Digital BW, The Print

Luminous Landscape currently has an article and forum thread on HDR.  I don't want to duplicate it here, but I'm curious if people on this forum are finding HDR very useful with respect to B&W printing.  

With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do quite a bit of dodging and burning.  I think this is contrary to the usual color printing style and may make a difference in whether the automated HDR approaches are useful to us.  

So far, I do not find them very useful.  My central/main exposure with an auto-bracketing shoot is usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than is a stock HDR. 

As such, what I find is that with CS4 and its ability to align layers, I can do a better job than HDR by simply putting the main exposure on the top layer and slowly "erasing" the burned out areas with the -2 frame below, and later erasing the too dark areas in the central exposure with the +2 exposure below.  It feels to me just like the dodging and burning type of image compression I've always done in printing -- with just a little different workflow.  

I think the manual approach can avoid some of the artifacts of HDR, and the control it give plays into the aesthetic of printing that is central to how I see good B&W printing. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I also have been using the technique you described below. This technique is
described in the book by Harold and Phyllis Davis titled the "The Photoshop
Darkroom" .  They describe using the same image processed differently and
different images using the best of each image. Good stuff!

Gary Wagner

garywagner.com

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 6:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] HDR & B&W

 

  

Luminous Landscape currently has an article and forum thread on HDR. I don't
want to duplicate it here, but I'm curious if people on this forum are
finding HDR very useful with respect to B&W printing. 

With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do quite a bit of
dodging and burning. I think this is contrary to the usual color printing
style and may make a difference in whether the automated HDR approaches are
useful to us. 

So far, I do not find them very useful. My central/main exposure with an
auto-bracketing shoot is usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than
is a stock HDR. 

As such, what I find is that with CS4 and its ability to align layers, I can
do a better job than HDR by simply putting the main exposure on the top
layer and slowly "erasing" the burned out areas with the -2 frame below, and
later erasing the too dark areas in the central exposure with the +2
exposure below. It feels to me just like the dodging and burning type of
image compression I've always done in printing -- with just a little
different workflow. 

I think the manual approach can avoid some of the artifacts of HDR, and the
control it give plays into the aesthetic of printing that is central to how
I see good B&W printing. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Paul,

I'm on the road and haven't had time to read the whole LL article, though I saw and bookmarked it this morning.  A few quick comments though:

- I always like to point out what I think we all object to is not HDR but rather tone mapping.  HDR on its own - merging multiple exposures into a single HDR file - is actually very useful.  With a HDR file in CS4 you can do burn/dodge/etc a bit more easily and with no clipping issues compared to blending two aligned LDR layers.  With many exposures you also get lower shadow noise.  Of course, if the two exposures is working for you then it falls in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" category.

- I do find careful use of HDR with a local tone mapping operator to be very useful in some high contrast scenes.  I still typically do a bit of dodge and burn, but with proper radius/threshold settings the tone mapper gets me to a far, far, far more workable starting point than any attempt at layer blending.  The types of scenes I'm talking about here are those with sharp irregular transitions between dark and light.  Scenes where a grad-ND would have done the job work just fine as layer blends I think.

- B&W is actually far more forgiving for tone mapping as you don't fall victim to the frequent hyper-saturation problems you often get with color images.  I can't stand that clown-makeup look of so many thoughtlessly done HDR images.

- I have to state again, it is all about how you used the local tone mapper.  With careful experimentation with radius/threshold and using the tone curve as well you can achieve very natural results that have none of the hallmarks of the "bad" HDR we see all over flicker.

- I also agree, I think a lot of HDR and just dynamic range concerns in general are sometimes technique over art.  Frequently I want blocked shadows!  Like you say, often you are dialing up the contrast for the final print anyway.

Here's a link to a B&W image of mine that just couldn't be done without HDR and local tone mapping in my opinion:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/photos/734800020_qJxMr-L.jpg

Ken

That's also the method I use Paul. I'm a little more extreme about it, because, my work is a bit surreal. This etching away method you describe is very intuitive and painterly and is really part of the creative process for me.

