Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

terrypin · Post by **terrypin** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:58 pm

From my research the answer appears to be No, but I'd appreciate advice on how I might get close to it please.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Post by **hartpaul** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:29 pm

Depends if you have the raw image or not. Trying to do it from a jpg would not give you the quality that using a raw image would do.

As you probably realize , to use HDR you require an image exposed for the shadow areas (burnt highlights), an image exposed for the mid tones (highlights a bit bright and shadows a bit dark) and an image exposed for the h1ghlights (midtones and shadows are darker.
You can process these three images from a raw image file.

Whether you use a series of three images processed from a raw file or use a single jpg the processs if simulating a HDR result will be similar.
For the jpg duplicate the jpg layer three times. Label them highlight, midtones and shadow.
Now process the highlight image to give the best appearance for the highlights, then the shadow image to get the best shadow areas.
(With the three images from the raw you would copy and paste as new layers. In each case you will have three layers.)

Now you need to show in your final image the highlights of one image the mid tones of another image and the shadow tones of the last image.
This can be done roughly by erasing, or by masking.
Others may think of other ways, but in PSP8 (released back about 2003) HDR was only in its infancy and not thought of much. I have HDR photo merge in PSP X2.(2007)

You can see the history of changes here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... o_releases

terrypin · Post by **terrypin** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:06 pm

Thanks, much appreciate your detailed explanation and recommendations.

Motivated largely by shortage of time I'm focusing on the no-brainer approach of automatically producing results from my JPGs. After research I've just installed a free program called Machinery HDR Effects 2.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details ... fects.html

It has a daunting UI so it will be a while before I can use it comfortably, but initial impression is positive.

P.S: I have no RAW images.
--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

brucet · Post by **brucet** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:25 pm

A few words of 'wisdom'.

There are a number of ways of TONEMAPPING a photo. Don't confuse HDR with tonemapping. (HDR images have to be tonemapped but any image can be tonemapped).
You can use multiple images or a single image. However using a raw file has often been touted as the way to do it. But that has major issues. RAW images have/should/may need correcting. For example an under exposed RAW image sent to HDR/Tonemapping will not give the 'correct' result. The RAW file first needs to be corrected. Corrections for exposure and white balance are just two example of correcting a RAW file. Unless corrected first your HDR/Tonmapped images with not be its best.

I would always suggest correcting RAW images and saving them as 16bit tiffs. Then HDR/Tonemap those tiff files. Jpeg can be used but jpegs only have a fraction of the data to work with so the results can be less than ideal.

In truth PSP has never had a strong HDR/Tonemap capability. I would rather see someone use a dedicated program rather than give up on HDR/Tonemapping due to a poor program.

This is one of the problems when one piece of software tries to be something for everyone. It simply doesn't work as well as specialised programs.

regards

terrypin · Post by **terrypin** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:45 pm

photodrawken · Post by **photodrawken** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:42 am

brucet wrote:I would always suggest correcting RAW images and saving them as 16bit tiffs. Then HDR/Tonemap those tiff files.

Just FYI:
There is another way -- use the free HDRMerge program. It will take multiple RAW images and merge them into one HDR 16-bit DNG image. The advantages are obvious -- because the resulting HDR image is a RAW image, you can use RawTherapee's excellent RAW processing on the image to full advantage. Send the RT result as a 16-bit TIF to PhotoLine for further enhancements, if necessary.

photodrawken · Post by **photodrawken** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:18 am

terrypin wrote: ... would much appreciate feedback on their relative merits ...

Sorry to be blunt, but there are no merits to those effects.

The originals are poor quality images and the effects result in poor quality garbage, IMO.

The only original image with any promise is the first one. There is no simple, quick way to improve it, so if you don't have the time to work on it you can disregard the rest of this message.... Successfully processing the image will require a very full-featured set of programs.

I opened the image in PhotoLine (because it fully supports 16-bit images for all its functions) and converted it to a 16-bit TIF image. This is so the extreme adjustments would not cause banding, etc. Then I used PL's external programs feature to send the image to RawTherapee. In RawTherapee, I threw everything at it -- wavelets processing, retinex, tone mapping, Lab adjustments (and the cropping). Saving the result automatically re-opened the modified image back in PL, where I added adjustment layers for DeHaze, Hue/Saturation and Curves (working in Lab mode). The rather extreme settings used in RT resulted in noticeable noise, so I added a DeNoise adjustment layer in PL.

Even so, there is a noticeable halo along the edges of the mountains where they meet the sky. Lessening the strength of some of the RT adjustments would likely eliminate that halo, but I had no desire to fuss any more with this.

Here's what I came up with:

This is the link to the full-size 35Mb TIF image:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e53c67v2dks0z ... d.tif?dl=0

Again, I'm offering these comments simply as general observations regarding image processing.

terrypin · Post by **terrypin** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:32 am

Thanks Ken, greatly appreciate the time you spent on this and your thorough explanation.

