HDR and Filter Techniques which generates a new kind of 3D-Effect

[Michael Stoehr]

Some pictures, processed in the early 2010. HDR- and filtertechniques and many manual manipulations in the picture. My intension is to create the largest possible 3D-effect in "normal" 2D-pictures.

My first picture with the 3D-Effect, that appears suddenly at the end of the processing. All my later processed HDR-pictures based on the checklist for this photo. This HDR based of 2 Pictures with -1 and 0 EV.

Ships in the harbour of Emden in Germany. This HDR-picture based on 3 Photos with -1, 0, +1 EV.

Digger in the winter 2009/2010 in Emden in Germany. This picture based on 3 Pictures with -1, 0, +1 EV.

If interested in this kind of photos you can visit my homepage. There is still more to find

3D-Fotos.de

Best regards and sorry for my bad english

Michael Stoehr

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Very nice imagery, Michael. Indeed, your work is quite productive toward your goal of creating the 3D illusion in a planar form (without any other aids). The primary driver behind this illusion, however, is not "HDR" (i.e. contrast management) processing. It's principally the ever-present blurred plane of clouds that fools the eye into decoding slight distance relations. Lightness certainly plays a role, but only a supporting role.

Still a nice exercise that presents some very good lessons that can be applied in practical daily photography. Thank you for showing it here.

 

[Asher Kelman]

]Some pictures, processed in the early 2010. HDR- and filtertechniques and many manual manipulations in the picture. My intension is to create the largest possible 3D-effect in "normal" 2D-pictures.

My first picture with the 3D-Effect, that appears suddenly at the end of the processing. All my later processed HDR-pictures based on the checklist for this photo. This HDR based of 2 Pictures with -1 and 0 EV.

Michael,

This first picture is remarkable and has the kind of distinctiveness one would expect to find in the symbols on a bank note, a secret society or an association of mystics. The light rising behind the mountains tells us some new age is rising. Quite a promise and dramatic.

I wonder if you might share some of the stages in the development of this picture. Dis you include tone mapping in your workflow?

Now to the magnificent ships! They really stand out so cleanly in the harbor. What you did is interesting, especially as the make up and lighting of the image is entirely different from the first picture. That seems like a woodcut brought to life. The ships seem to have come from a movie poster designed to stop traffic!

This last picture is made by the same workflow? Does it also include Photomatix Pro or other HDR program?

Asher

 

[Michael Stoehr]

Very nice imagery, Michael. Indeed, your work is quite productive toward your goal of creating the 3D illusion in a planar form (without any other aids). The primary driver behind this illusion, however, is not "HDR" (i.e. contrast management) processing. It's principally the ever-present blurred plane of clouds that fools the eye into decoding slight distance relations. Lightness certainly plays a role, but only a supporting role.

Still a nice exercise that presents some very good lessons that can be applied in practical daily photography. Thank you for showing it here.

Hello Ken!

Thanks for comment.

Many techniques plays a supporting role, but every technique is needed to create the effect. Without one of them, the effect doesn´t appears. For example every over- or underexposure in the picture destroys the effect, so the HDR-Process is needed in those pictures. There are sunshine in all pictures (sunshine is very important !!) and this scenary you could never show in pictures without the HDR-Technique. The HDR-Technique is still needed in every of my pictures. Every inch of the picture have to show a perfect exposure in the shadows and lights !!

But you´re right, the blurring is very important, but it´s not only blurring the clouds. I have blurred or sharpened every important part of the picture in a special processing. The clouds have more than 5 different blurrings. The digger and the equipment have also different blurrings or sharpness.

There are many other processing-steps in my pictures and some of them based on old and new theories from the optical illusions.

Greetz
Michael

 

[Michael Stoehr]

Dis you include tone mapping in your workflow?

Hello Asher.

Yes I include tonemapping in my workflow. It´s the basic part of my processing. After the tonemapping many steps followed in photoshop.

