent that it is in fact that limited capability that is seen to be 'natural' ... they want to continue to produce images that mimic the technical limitations of an earlier era!
Nigel, this is just to clarify in response to this point. Digital photography became my main hobby about three years ago, after retiring. Before then I don't recall ever shooting stained glass; since then I have photographed very few; therefore your comment here cannot apply to me. Lets think about what we actually want today ... technology has changed and our options are wider. The aim here was to reproduce the scene 'as the eye would see it'. I believe that what some here are in fact wanting is to simply reproduce it 'as the camera would see it' In other words, they have assimilated over years of film shooting how the technology of the day was capable of dealing with such a scene, to the extent that it is in fact that limited capability that is seen to be 'natural' ... they want to continue to produce images that mimic the technical limitations of an earlier era!
However, when under the influence of nothing more than medium strength coffee, I have visited many churches and cathedrals. My experience of their stained glass windows (though admittedly not these particular ones) leads me to conclude, with high confidence, that the HDR images are most unlikely to represent the scene 'as the eye would see it'.
I have already given valid reasons and observations in my previous posts.
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on Stained glass windows and HDR at 26/05/2014 - 19:44
Sorry Nigel, but this HDR image does not look right, and the glass in particular is nowhere near as good as in the single shot above, processed by Andrew (Posted 23/05/2014 - 10:41). The colours look like pastel shades, rather than the rich tones that are usually seen in stained glass, and what should be a faint tint from the blue glass is now a pale blue glow running into the stone around the panes - together these effects make the window look unrealistic to me.
Cheers.
Philip
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on Stained glass windows and HDR at 24/05/2014 - 11:32
McGregNi wrote:
I accept you point on the way that lighting reaches the camera sensor, ie coming from two different sources (direct & reflected) it will have a very different impact ... however, that 'effect' is simply yet another technical deficiency of the camera sensor, much like the dynamic range limit is - and as we are trying to compensate for these limitations I don't see that we should in fact want to reproduce it. I would be aiming to reproduce a 'what the eye sees' effect rather than any 'what the camera sees effect'.
I think you have missed the point again there, Nigel. I accept you point on the way that lighting reaches the camera sensor, ie coming from two different sources (direct & reflected) it will have a very different impact ... however, that 'effect' is simply yet another technical deficiency of the camera sensor, much like the dynamic range limit is - and as we are trying to compensate for these limitations I don't see that we should in fact want to reproduce it. I would be aiming to reproduce a 'what the eye sees' effect rather than any 'what the camera sees effect'.
Looking at the windows from several yards away, our visual perception would interpret the high light intensity transmitted through the stained glass, compared with the low light intensity reflected from the stone frame, as a high contrast scene - bright glass and dark stone. Using the HDR technique has made the stone much too bright - much brighter than our eyes would actually see.
In one good exposure, the camera's sensor should have sufficient dynamic range to record the low light from the stone frame. In the later, single exposure examples here, the processing has lifted that brightness just into the levels that our screens can display but, more significantly, just into the dark levels that we would actually see in stone next to bright glass, making a more realistic image.
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on Stained glass windows and HDR at 23/05/2014 - 22:51
davidstorm wrote:
I'm a big fan of the 'single exposure' approach and almost all of the images I've ever posted either in the Gallery or on the Forum have been single exposures. There are the odd one or two exceptions when I've been trying to achieve a specific look. This one from the K-3 is a single exposure and I think it demonstrates that even in a dim church interior it's possible to get detail and highlights acceptable in one go, even with a camera as limited in DR as the K-3(!)
However, if this image were shot closer to the window, I'm sure it would look pretty blown out so I do agree that a '2 exposure' approach would deal with the situation better.
Regarding Andrew's efforts and HDR in general, my preference is for a 'natural look', which can be achieved with care, either by blending two or more layers, or in software such as Photomatix. Whether 'HDR processing' or blending layers is used is not relevant to me, what is relevant is how the final image looks.
