Відео

Flatten the image or zoom to 100% to confirm the banding is not real. I don’t know if some configurations skip this 16-bit preview for the sake of speed (such as with an old GPU). I wouldn’t be surprised if it is subordinate to performance goals on older computers.

All same as original

Thank you

Glad that was so helpful!

Share as a gain map and it will look great on any display. Printing is simple, but part of the learning curve. You do both (do not directly print the HDR), and it is very simple to do with the right workflow. gregbenzphotography.com/hdr#printing

@@gregbenzphotography Thanks you're site is an amazing resource! However, looks like I'm missing out using Firefox on my M1 MacBook Air... When I switch to my desktop with QD-OLED Monitor and Chrome, everything just pops! When will the rest catch up?

@b34k97 Thanks! Safari and FireFox are currently missing support for HDR photos (they support HDR video). I’m not aware of any public roadmaps for either. Chrome, Brave, Edge, and Opera have great support already.

That uses the old HDR. Options for creating with the new HDR displays I’m aware of include LR, Adobe Camera RAW, Photoshop, Affinity, and Pixelmator/Photomator.

More info at gregbenzphotography.com/hdr/

@@gregbenzphotography Thanks so much, Greg, I'll take a look.

It doesn't generally, as it is a measure of the image data. However, the HDR histogram from Adobe shows the number of stops of headroom supported by the display - as well as clipping warnings based on the limits of the display. So that info is based on the monitor for the HDR histo in LR / ACR (the actual histogram plot is still just image data there).

Could be a failed upload (local caching can let you see HDR even if it fails). If you aren't uploading an iPhone capture from an iPhone or similar with Android, there are a lot of complications at the moment - initial support appears targeted at phone captures (which makes sense since they vastly outnumber any deliberate HDR editing on a computer, etc). This should get much easier in time. See gregbenzphotography.com/ for latest details, I'll keep it up to date. There also appears to be some split testing on IG that causes some HDR devices to show SDR. That isn't surprising for a new feature (to get feedback on how people use it, like it, etc). I'd expect that ends soon enough, but may go on for a bit. You can test for HDR support with this post I made: instagram.com/p/C76n00Fskd5/

I didn’t merge or blend exposures to pull in that light. In my source material, the lights turned off between shots. In the intro image, I finished it by blended it in so it wouldn’t be distracting.

@@gregbenzphotography thank you 🙏

Yeah, when you open it into a lower dynamic range space, it’s biased towards looking pretty flat. In many ways, the new HDR makes it easier to get things to a place that feels both true and engaging.

It’s crazy how much of a difference it makes

You should not directly print the HDR photo, but you can easily manage both print and HDR display. See gregbenzphotography.com/hdr/#printing

@@gregbenzphotography Thank you!

HDR video (which I'm using) gets tone mapped to the SDR range (which you are watching). So you are seeing a dark and low contrast version of the video which lacks any "wow" factor, but the relative tones are ok and it communicates the issue. Try watching it with an M1 or later MacBook Pro and you'll see something much more interesting. Most iPhones and Android sold in the past 4 years will support an HDR view of this video in the UA-cam mobile app (not necessarily in a web browser on the same phone though). HDR isn't just computer monitors... the majority of phones and TVs already have the hardware. So platforms like Instagram (where there are far more people seeing your work on mobile phone than computers) are already well suited to offer benefit to a lot of people. And most Apple laptops have support. It's far more common than you'd expect, largely because we are only now getting the software to support (and there are some key gaps yet to close, but we're seeing rapid progress on that).

Yes, I have details on how to shop and recommendations on some specific options at gregbenzphotography.com/review-best-hdr-monitor-for-photography/

@@gregbenzphotography thanks mate

I rarely merge anything - regardless of the old or new HDR, or what software I use. A single, properly exposed RAW (with noise reduction as needed) is more than enough for all these techniques. When I do merge, I use LR for the new HDR (since I process there) and would tend to use Photomatix if using the older HDR (but I almost never use that anymore now that I can edit for true HDR display).

certainly people will continue to merge exposures (though in my experience it is unnecessarily the vast majority of the time, something including the moon would be a good example as you're mixing subjects both with direct sunlight and almost no light). Tone mapping will remain relevant as you won't always want to use the full encoding range. But it won't look like Photomatix, it'll be much more like what's already built into LR for RAW processing. I imagine we may see other creative tools in time, but they will probably be presented more like filters than as tone mapping software. But we already have great mechanisms with "gain maps" to manage the entire PQ range (10,000 nits), so deliberate reduction of tonal range is optional. We'll probably use AVIF gain maps rather than JPG gain maps to do that, but we should have that long before 10,000 nit displays are common (though models have been shown publicly and Sony's flagship TV is already ~4000 nits). My point here mostly being that it will be an artistic choice - you won't always want to use the full HDR range, even if the original data might naturally be that bright. And the workflow won't look anything like the old HDR approaches, probably more like just standard RAW processing.

