Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tone Mapping

Tone Mapping[edit]

Reason: An example of the entire post-processing effort used to make a viewable "HDR" image in one depiction (if requested, all exposure brackets can be uploaded).
Articles this image appears in: Tone mapping
Creator: Cody.Pope
Nominator: Cody.Pope

Support — Cody.Pope 07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it looks to me as if you could have gotten the same result by just tweaking the gamma curves of the 0.0/f offset exposure. The subject isn't really calling for such a long exposure series and HDR as far as I can see. More details on the tonemapping algorithm (and the software) used would be a plus for the caption too. --Dschwen 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Dschwen here. It looks like there were no blown highlights on any of the exposures apart from +1.33. You could have achieved much the same result from post-processing the +1.0 exposure I think. In fact, apart from a more subtle gradient from left to right in the sky, I don't see how the end result is significantly different from the +1.0 exposure apart from being a bit soft from the stacking... A very aesthetic scene (where is it?) but doesn't really do justice to tone mapping for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I'd almost agree, accept that no matter how you tweak either the 0.00ev or the 1.00ev, details are always lost (especially along the coast and in the sky as you said). You can grab the originals (Nikon RAW) at 0.00ev NEF or 1.00ev NEF. The point of this blending was to to find the subtly in color without making a surreal image -- hence the actually small exposure range. Also, it's Lake Michigan inside the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
    - Thre range is small in terms of f-stops, but large considering the number of shots. Was that really necessary, wouldn't two or three exposures have been enough? --Dschwen 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No opinion on the image yet, but time to crack down on lack of a caption. ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what do you mean by lack of caption? I can make the caption more detailed as requested, but it is certainly present. Cody.Pope 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just compare the captions used for the pictures of the day for instance at WP:POTD/March 2007. ~ trialsanderrors 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image does not give a good example of tone mapping as the dynamic range of the subject is not that large. I can release this HDR series into a compatible license if there is interest. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I can see many of your concerns and I appreciate the feedback. The one thing I would say is that the small range is actually very helpful when it comes to blending the image. Most tone mapping software actually suggest 9-15 images to get the best results; since the blending is pretty complex, the more data the better results. A lot of hazy and murky tone-mapped images are a result of too few exposures and/or poor blending software/settings (think murky black skies). I good tone-mapped image should actually be -- at first glance -- unnoticeable and natural. And a lot of the HDR-tone-mapped-images aren't usually like that all. That being said, I still would like to see a good tone-mapped image presented in a similar matter as this. It's more the format of the image that I was promoting. In the future, I'll try to get a image with a higher overall range, but I'll still make sure to get a large number of shots. --Cody.Pope 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. I don't think you need a large number of images. You just need images with a reasonable amount of overlap. Tone mapped images that end up with problems such as murky skies are usually the result of poor settings and trying to squeeze too much dynamic range into a limited output rather than a low number of source images. Your image does look quite natural but that is mainly due to the fact that the scene didn't really HAVE a large dynamic range requirement in the first place. Any time you try to fit significantly more dynamic range into a typical PC output, you're going to either lower overall contrast, create halos or at least display a scene that on first glance looks a bit fishy and strange. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]