This last picture is made by the same workflow? Does it also include Photomatix Pro or other HDR program?

Asher

Yes, the picture with the digger and equipment based on the same workflow. It was my third effect-picture. In this processing I have only advanced the blurring- and sharpening-techniques and the processing-Time explodes in a very extremely dimension . By the way - The first and the second picture were processed with exactly the same editing-steps !!! I write a editing-checklist during every processing and as the 3D-Effect appeared in the first picture, I have taken the checklist to make exactly the same steps in the second picture with the ships. I wondered by myself that the effect appeared also in the second try with my checklist . But it´s noch the end. The effect could work much better in the future. My pictures are only prototypes.


For all a explanation, but that´s not so easy with my little english-knowledge

I took this software:

1. Dynamic Photo HDR or Oloneos Photoengine for the HDR- and tonemapping-process

2. Photoshop CS4/CS5 for the different sharpening and blurring in many parts of the picture (every important subject in the Photo gets a different blurring or sharpness dependig of the "distance" in the photo or from the "distance" between one subject to the other). The blurring of Lenses damaged every 3D-Effect of a picture because its unreal for our brain !!!! You have to correct the blurring manually for every part of the picture to get a correct blurring and sharpness which will accepted from our brain as a natural impression from reality.

3. many Filters from NIK Color efex pro, to optimize the lightning- and color-contrasts in the photo. For example the filters "white neutralizer" and "Tonal contrast"

4. NIK Viveza to optimize the darker and lighter parts of the photos. At the end you should processed a photo with a absolutely perfect exposure in every little part of the photo. It´s not allowed to have only one over- or underexposure in one inch or centimeter of the photo. Only one over- or underexposure in the picture would damage the effect immediately.

5. NIK Define to eliminate every noise in the picture. For example every noise in a sky destroys a 3D-Effect in a picture because in reality you would never see a noise in the sky. Our brain would never accept a noisy sky as real and give you a very flat impression of those photos.

I hope you can understand parts of my text above. It´s very hard for me to write in "english"

Greetz
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

I'm impressed with your work and especially the effort to make exposure at each point "perfect". This is very different from inserting vignetting in the old days to make a still life or a portrait even more engaging.

Whenever I make substantial adjustments in photoshop and feel it's now exactly as needed, I stop. This is to allow me to escape the now artificial universe of computer post-processing. I then put aside this careful work on my photograph and fully engage in something else. Only after that, I return to blend back the originality of the starting picture. I now reduce, as much as I can tolerate, the effects of all my previous investment in thought, skill, filters, time and energy. I bring back some percentage of the original. Even if minute, I feel that the experience given by the final result can be improved.

Have you ever tried that? In this case, what would be the effect of bringing back say 3-18% of the original?

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Whenever I make substantial adjustments in photoshop and feel it's now exactly as needed, I stop. This is to allow me to escape the now artificial universe of computer post-processing. [Color emphasis mine. -dak] I then put aside this careful work on my photograph and fully engage in something else. Only after that, I return to blend back the originality of the starting picture. I now reduce, as much as I can tolerate, the effects of all my previous investment in thought, skill, filters, time and energy. I bring back some percentage of the original. Even if minute, I feel that the experience given by the final result can be improved.

I really like that outlook.

I'm particularly impressed by the insight in the passage I have marked in blue. I urge each reader to give that the attention it deserves.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Michael Stoehr]

Michael,

I'm impressed with your work and especially the effort to make exposure at each point "perfect". This is very different from inserting vignetting in the old days to make a still life or a portrait even more engaging.

Whenever I make substantial adjustments in photoshop and feel it's now exactly as needed, I stop. This is to allow me to escape the now artificial universe of computer post-processing. I then put aside this careful work on my photograph and fully engage in something else. Only after that, I return to blend back the originality of the starting picture. I now reduce, as much as I can tolerate, the effects of all my previous investment in thought, skill, filters, time and energy. I bring back some percentage of the original. Even if minute, I feel that the experience given by the final result can be improved.