It’s a huge gain, often up to 12 stops of dynamic range (vs 8 for SDR). We’ll probably see that grow in the coming years, some new TVs are already at 4000 nots or higher, which would support 5-6 stops of headroom (ie 14 stops of dynamic range, vastly beyond SDR and similar to the dynamic range of human vision when we don’t have time to adapt).

@@gregbenzphotography There's still a tension in the audience, though, isn't there? What is the trend towards film photography or film emulation if not a nostalgia for SDR? If I recall correctly, the SDR standard was initially conceived as a way of capturing the range and limits of print. Describing film photography as nostalgia for SDR is a bit facile, elevating a side effect to the main cause. As this new ground opens up, the parameters of editing need to adjust. In an SDR image, you can reduce the white point on a luminance curve and smooth it out to replicate an old film log curve you find in a 1970's Kodak reference manual. But what RGB values are you affecting to get that "smooth rolloff"? 210-255? In an HDR curve, what are those values? More importantly, we end up back at biology. 210-255 in the SDR scale really just map to Zones VIII-X, right? Whether we use SDR's numbers or whatever numbers we settle on for HDR, we're still probably going to ground those new numbers and technical standards in the Zone System's qualitative terms.

@@davidturner5 It's hard to say what the reaction will be, as so few people have ever seen it. My personal experience (having introduced a large number of people to it on a good display) has been overwhelming excitement. My expectation is that most people will love it - when edited properly for the right image. You can certainly make bad images with any editing tool, and HDR isn't going to improve all images. Some are inherently lower contrast (such as corporate head shots, a lot of foggy forest scenes, etc). Some people will certainly continue to prefer the older SDR - either because they work with subjects / lighting. where there is less dynamic range, or because they prefer the older look. There are plenty of people who prefer black & white exclusively, and I'm sure we'll have some people who just never want to use HDR. That's fine, it's all a matter of personal preference and suitability for the image. I see it as a technology that will benefit a large percentage of images in the eyes of a large percentage of viewers. So I'm just trying to do my best to help others become aware of it to learn more.

@@davidturner5 for your question on zones, HDR is mapped to new values. If you used the same numbering system, HDR would be values greater than 255 (up to 4095 would be equivalent for a system supporting 4 stops, which is the current capability of Apple MacBook Pros). But we use different numbering for HDR. In LR and ACR, the values are shown as the number of f-stops over SDR, so it would be up to +4 stops. In Photoshop, HDR is shown in 32-bit linear values. There, the SDR range is 0.0 - 1.0, and HDR is above that. It would reach 16.0 for +4 stops. Note that 32-bit can go to over 4 billion and translating that to nits (assuming the 203 nit standard for photography) means roughly 870 billion nits. For reference, the sun is only 1.6 billion nits. So one of the odd things about HDR is that we no longer have any limit in the data (you can even use negative values). The displays have a limit of course, but they can already often show values brighter than would be artistically ideal. So rather than boosting contrast to the limits (as we often do now for standard images), we have to be more clear on how far to push HDR.

@@gregbenzphotography Agreed on all of the above. New HDR is a tool like any other; nails don't need screwdrivers. It seems like it will drive an irrevocable split in how photographs are processed. No print medium can adequately display a new HDR image and, as you video mentions, conversions for the print medium lose in translation. Photographers who embrace new HDR as part of their style sort of commit to never printing their images. (Not at best quality, anyway.) That's what I was trying to get at above. It feels like a real fork in the road.

I have an HDR playlist to see all the videos on my channel. This is also a great place to learn more: gregbenzphotography.com/hdr/

If you use a gain map, they’ll get a great SDR (standard dynamic range) image, even if the browser doesn’t understand gain maps either. In other words, it safely falls back to a regular image if the enhanced HDR is not supported. gregbenzphotography.com/hdr-photos/jpg-hdr-gain-maps-in-adobe-camera-raw/ These displays are already far more common than most people know. They are the majority of viewers on Instagram already (mobile first), most TVs, and nearly all Apple displays since 2018 support it to some degree, with the M1 and later MacBook Pro being absolutely stunning. The gap is shrinking, but it will certainly be a while to get to 100% support - so gain maps are a critical technology that makes it safe to share these images now, without waiting for universal support.

