[HDR-photo] Professional printing of HDR images

[FerrellMC]

Royce and others,
I'm interested in an HDR car, I wonder what the mpg will be?

I find myself using this terminology when writing and talking about HDR:

HDR "FILE" - for the 32-bit exr or hdr file.
HDR "IMAGE" - for the 8/16 bit file from tone mapping the HDR file  
from several exposures.

On another note, one of the misconceptions I see among the nah-sayers  
of hdr is that it's unrealistic and overdone.  They don't realize that  
they can have the full range of looks, from conventional photographs  
to the extreme over-processed look AND reduce noise and control  
highlights. It comes down to judicious tone mapping techniques and  
post processing.

Ferrell





On Jul 3, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Royce Howland wrote:

> Dave Feltenberger wrote:
>> Anyway, the term HDR can mean different things in different  
>> contexts - enforcing the proper usage is a battle that can't be  
>> won, so learning the contexts it's used in is probably less  
>> frustrating :-)
>
> I wouldn't guarantee that. ;)
>
> Serious comment -- there is nothing wrong with educating people  
> either, because terminology does actually mean something, especially  
> within a given domain. Helping more people to use key terms clearly  
> makes communication simpler and less error-prone. It also helps a  
> few more light bulbs go "click" in future situations because  
> peoples' use of the language influences how they understand and  
> think about what is going on. Better understanding can help them get  
> the results they want, especially when an approach is immature  
> enough (as HDR photography is) that you can't treat it just like a  
> toaster oven.
>
> I can't count how many times I've seen internet forum & blog posters  
> blast away at HDR photography as an approach, because they don't  
> like some tone mapped image they saw somewhere, or because "you  
> can't print an HDR file anyway so why have it". By conflating HDR,  
> tone mapping, and good photography into one undifferentiated stew,  
> they draw poor conclusions and then recommend those conclusions to  
> everyone else. So maybe educating people about proper usage is  
> tilting at windmills, but if so you can call me Don. :)
>
> Anyway, to echo the other answers to the original question -- can an  
> actual HDR file (Radiance, OpenEXR, etc.) be directly printed? No.
>
> BUT... can we print an HDR file that has been tone mapped down into  
> a standard JPEG or TIFF? Absolutely. The tone mapped file is a  
> "normal" image like any other. I print mine all the time with no  
> special measures needed beyond the kind of color management that I  
> would do for any image. They look great.
>
> // satire alert
> Less serious comments below; ignore if you're not a fan of satire. :)
>
> This year has seen Pentax come to market with the K20D camera  
> containing a menu setting for in-camera production of "HDR" images.  
> It's basically a single exposure JPEG run through some kind of local  
> contrast enhancement filter in the camera, to cook the image and  
> make it look like "all those Flickr HDR images". Nothing to do with  
> "high dynamic range" at all. Yet I have seen discussions (including  
> one presumably serious camera review) where some people are  
> broadcasting the impression that the K20D is doing in-camera  
> multiple exposure blending & processing of some kind, because they  
> understand that is what HDR means. Misleading use of terminology. We  
> can thank Pentax marketing for that one.
>
> Then we have recently announced Epson printers, the 7900 and 9900,  
> with their new UltraChrome HDR inkset. Again, nothing to do with HDR  
> as applied on this list. In fact, given the physical reality of ink  
> on paper reflecting light, I'm not really sure under what useful  
> context one could consider the new inkset as "high dynamic range",  
> given any common understanding of what dynamic range means in  
> imaging. But I guess it was easier and cooler to call it "HDR" than  
> to call it "incrementally refined pigment inkset with marginally  
> improved gamut in the reds and slightly greater black density" or  
> whatever -- IRPIWMIGITRASGBD doesn't scan. Again, a misleading (or  
> at least meaningless) use of terminology, which most people in this  
> case fortunately will ignore. We can thank Epson marketing for that  
> one.
>
> What's next, HDR ND filters? HDR flash storage? HDR bulb blowers and  
> lens caps? If we really jump on this, perhaps we can do some  
> effective cross-market campaigns to extend HDR brand awareness into  
> other verticals, capture customer mindshare and add more shareholder  
> value. How about HDR gasoline and motor oil? HDR breakfast cereal,  
> snack bars and power drinks? HDR mixed martial arts competitions?  
> HDR cosmetics could be good, or maybe "HDR" is too "hard" a term for  
> that market. I'm sure we can think of a few others.
>
> Now, none of us have trademarked the term "HDR", so we don't get to  
> control how people use it. And yes, HDR could mean many different  
> things in many different contexts; heck, some of those meanings  
> might even be legitimate! But the more the concept becomes perceived  
> as "hot" or "cool" in the broader imaging industry, the more people  
> and the more marketing departments will apply it to anything &  
> everything they want. It may become so devoid of specific meaning as  
> to be useless. How will we talk about HDR then, and market our  
> images, books and workshops? Our differentiator will have become  
> commoditized, and that's bad news for building shareholder value.
>
> We'll just have to invent a new term... any nominations? I vote for  
> Natural Dynamic Range -- NDR. Partly because we're trying to capture  
> the range of light naturally present in the scene. And partly  
> because we all know that whatever is natural is good. Whatever term  
> we pick, let's immediately trademark it and then form an industry  
> consortium to protect and market the brand, as well as properly  
> control media use of the term. We'll have a certification arm that  
> will provide the seal of approval on branded products & services, so  
> customers can buy them with confidence that they are getting true  
> dynamic range, not something fake.
>
> Any takers? (But remember, I got dibs on "NDR"...)
>
> // end of satire
>
> P.S. All apologies to Dave. This is not really a serious rant, and  
> certainly not aimed at him, I have been waiting to pop this out for  
> a few weeks now. :) Language and high tech marketing go how they go,  
> so take my soapboxing with a grain of salt. Of course NDR salt is  
> best if you can get it... ;)
>
> Royce Howland
> Calgary, Alberta
> _______________________________________________
> HDR-photo mailing list
> HDR-photo at hdr-photography.com
> http://www.hdr-photography.com/mailman/listinfo/hdr-photo