Chris 
>

On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:08 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do quite a bit  
> of dodging and burning.  I think this is contrary to the usual color  
> printing style and may make a difference in whether the automated  
> HDR approaches are useful to us.

We see in color, so color processing tends to be about making things  
like "right" or "realistic"... we don't see in B&W so we have the  
luxury of optimizing B&W files for artistic impact. Without the colors  
to carry the contrast role, that usually means increasing B&W global  
contrast, then localized contrast within the image, plus opening  
shadows (which we clogged with the contrast bump) and other related  
functions such as noise reduction.

Much of this is done with a digital paint brush, and makes us feel a  
bit more like artists. Replacing that handwork with HDR, which can  
produce a more automatic result that offers somewhat similar increases  
in local contrast with low noise, makes some photographers feel like  
they are losing the hand produced effect, and their personal skills  
are being replaced by automation. Not to mention that much (I'm  
tempted to say most) HDR work is overdone to a degree where it  
resembles nothing but overdone HDR work. You end up seeing, so to  
speak, the makeup on the girl, not the girl the makeup was supposed to  
enhance.

HDR restricts other forms of creativity as well, by demanding multiple  
originals, thus a tripod, and a frozen subject matter; reminiscent of  
the old masters of landscape (which can be a good thing, or  a bad  
thing, depending on what you do with it). HDR-like filters and tools  
are bringing that carbon-singed, soot-edged HDR look to single,  
handheld images as well, these days, for those who long for that  
effect in their less deliberate images.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> So far, I do not find them very useful.  My central/main exposure with an auto-bracketing shoot is usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than is a stock HDR. 

I us HDR as I would any other tool/method.

Some disadvantages listed by C.D. Tobie:
> demanding multiple originals, thus a tripod, and a frozen subject matter; reminiscent of the old masters of landscape.

another dis is the misuse and over cooking of images mentioned as well.
If the tool is used with thought and care it can produce -great- images that would be extremely difficult to replicate by hand masking layers. As with any other tool, "hit one button and yur done", is not the proper method. For serious HDR I found PhotoMatix works far better than the Photoshop filter and plan on developing some B&W with HDR over the winter to keep the tool fresh. Here is a link to some of my work
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26192346@N05/sets/72157614958975769/

SteveO

Paul,

Do you have a link to the article and forum discussion ?

thanks

Glenn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

>
> Luminous Landscape currently has an article and forum thread on HDR.  I don't want to duplicate it here, but I'm curious if people on this forum are finding HDR very useful with respect to B&W printing.  
> 
> With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do quite a bit of dodging and burning.  I think this is contrary to the usual color printing style and may make a difference in whether the automated HDR approaches are useful to us.  
> 
> So far, I do not find them very useful.  My central/main exposure with an auto-bracketing shoot is usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than is a stock HDR. 
> 
> As such, what I find is that with CS4 and its ability to align layers, I can do a better job than HDR by simply putting the main exposure on the top layer and slowly "erasing" the burned out areas with the -2 frame below, and later erasing the too dark areas in the central exposure with the +2 exposure below.  It feels to me just like the dodging and burning type of image compression I've always done in printing -- with just a little different workflow.  
> 
> I think the manual approach can avoid some of the artifacts of HDR, and the control it give plays into the aesthetic of printing that is central to how I see good B&W printing. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I tried HDR but my results were as horrible as the majority of what I see on the web.  It's discouraged me from spending much time on it.  One of the few bright lights in the HDR world is the Black & White HDR work by Maciek Duczynski, who has a small gallery on the Photomatix website:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/gallery/gallery.php?id=5&gid=1