Yes, the distribution of HDR displays is interesting. Because outside the photography community, HDR is actually becoming dominant faster than it is inside the photography community. In addition to most iPhones and many Android phones supporting HDR luminance, we have reached the point where if you buy a new TV it is going to support HDR unless you go out of your way to avoid that. Today the Best Buy website lists 961 TVs; if I click the HDR box it lists 896…so HDR TVs are 93% of the new TVs they sell. Many probably do not reach an ideal luminance for HDR editing, since there are a range of HDR standards. But the point is, they are ready for at least some degree of HDR viewing. So HDR is already becoming entrenched for the most common displays (phones and TVs) that most regular people use daily, which means, oddly, it is the pro photo users who are lagging behind, for two reasons. First, end-to-end full HDR hardware and software workflows have become established and routine in pro video, while pro photographers are just now learning about it. Also, if a photographer wants an HDR computer display they still have to intentionally go look for it because most computer displays still don’t support HDR. With the exception of 14/16” MacBook Pro users as Greg said, since all of those fully meet the Adobe HDR standard of 1000 nits sustained HDR luminance.

@@gregbenzphotography Thanks for the video and information. To continue this question, now when you show this video on youtube. Did you rendered a video which is HDR capable? and then when uploaded to youtube, is the HDR information being streamed through youtube? Thank you

@@kaori-3882 this video is a true HDR video. It will display as HDR on a supporting display (the UA-cam gear icon at bottom right will say "HDR" in red when supported). When not supported, the video will be automatically tone mapped by UA-cam down to the SDR range. It will look dark and is not nearly as optimized as what we can do for HDR photos (using gain maps), but for teaching purposes still helps get the point across. Of course, the HDR "wow" factor will be totally lacking on an SDR display for this video.

@@gregbenzphotography Thank you

You shouldn’t print it directly, but it’s easy to manage both: gregbenzphotography.com/hdr#printing

@@gregbenzphotography Great. Many thanks for the feedback

Lumenzia does not record anything image specific. It remembers which button you clicked and some panel specific info (such as slider values, feathering, etc). You must be recording steps using something other than Lumenzia to see a file name, I’m not sure what that would be. If you have file-specific steps for saving, Photoshop has a batch option which lets you adapt your action better. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss in greater depth.

It probably set the default application for DNG to Topaz, just Google how to set the default app back to PS for Windows/MacOD. Or use the LR interface to open the images, no need to double click anything managed in LR.

Thank you for the mention! You can definitely find differences if you look close enough, no question - I just haven't found anything significant enough that it would show in a print or any real use. Interesting comment on transform, I haven't used that much. That's surprising that such a macro tool would respond to such small changes.

See gregbenzphotography.com/photography-reviews/ai-denoise-lr-acr/

Awesome, sounds like a great breakthrough moment

That’s great to hear. How big are those native RAW files?

@@gregbenzphotography Around 100mb even after converted to DNG.

@Ancaja123 that’s a monster. Bringing that down to 10MB or so? With AI noise reduction first will be smallest.

If you reduce resolution, that’s all they get. They could upsample, but that would not be same quality. I wouldn’t do that for print work. Just use lossy compression without changing pixel dimensions to send the smallest file that keeps full quality (about 4-6MB is typical for 46MP RAW).

Try making a very large print with both the normal and compressed RAW and see if anyone can spot a difference. I think that’s extremely unlikely.

DNG can either be mosaic (often RagGB sensor data) or in linear space (RGB). This uses the later, which is a partially processed but still RAW. Just like applying AI Denoise, shooting ProRAW with iPhone, etc. The processing is the same. As you see in the video, the settings carry over and the result is identical (aside from some minor compression artifact which is effectively undetectable).

Sure you chose the option to save a preview?

😮... I will try... Thanks

It hasn’t changed, it’s an option via the flyout at top-right of the panel.

@@gregbenzphotography Thank you. I only have to do this when I update and I always forget how to do it.

@HoustonBrownPhotography the setting should be sticky between updates, unless you uninstall (which clears any UXP plugin’s saved preferences).

Glad it was so helpful!

Adobe software does, which means you’re in good shape unless you plan to switch to another RAW engine soon. Not surprising for a new DNG option. In the long run, anything which supports DNG will likely catch up.

There is no meaningful difference, I was just stating that I have been reviewing these images in close detail (beyond anything useful for print).

My RAW was similar resolution. I’m viewing on a 32” 6k monitor.

Yeah, probably any high volume work could really leverage this. A lot of event coverage would probably fall into that camp.

I haven’t used that in a while, not sure if it has this. But the presence of lossy check and raw version 15.3 would pretty clearly indicate support