Have you ever tried that? In this case, what would be the effect of bringing back say 3-18% of the original?

Asher

No, I don´t think that this is possible without destroying the effects. My goal is the most possible 3D-Effect in normal pictures and nothing else. The better look comes automatically with the maximal effect (that´s my opinion). During the processing my pictures changed into another composition and there is no return to the original. This would damage the effects. By the way - I don´t like nomal pictures, because our brain is looking for new impressions and natural pictures are all over the internet in thousands of galleries and forums and looks boring for me. I like surreal pictures which looks "better" than reality and give me a much better impression than "normal" pictures. Thats my personal meaning. For normal pictures I have never begin the Photography-Hobby. I have started this hobby in 2008 only because I saw HDR-Pictures in a gallery. Before I never made pictures because I don´t like the flat look of normal pictures.

Here an example of the original compressed RAW-Files from my Ship- and digger-pictures ( 0 EV).

Greetz
Michael

 

[Jon Owen]

impressed

I am very impressed with these images - I am not a fan of HDR on the whole as I feel it can look artificial but your images are to my mind a good evolution in HDR. I share Asher' interest in seeing what these results would look like with around a 15% transparent layer of the original overlaid.

Just off this point slightly... Do you use NIK software exclusively or a combo of NIK/Adobe/other? Not having used NIK software myself, what would you say are the key advantages over photoshop/lightroom?

Best wishes

Jonathan

Jonathan Owen Photography

 

[Michael Stoehr]

I am very impressed with these images - I am not a fan of HDR on the whole as I feel it can look artificial but your images are to my mind a good evolution in HDR. I share Asher' interest in seeing what these results would look like with around a 15% transparent layer of the original overlaid.

I will try this in future, but I don´t think that this would take a positive effect. But who knows ?

Just off this point slightly... Do you use NIK software exclusively or a combo of NIK/Adobe/other? Not having used NIK software myself, what would you say are the key advantages over photoshop/lightroom?

I use NIK software exclusively as plugins for Photoshop. The key advantages over photoshop/lightroom are the very easy use of the many different and new filters and the very easy U-Point-Technology. With this U-Points you can do filtertechniques in parts of the picture without to create complicated selections or layer masks.

 

[Asher Kelman]

No, I don´t think that this is possible without destroying the effects. My goal is the most possible 3D-Effect in normal pictures and nothing else. The better look comes automatically with the maximal effect (thats my opinion).

I'd sure love to see the step just before that final effect maximizes!

Here an example of the original compressed RAW-Files from my Ship- and digger-pictures ( 0 EV).

​

Michael,

What I realize you have done, in addition to sharpening, blurring and tone mapping, is to essentially remove the light from the sky and put it all to the sides and behind us. (Hmmm, I wonder what happens to your effect without replacing that bright sky?)

It's great to have someone really embed their fingerprints on their photographs. So your endeavor is worthy of attention! Yes, it's exceptionally weird, but confluently so! I do admire this technical success of your result but am hesitant as to its utility beyond electrifying a scene.

So here's a question: with your translation of the image files, how then does one now deal with "meaning" and "significance" as these often get engraved into the picture by relative illumination, sharpness and clarity too? If, as you point out, you have no room for alteration of your final result, then that could be a challenge for images with intended social meaning.

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

For the sake of "objective" discussion, and for Mac users, it appears to me that these images posted by Michael are in Adobe RGB color space but not tagged, so Mac users may see them under saturated, below is, imho, how they should appear… (sRGB embedded):

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nicolas,

I presume you first "assigned" Adobe RGB" and then "converted" to sRGB?

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

Nicolas,

I presume you first "assigned" Adobe RGB" and then "converted" to sRGB?

Asher

Not exactly, I opened the images with no profile and "no change" to color, then converted to Srgb (made no difference on monitor) and then "save as" with Srgb embedded.