Ken




--- On Tue, 12/22/09, pr_roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> From: pr_roark <paul.roark@verizon.net>
> Subject: [Digital BW] HDR & B&W
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 2:08 AM
> Luminous Landscape currently has an
> article and forum thread on HDR.  I don't want to
> duplicate it here, but I'm curious if people on this forum
> are finding HDR very useful with respect to B&W
> printing.  
> 
> With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do
> quite a bit of dodging and burning.  I think this is
> contrary to the usual color printing style and may make a
> difference in whether the automated HDR approaches are
> useful to us.  
> 
> So far, I do not find them very useful.  My
> central/main exposure with an auto-bracketing shoot is
> usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than is a
> stock HDR. 
> 
> As such, what I find is that with CS4 and its ability to
> align layers, I can do a better job than HDR by simply
> putting the main exposure on the top layer and slowly
> "erasing" the burned out areas with the -2 frame below, and
> later erasing the too dark areas in the central exposure
> with the +2 exposure below.  It feels to me just like
> the dodging and burning type of image compression I've
> always done in printing -- with just a little different
> workflow.  
> 
> I think the manual approach can avoid some of the artifacts
> of HDR, and the control it give plays into the aesthetic of
> printing that is central to how I see good B&W printing.
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and
> other resources as they are often being updated..
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or
> you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership
> preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative
> users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make
> off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group
> rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and
> decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group
> Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND
> AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY
> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS”
> OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF
> THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR
> (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
>

I have seen some beautiful B/W images online that used HDR.
Mike J.

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] HDR & B&W

Luminous Landscape currently has an article and forum thread on HDR.  I
don't want to duplicate it here, but I'm curious if people on this forum are
finding HDR very useful with respect to B&W printing.

With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do quite a bit of
dodging and burning.  I think this is contrary to the usual color printing
style and may make a difference in whether the automated HDR approaches are
useful to us.

So far, I do not find them very useful.  My central/main exposure with an
auto-bracketing shoot is usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than
is a stock HDR.

As such, what I find is that with CS4 and its ability to align layers, I can
do a better job than HDR by simply putting the main exposure on the top
layer and slowly "erasing" the burned out areas with the -2 frame below, and
later erasing the too dark areas in the central exposure with the +2
exposure below.  It feels to me just like the dodging and burning type of
image compression I've always done in printing -- with just a little
different workflow.

I think the manual approach can avoid some of the artifacts of HDR, and the
control it give plays into the aesthetic of printing that is central to how
I see good B&W printing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

What I love about creative processes is that everyone has the opportunity to
approach them in their own way. What may be an ideal work flow for one
artist may set another on a road to disaster.

A work flow that utilizes HDR at its beginning stage can be incredibly
useful in allowing the following steps to take on a life that may have been
impossible by any other means. Those of us who have enjoyed applying the
Ansel Adams zone system and have painfully processed negatives aimed at
producing calculated dynamic ranges that we felt would permit us to have the
building blocks we were envisioning for our final images - were grateful to
the Adams for making us understand the technical limitations of both film
and paper in the creation of fine art photographs.

 The range of available light and how you intend to express it in a final
image is still the ultimate bottleneck we all have to deal with. Rather than
dwell on the sloppily applied HDR that looks like an obvious special effect,
look at the dynamic range you can capture when you properly capture scenes
with HDR techniques. Done right it provides you with an unparalleled bounty
of raw material to work with. Where this all goes wrong is when folks who
don't real understand what to do next in fact do an automated process as the
next step. Doing it right takes at least two things. First you need to know
the many different paths you can take with this wide-dynamic range material.
Two you need to work your butt off to become good at applying these
techniques.

So what is new - hard work and understanding have and always will be what
sets apart the success you have regardless of the techniques you chose.

There isn't a single technique that is used in traditional approaches that
can not be used in one that incorporates HDR.

Sorry but just because some folks misuse HDR - and it is so obvious they do
- that is no excuse to not investigate its merits in the hands of someone
who has taken the time to become good with it. If you move out of your
comfort zone and truly put an effort into it, you may be pleasantly
surprised with your results.