I'm amazed at what you managed to do with my Original #2! It's now on my video timeline, replacing my earlier attempts. It's particularly impressive how much detail has emerged from those large slabs of almost uniform grey.

I agree with you about the poor quality of those three originals from my Canon Ixus 220 HS. Being generous to myself (!) I blame a combination of weather and insufficient time to experiment at that location with other camera settings. Ten mile hike on rough terrain in a large group. But the low quality is what largely prompted me to see what I could do to make them acceptable in the finished DVD. And hence my exploration of HDR in particular. If I discarded all the poor shots then my video wouldn't work. (As it is, I supplement it at several points with Google Earth street views.)

I'm at the other end of the skill spectrum to you and there's no prospect of my being able to emulate your work on the many JPGs that need improvement. So I'm still looking for a suitable compromise using the limited tools I have.

I'd also welcome views on another motivation for my focus on HDR. I'm thinking that if a needed landscape photo inadequately captures the real view that I saw, AND if I cannot restore it, then perhaps the best approach is to enhance it, even exaggeratedly. How many of the images we see in magazines and movies are not significantly enhanced and look nothing like what we'd see in reality?

photodrawken · Post by **photodrawken** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:08 pm

terrypin wrote: It's particularly impressive how much detail has emerged from those large slabs of almost uniform grey.

Yes, the amount of details that can be recovered is surprising. The takeaway is that there is software out there that can do wonders, but doing so requires time to experiment and learn what can be done.

terrypin wrote: I agree with you about the poor quality of those three originals from my Canon Ixus 220 HS. Being generous to myself (!) I blame a combination of weather and insufficient time to experiment at that location with other camera settings.

If your camera allows the use of filters screwed to the front of the lens, it would be worthwhile to invest in a Circular Polarizing filter. That filter can sometimes work wonders by cutting through haze. But, I'm not sure if a CP filter can work with digital cameras. I used it with film, but digital camera sensors might not respond very well to its polarizing.

The other very simple thing you can do is set your camera to auto-bracket exposures. For most general travel photography, three exposures of -1.3EV, 0EV, and +1.3EV should give you a nice range to merge into one image that would be a very good starting point for enhancement. Of course, you'll need to ensure the camera is solidly supported during the exposure burst -- use a tripod, or a monopod, or a walking stick, or place the camera on a rock, or brace the camera against the trunk of a tree.

terrypin wrote: I'm thinking that if a needed landscape photo inadequately captures the real view that I saw, AND if I cannot restore it, then perhaps the best approach is to enhance it, even exaggeratedly. How many of the images we see in magazines and movies are not significantly enhanced and look nothing like what we'd see in reality?

I agree. Using that polarizing filter and/or merging a range of exposures are two straightforward techniques that can provide a significant level of enhancement to the scene. My preference is to avoid obvious exaggeration at all cost so as to maintain a "realistic" sense of light, but others might have a different opinion about this....

Joelle · Post by **Joelle** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:34 pm

photodrawken wrote:
terrypin wrote: ... would much appreciate feedback on their relative merits ...

Here's what I came up with:
fixed image.jpg
This is the link to the full-size 35Mb TIF image:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e53c67v2dks0z ... d.tif?dl=0

Again, I'm offering these comments simply as general observations regarding image processing.

My goodness, that's a lot of halos, was that done in Photoline or have you started using PaintShop Pro again?

Joëlle

photodrawken · Post by **photodrawken** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:01 pm

Joelle wrote:My goodness, that's a lot of halos, was that done in Photoline or have you started using PaintShop Pro again?

Oh yeah, you've got that right about the halos. They're the result of the processing done in RawTherapee, specifically the Wavelets adjustment, more specifically the extreme values I had to use for the Wavelets adjustment.

There are many people who think that wavelets adjustments are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they tout its use for everything. However, I've found two issues that seem to be fundamental with wavelets:

It creates halos like crazy.
By deconstructing the image and reconstructing it, wavelets do not perfectly reproduce all the tonal ranges of the original image.

The first issue can be mitigated by carefully using the minimum amount of strength and settings values. For example, with the RAW images from my LF1, I first use all the non-wavelets tools in RawTherapee to get the most out of the RAW image and then apply very minimal wavelets processing to get the final ultimate sharpening.

The second issue might not be noticeable with normal photos, but the tonal range can be easily adjusted by applying an "S" curve in a Curves adjustment layer.

All the work on Terry's image was done in RawTherapee and PhotoLine. In fact, several months ago I got my new Dream Machine (a Thinkpad W541) and I've never bothered to install my last version of PSP (X5).

Alludo USER to USER Web Board

Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?

Re: Is HDR effect possible with PSP 8?