Regards
David
I agree with David's comments above, not that my point will matter to anyone here, just as my reasoning (on page 4 *) appears to have been ignored. But I don't suppose that I deserve any credibility anyway, as I would set up my K-5ii to produce a good JPEG and tweak that into the final image. If the capture was proving difficult I would do what John suggested (on page 1) and use the in-camera HDR Mode. As he writes and my experience confirms, this can give a natural appearance to this sort of image, and I happen to like natural in church.I'm a big fan of the 'single exposure' approach and almost all of the images I've ever posted either in the Gallery or on the Forum have been single exposures. There are the odd one or two exceptions when I've been trying to achieve a specific look. This one from the K-3 is a single exposure and I think it demonstrates that even in a dim church interior it's possible to get detail and highlights acceptable in one go, even with a camera as limited in DR as the K-3(!)
However, if this image were shot closer to the window, I'm sure it would look pretty blown out so I do agree that a '2 exposure' approach would deal with the situation better.
Regarding Andrew's efforts and HDR in general, my preference is for a 'natural look', which can be achieved with care, either by blending two or more layers, or in software such as Photomatix. Whether 'HDR processing' or blending layers is used is not relevant to me, what is relevant is how the final image looks.
Regards
David
(* now supported by the last image above)
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on Stained glass windows and HDR at 23/05/2014 - 01:04
Nigel, these are head and shoulders above any portrait shots of mine.
Cheers.
Philip
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on Nigel's First Stranger Shots at 22/05/2014 - 07:16
McGregNi wrote:
....Why would the bright light through the glass suddenly drop so much once it hits the stone edge? It wouldn't, it would brighten the stone frame considerably, as in your HDR....
and ....Why would the bright light through the glass suddenly drop so much once it hits the stone edge? It wouldn't, it would brighten the stone frame considerably, as in your HDR....
McGregNi wrote:
....Light levels from the glass shine through onto the stonework, progressively lessening as they fall further into the interior. They do not suddenly cut from near white to shadow (like Andrew's other version there)....
I'm not sure that your thoughts are correct here, Nigel. You are comparing two quite different effects. The light the camera receives from the window is transmitted light (it passes more or less straight through the glass to the camera). The light reaching the camera from the stonework is reflected light, and unpolished stone is not a particularly good reflector. This would result in a much greater light intensity from the former than from the latter, i.e. high contrast. Even though eyes are quite good at detecting differences, I think that the effect, if you had been there viewing at the distance that this shot was taken, would have been to make the even the stonework close to the glass look quite dark to your eyes. ....Light levels from the glass shine through onto the stonework, progressively lessening as they fall further into the interior. They do not suddenly cut from near white to shadow (like Andrew's other version there)....
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on Stained glass windows and HDR at 21/05/2014 - 21:13
Thank you, Mike.
The MX-1 is a great little camera - and a pleasure to use.
Cheers.
Philip
The MX-1 is a great little camera - and a pleasure to use.
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on MX-1 in the Churchyard at 21/05/2014 - 20:32
Thank you, Nigel.
Yes, the menus are similar to the DSLRs. It is also easy to forget it's not a DSLR and lift the camera to the eye! However, I do think the tilting screen is very good for composing shots.
Cheers.
Philip
Yes, the menus are similar to the DSLRs. It is also easy to forget it's not a DSLR and lift the camera to the eye! However, I do think the tilting screen is very good for composing shots.
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on MX-1 in the Churchyard at 21/05/2014 - 20:29
Thank you, Andrew.
They were shot as colour JPEGs, and tweaked (and the B & W conversion done) in PaintShop Pro X6, which is the way I nearly always work. Somehow the MX-1 manages to produce usable output even at higher ISO settings for a compact camera (the highest here is #2 at 640).
Cheers.
Philip
They were shot as colour JPEGs, and tweaked (and the B & W conversion done) in PaintShop Pro X6, which is the way I nearly always work. Somehow the MX-1 manages to produce usable output even at higher ISO settings for a compact camera (the highest here is #2 at 640).
Cheers.
Philip
Comment by MrB posted on MX-1 in the Churchyard at 21/05/2014 - 20:26
MrB above seems to be thinking that our eye are going to be so dazzled that we'll be blinded to all this (midtone) detail? What do others think?
Cheers.
Philip