Happy Holidays To All

Bill


On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:08 PM, pr_roark wrote:
>
> > With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do quite a bit
> > of dodging and burning. I think this is contrary to the usual color
> > printing style and may make a difference in whether the automated
> > HDR approaches are useful to us.
>
> We see in color, so color processing tends to be about making things
> like "right" or "realistic"... we don't see in B&W so we have the
> luxury of optimizing B&W files for artistic impact. Without the colors
> to carry the contrast role, that usually means increasing B&W global
> contrast, then localized contrast within the image, plus opening
> shadows (which we clogged with the contrast bump) and other related
> functions such as noise reduction.
>
> Much of this is done with a digital paint brush, and makes us feel a
> bit more like artists. Replacing that handwork with HDR, which can
> produce a more automatic result that offers somewhat similar increases
> in local contrast with low noise, makes some photographers feel like
> they are losing the hand produced effect, and their personal skills
> are being replaced by automation. Not to mention that much (I'm
> tempted to say most) HDR work is overdone to a degree where it
> resembles nothing but overdone HDR work. You end up seeing, so to
> speak, the makeup on the girl, not the girl the makeup was supposed to
> enhance.
>
> HDR restricts other forms of creativity as well, by demanding multiple
> originals, thus a tripod, and a frozen subject matter; reminiscent of
> the old masters of landscape (which can be a good thing, or a bad
> thing, depending on what you do with it). HDR-like filters and tools
> are bringing that carbon-singed, soot-edged HDR look to single,
> handheld images as well, these days, for those who long for that
> effect in their less deliberate images.
>
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@... <CDTobie%40datacolor.com>
>
> ----------
>
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Glenn" <glennrbarry@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> 
> Do you have a link to the article and forum discussion ?
> 

This is the Luminous Landscape article.  

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hdr-plea.shtml

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

His work is quite spectacular and a proper use of HDR. Though you'd more likely say he's compensating for the limited dynamic range of the camera using multiple exposures.

I used to use a very early form of HDR - multiple exposures for spherical panoramas.

That is one situation where you're always going to have too wide dynamic range, but the results were always sub-optimal. 
Automation was almost always impossible.

Looking at the results some are getting even now, the results are often of unrealistic quality, at which point it falls into the "why bother" category. 

It hasn't progressed all that far really.

Has anybody tried enfuse? I've been meaning to check it's development progress

Glenn


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ken Alexander <k.alexander@...> wrote:

>
> I tried HDR but my results were as horrible as the majority of what I see on the web.  It's discouraged me from spending much time on it.  One of the few bright lights in the HDR world is the Black & White HDR work by Maciek Duczynski, who has a small gallery on the Photomatix website:
> 
> http://www.hdrsoft.com/gallery/gallery.php?id=5&gid=1
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 12/22/09, pr_roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > From: pr_roark <paul.roark@...>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] HDR & B&W
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 2:08 AM
> > Luminous Landscape currently has an
> > article and forum thread on HDR.  I don't want to
> > duplicate it here, but I'm curious if people on this forum
> > are finding HDR very useful with respect to B&W
> > printing.  
> > 
> > With B&W I've always tended to increase contrast and do
> > quite a bit of dodging and burning.  I think this is
> > contrary to the usual color printing style and may make a
> > difference in whether the automated HDR approaches are
> > useful to us.  
> > 
> > So far, I do not find them very useful.  My
> > central/main exposure with an auto-bracketing shoot is
> > usually closer to the final contrast I'll want than is a
> > stock HDR. 
> > 
> > As such, what I find is that with CS4 and its ability to
> > align layers, I can do a better job than HDR by simply
> > putting the main exposure on the top layer and slowly
> > "erasing" the burned out areas with the -2 frame below, and
> > later erasing the too dark areas in the central exposure
> > with the +2 exposure below.  It feels to me just like
> > the dodging and burning type of image compression I've
> > always done in printing -- with just a little different
> > workflow.  
> > 
> > I think the manual approach can avoid some of the artifacts
> > of HDR, and the control it give plays into the aesthetic of
> > printing that is central to how I see good B&W printing.
> > 
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and
> > other resources as they are often being updated..
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or
> > you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership
> > preferences by visiting this same page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> > messages to keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> > attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative
> > users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> > digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make
> > off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group
> > rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and
> > decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group
> > Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > 
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL
> > BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND
> > AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL
> > BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY
> > DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> > LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
> > LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS”
> > OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF
> > THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> > USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> > GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> > TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> > THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR
> > (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > YAHOO GROUP.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > Â  Â  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > 
> >
>

