HDR-images from color negative film

[emtor]

Some subjects just beg for HDR, and before going analog I used to do quite a few HDR-images.
However, after purchasing analog medium format cameras and a film-scanner I did miss playing around making HDR imagery.
There has been some discussion on wether one could make HDR-images from film at all, so I shot a test roll of color negative film to find out.
I've seen claims that one could tonemap a single image from film to get the HDR-effect, but this isn't really HDR.
HDR is about getting a wider dynamic range, and if you compare the two images, you will see that there is detail present in the HDR-image
which is not present in the regular exposure.
The images below shows a HDR-image consisting of exposures ranging from -3 EV to +4 EV, (1 EV increments) and a regular 0 EV exposure (for comparision).

First the regular non-HDR image:

Dead Link Removed


And here's the HDR-image:

Dead Link Removed

The exposure values must be entered manually or added as exif-data to the scanned files,
but other than that it's not more cumbersome than working with raw-files from a DSLR.
Also, you will probably need fewer underexposed images as compared to the number of
overexposed images as color neg film is more tolerant of overexposure.
I've been generous with the tonemapping settings just to show that you can get the
"radioactive" look of overcooked HDR if you want to.
I think this experiment shows that analog cameras, color neg film and a scanner could produce pretty good HDR.
No need then to revert to digital cameras.

 

[Tony-S]

Can't you just scan the negative multiple times with the scanner's exposure setting altered between scans? Then just process in regular HDR software.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Can't you just scan the negative multiple times

nope, you won't get the range at capture, just as HDR processing of a single RAW file will not result in HDR either.

I recommend the book:
http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/

 

[emtor]

Can't you just scan the negative multiple times with the scanner's exposure setting altered between scans? Then just process in regular HDR software.

The dynamic range will still be the same, but you will get a HDR-ish look,
but not the extended dynamic range of several differently exposed film-frames/raw-files.
I suspect many people have come to view HDR-images on the basis of the artefacts (the "radioactive" look),
and not the extended dynamic range.
The artefacts like halos and the like are just side-effects of the tonemapping process, but many people like it,
and so it has probably become the hallmark of HDR imagery.
Tonemapping a single image or doing a multiple exposure scan will give you all the artefacts you want,
but not an increase in dynamic range.

 

[ann]

It is a battle with getting people to understand that HDR stands for the contrast range not tonemapping.

The other battle is the one exposure HDR, it doesn't exist. You can get the "look" and it doesn't always have to be nuclar, but even with grunge, it is still just tonemapping.
The number of exposures are based on the contrast range .

IMHO, the more the better, but that decision is determined by the total contrast range.


As you can see what the image posted, the monitor is still blown out with a small amount of verbage seen but with the correct exposure scale one could read the monitor without the blown out highlights.

There is also a lot of halos in that image, what software did you use?

 

[emtor]

It is a battle with getting people to understand that HDR stands for the contrast range not tonemapping.

The other battle is the one exposure HDR, it doesn't exist. You can get the "look" and it doesn't always have to be nuclar, but even with grunge, it is still just tonemapping.
The number of exposures are based on the contrast range .

IMHO, the more the better, but that decision is determined by the total contrast range.


As you can see what the image posted, the monitor is still blown out with a small amount of verbage seen but with the correct exposure scale one could read the monitor without the blown out highlights.

There is also a lot of halos in that image, what software did you use?

I used Oloneo, and I overcooked it on purpose just to show that color neg film can be used for making HDR-images.
But I need to experiment a bit more though on which exposures to choose.
Color neg film has a different behaviour when overexposed than when underexposed,
as opposed to digital sensors which seem to be more linear.
This may require a more careful selection of which exposures to use.

 

[donbga]

I used Oloneo, and I overcooked it on purpose just to show that color neg film can be used for making HDR-images.
But I need to experiment a bit more though on which exposures to choose.
Color neg film has a different behaviour when overexposed than when underexposed,
as opposed to digital sensors which seem to be more linear.
This may require a more careful selection of which exposures to use.

Well I'm hoping that if we are ever converted to DPUG that we can have a separate forum dedicated to HDRI, HDR techniques, and HDR software.

Even though just about everyone has differing views about HDRI I think it is an interesting genre of modern photo technology and should be explored.

Don

 

[pellicle]

Well I'm hoping that if we are ever converted to DPUG that we can have a separate forum dedicated to HDRI, HDR techniques, and HDR software.

yeah!



being into realism I prefer the use of HDRI to capture what I can not without it

nature which appears as I see it...


autum Leaves by obakesan, on Flickr

and interiors as I see them ...

Tampere Cathedral Interior by obakesan, on Flickr

no blown bits cos my eyes don't always blow out

of course everyone expresses things differently so I don't think of the "stark" stuff as being "wrong"

 

[emtor]

Nature up here where I live (Northern Norway) present itself with lots of microcontrast and dynamic range sometimes
which is hard to capture with only one exposure.
HDR sometimes fixes that if used sparingly.
Other times I use HDR for scenery more in an effort to recreate my own impression of what I saw when taking the shots.