I could have assigned "Adobe Rgb" first when opening with the same result.

Like this:

 

[Michael Stoehr]

For the sake of "objective" discussion, and for Mac users, it appears to me that these images posted by Michael are in Adobe RGB color space but not tagged, so Mac users may see them under saturated, below is, imho, how they should appear… (sRGB embedded):

Thats the wrong colors !!!! My pictures are in srgb !! Please delete your wrong editing of my picture. "your" version is extremely over-saturated.

Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thats the wrong colors !!!! My pictures are in srgb !! Please delete your wrong editing of my picture. "your" version is extremely over-saturated.

Michael

Michael,

I understand Nicolas' error. When there's no tag designated, one assumes Adobe RGB. I didn't look and so I assumed sRGB. Had I looked I might have made the same error. All pictures should have color profiles as well as hopefully © info and licensing info.

Yes it does seem over-saturated! I have learned something from this mistake. The front of the ship on the left has developed increased importance of the bow. I wondered how one might do that. Assigning relative value to elements in a picture is part of the 3D story but also essential to storytelling.

So this increase in saturation, mostly altering the left side, appears to be a further way of not only getting your 3D dimensionality, but also of adding emphasis and rank to one part of the picture. I'm very interested in such local dynamics, even though we come to it by accident. I have learned something new here. So I hope we might keep the wrongly assigned processed profile to demonstrate the consequences of such mistakes.

Asher

 

[Michael Stoehr]

Michael,

What I realize you have done, in addition to sharpening, blurring and tone mapping, is to essentially remove the light from the sky and put it all to the sides and behind us. (Hmmm, I wonder what happens to your effect without replacing that bright sky?)

This would be look not so good - I have made many experiments with different brightness and thats exactly the best result for my effects. A brighter sky would take the look in the sky and you should look at the ships ! With brightness, lightning, blurring, sharpness and many more you can take the focus in parts of the picture you prefer (that´s perfect for commercial advertisement for example)

So here's a question: with your translation of the image files, how then does one now deal with "meaning" and "significance" as these often get engraved into the picture by relative illumination, sharpness and clarity too? If, as you point out, you have no room for alteration of your final result, then that could be a challenge for images with intended social meaning.

Asher

Sorry, I don´t understand this part. Is there any german here who can translate this ?

 

[Michael Stoehr]

I'd sure love to see the step just before that final effect maximizes!

I think, you misunderstood my posting. There´s not only one final effect. I tried to say, that it´s important to take the concentration at the effects and at the end of the processing you have automatically the best possible result that give you the biggest impression of the original szene. You shouldn´t processed the best natural look, but the best effect-result. My very provocative opinion is: without a 3D-Effect, you have made mistakes in your picture !! In other words: without mistakes, you get a clearly 3D-Effect. My pictures doesn´t have the best 3D-Effect, because there are some mistakes in it. Meanwhile I have found many better processing-Steps to eliminate or minimize these mistakes. The checklist for this 3 pictures above had 35 Editing steps. My newest checklist has more than 100 steps and the checklist gets longer and longer. It´s very complicated and I think it´s impossible to create a "perfect" picture

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Michael,

Absent a true binocular, or pseudo-binocular, presentation, for a viewer to consider a certain two-dimensional image as being perhaps "more suggestive" of the actual 3-dimensional nature of the subject presumably results from a "greater" potency of spatial cues in the image. Sometimes we, for example, find the effects of perspective to have such potency.

I know this is a very complex field, and I pretend no knowledge of the literature or "accepted" thoughts nor of the results of perceptual testing.

And I certainly have not done, as you have, complex trains of processing of photographic images, carefully noting when it seems to you as if a "more 3-dimensional" impression is formed (see later for my choice of that expression).

But that having been said, I find it hard to believe that there is a certain criterion (whether or not it can be consistency characterized by some metric) which, for viewers in general, will determine whether they received a "more three-dimensional" impression.