>... compensating for the limited dynamic range of the camera
> using multiple exposures. ...

I assume that is the main point of HDR.  I suppose reducing noise in the shadows even if they are nominally within range has some value.  Are there other uses of HDR?

With film I often using a tripod and simply took 2 exposures -- one for the highlights and one for the shadows.  Since they were on roll film and scanned together, the images were rotationally aligned and easy to deal with manually.  Shots like my Grand Teton used this approach and were easy.  See http://www.paulroark.com/GrandTeton.html

I tried this approach with the Canon 5D2, but with hand holding the camera, and the approach failed.  Neither the HDR or auto-aligning of layers could be done in Photoshop CS4.  I suspect there are insufficient details that match in the 2 frames.  I take if from this that, at a minimum, more frames are needed.  I suspect with a tripod my manually merging the frames would work, but, frankly, the quality of image with strong back-lighting is not close to the film quality I'm accustomed to.  So, I suspect even with a tripod I'd want more frames.

I've noticed some third party HDR software is often recommended.  Do these (or even PS) have a way to assist the alignment by telling the software some points that do match and having it then so the rest?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> >... compensating for the limited dynamic range of the camera
> > using multiple exposures. ...
> 
> I assume that is the main point of HDR.  I suppose reducing noise in the shadows even if they are nominally within range has some value.  Are there other uses of HDR?

True HDR is 32 bit floating point, which nothing can display - let alone print. On a normal monitor it is so lacking in contrast it actually looks like mud.

Quite a while ago there were some people trying to implement a panorama viewer for HDR.
It took the 32 bit float values scaled to suit what portion you were viewing - to display it with normal contrast. 
So it would brighten the shadows and darken the highlight as the panorama spun past. Think of it like the autoexposure on a video camera and going from inside to outside or vice versa.

> 
> With film I often using a tripod and simply took 2 exposures -- one for the highlights and one for the shadows.  Since they were on roll film and scanned together, the images were rotationally aligned and easy to deal with manually.  Shots like my Grand Teton used this approach and were easy.  See http://www.paulroark.com/GrandTeton.html
> 
> I tried this approach with the Canon 5D2, but with hand holding the camera, and the approach failed.  Neither the HDR or auto-aligning of layers could be done in Photoshop CS4.  I suspect there are insufficient details that match in the 2 frames.  I take if from this that, at a minimum, more frames are needed.  I suspect with a tripod my manually merging the frames would work, but, frankly, the quality of image with strong back-lighting is not close to the film quality I'm accustomed to.  So, I suspect even with a tripod I'd want more frames.

> 
> I've noticed some third party HDR software is often recommended.  Do these (or even PS) have a way to assist the alignment by telling the software some points that do match and having it then so the rest?

You can use some of the panorama stitching software to get precise alignment on hand held stuff, try Hugin (free - open source) or Ptassembler (commercial).

You don't have to be stitching mosaics or panoramas to find them useful. Hugin includes automatic point matching software for alignment as well as enfuse which can blend different exposures.

I'm going to give Hugin a whirl again over the break to see where it's at.

> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>