In other words, I find it hard to believe that if you have, by the train of processing steps, somehow brought "across the line" the ability of an image to conjure in the view a "more three-dimensional" effect, this property would be consistent over different viewers. That is, if in a particular image, you did not perform the entire train that to you brought into effect for you the "more three-dimensional" effect, that other viewers would respond the same.

Note my insistence in the notion of a "more three-dimensional" impression, not a "three dimensional" impression.

Again, it is hard for me to imagine that, if for example you were to make a series of test images in which you to a greater or lesser degree completed the steps that you find collectively brought the image to its "three-dimensional-impression" state, that a test subject might say, no, images 1 through 5 look flat, but images 6-10 looked "three dimensional".

But again this is a very complex field, and I have not at all looked into any perceptual research in that regard. Perhaps what I say I found hard to believe has in fact been demonstrated by perceptual testing.

In any case, thinks for your wonderful images, which I neglected to previously comment on in their own right. The one of the two ships is just stunning.

My guess is that if I showed it to Carla, she would say, "Wow! That almost looks three-dimensional".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

I think, you misunderstood my posting. There´s not only one final effect. I tried to say, that it´s important to take the concentration at the effects and at the end of the processing you have automatically the best possible result that give you the biggest impression of the original szene. You shouldn´t processed the best natural look, but the best effect-result. My very provocative opinion is: without a 3D-Effect, you have made mistakes in your picture !! In other words: without mistakes, you get a clearly 3D-Effect. My pictures doesn´t have the best 3D-Effect, because there are some mistakes in it. Meanwhile I have found many better processing-Steps to eliminate or minimize these mistakes. The checklist for this 3 pictures above had 35 Editing steps. My newest checklist has more than 100 steps and the checklist gets longer and longer. It´s very complicated and I think it´s impossible to create a "perfect" picture

Michael,

I'm delighted that your work is directed to expressing what you imagine might be achieved. That's something I respect a lot. What is the end-result you desire most in your mind,

• The strongest 3D experience for yourself?
  
• Allowing you to show others some other idea from your head in a new image you might make?

I wonder if all your 100 steps would really be needed for every picture. What about making yourself an action?

You could add pauses for your intervention.

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

Thats the wrong colors !!!! My pictures are in srgb !! Please delete your wrong editing of my picture. "your" version is extremely over-saturated.

Michael

Not my fault!
As HDR are to oftenly over done AND over saturated, I thought they were badly tagged.
Next time, embed the color profile and you won't be dissapointed!

These images (over saturated ones) are in NO way "my" version, I would have never taken the freedom to edit someone else image without prior consent. Just thought re establishing "reality" (see my precceding phrase).

How do you imagine that color managed systems/software can read accurately your images if they aren't any info about the color profile used…

I'll leave the images as is so it will be a good example of a too common mistake (forgotting to embed color profile).

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thats the wrong colors !!!! My pictures are in srgb !! Please delete your wrong editing of my picture. "your" version is extremely over-saturated.

Hi Michael,

Just to explain the reason for the confusion. On OPF we have a mix of professional and amateur photographers. We all have a passion for photography. That's why we are concerned with the best possible way of presentation of our works.

Many of the professionals have high quality displays, and they are often so-called wide gamut displays. These allow a better preview of the images as they are going to be printed on e.g. high quality Inkjet paper.

However, not all internet browsers are color managed, which will often result in very oversaturated images on these wide gamut displays, unless they are converted to, and tagged with, their colorspace profile. The most common colorspace used on the internet (because it's closest to most normal displays) is sRGB, so that's the recommended colorspace for general web publishing. Unfortunately some browsers will not assume that to be the case if the profile information is missing, and some do. So it's a gamble how the sRGB images will look on those wide gamut displays unless they are tagged correctly.

Therefore, we recommend to convert and tag all images that are posted to avoid confusion. It's a safeguard that we all will see the image as intended, and not how a browser assumes it should be shown.

Cheers,
Bart