JPEG XL

So, here is what I used aside from kit lens back in a days when I was exploring photography ))

https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103/794206087879852106/803949640457781308

oh, very cool

that 135mm looks quite compact

It's old soviet lenses, full manual. 135 have really big issues with having good contrast. So I end up always shooting raw and cranking it up

those are from when lead was still allowed in lens glass, right? )

idk, but they smell

<:monkaS:654081051848605726>

it is, 370g but overall performance is bad. Contrary light completely destroys everything, included blend doesn't help much, low contrast, f3.5-4 is unusable because of low sharpness, f5.6-8 is always go to. Given that it's manual 135mm without stabilization, and with 5.6 only time to get a good photo is really sunny day

hmmm... strange to find photography enthusiasts on a file format discord :)))

not that strange as this file format is specifically for images

too bad everything that I didn't post/send is gone because I dropped external hard drive off the table

rip

<@!258670228819410944> I built a home NAS with Nextcloud. Its really usefull, and you have a backup.

taken with oldish phone while ago, so ehh quality

and specifically for a codec that aims to be the best in high-fidelity compression (and lossless)

lately, I have been playing with HDR grading of photos using DaVinci Resolve

I am not yet really comfortable with it (and my display is not ideal for this) but the overall process seems promising

and this looks like the sort of image that would work well with this :p

nice

One time we found artillery shell

What a bang of story that was

decided to grab a couple random shots off my camera for testing out jxl stuff, figured i'd post them here too :P

~~tfw camera only captures either NEF raw or one of like 3 jpeg presets :p~~

now if only i could dig up some of the old NEF shots i took, those might be nicer for testing jxl stuff with (just in terms of getting them to a lossless format to begin with), but compression was already impressive with these ones :p

JXL for storing raw is probably also doable, just need to figure out where to put the metadata about the Bayer pattern and that stuff, and then just use the lossless codec to encode R avg(G1,G2) B and one extra channel for G1-G2. Should compress great.

It would render a bit simplistically as a half-resolution image in software that cannot do debayering, but that's better than nothing

huh, neat 👀

hm i think i have some old raw format pics from my trip to mexico a while back on my backup drive, here's hoping i didn't just save the cleaned up files or something (or at least, here's hoping i saved them as png or something else lossless at worst if i wanna try compressing :p)

Can also take a good jpeg, downscale it 1:4 or so, and that's basically a lossless image

true :p

aaand now i'm just looking at some old pics and going like "was that ISO noise always there" and such, oof :p

~~also the .png of one of these pics is 52 MB despite only being like `3898x2610` (weird resolution, dunno if i cropped it or if that's the camera output), jeez~~

looks cool at first glance, but dang, now all those little things i'm noticing are adding up 😅

Is that a finger in the lower left corner? <a:thinkShape:676826305089634304>

Looks nice though. Would be a nice background

(pretty sure it is, yeah 😅) but yeah, some of the pics from the trip were decent, wish i knew where the rest of them went though 😓

did find the .NEF for that one though 👀

Seeing pictures pike that causes the urge to buy a camera to come back

oof :p

i should say, most of these i'm taking with a Nikon D3000 that i got used as a gift so pretty thankful for that cause i do not have the money for photography stuff otherwise 😅

and at least one fun pic 😊 (compressed from 2.7MB to 2.2MB jxl, nice :p)

<a:Rainbowdoggo:681239400935456889>

I've got some DNGs from Lumia 930 and 950 😃

They've got some weird artifacts, but maybe that's a matter of settings and older encoder tested...

My fun pic. 3.7 Mib to 3 Mib under jxl

Nice

Would be nice if most applications would support arithmetic encoding. That image optimized and with the usage of arithmetic encoding is 3.15 MB for jpg

But oh well, have a cat that Discord surprisingly enough can preview

Have a dog

arithmetic coding used on these, indeed interesting that discord supports that

chrome doesn't

Yeah, noticed that. Neither does the default Windows Photos app

But VLC supports it. Gives a nice size reduction of about 10% for jpgs without quality loss

yet discord does not support ICC profiles

Guess Discord encodes images for preview

Like, very small (in chat), large (when clicked on) and original when opened in browser/downloaded

small ignores icc, large doesn't, why?

interestingly, it looks correct for me in the web and iOS versions

which one is it that falls into the trap?

ah in the android app it looks ok too

macos chrome website version does not look ok

safari version also looks green

Guess it's because Discord has 2 or 3 versions of the image as far as I know

yes, still weird it ignores icc for one downscale but not for another

Discord logics

Same with arithmetic encoding

And probably other things too. It also seems to compress when downscaling (very obvious when using webp)

Strange, someone sees the red bench on mobile

you don't want to look at the discord preview version of a already bad gif <:staiyLol:490451745458225162> Sometimes that is really hard to look at

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/412215006718066689/788436248506793994/50fps.gif

Surprisingly enough that one doesn't look that much worse

Is it weird that I get way too annoyed when I ask someone if they could do something, then they do something completely else and then you tell them they didn't do what you asked and they keep claiming they did?

my typical reaction to be tends to be to apologize for not making my request clear

on the topic of cats, here is one I met on the street next to mine

not mine, but very friendly

(even started licking my arm…)

<:CatSmile:805382488293244929>

the bench looks green in my android app

weird

Same, but when opening it in browser it will turn red. Yay ICC and Discord

It's also green in my browser, though I'm using Firefox (and have it set to handle in-app browser windows as well)

Should turn red when you click on it. Discord resizes images

and does so ignoring color space

same as Slack by the way

Nope, it's green in all circumstances for me

even when opening original image?

In-chat, clicked, clicked and zoomed in, in-app browser window, proper browser

Yup

oh boy

in my macos firefox it at least displays correctly when opening original image

Gotta love how it acts different on so many devices

Someone was able to see the correct one without opening it

Firefox mobile is a little shakey right now, prolly due to all the layoffs & restructuring A few months ago they just made it completely unusable by rolling out WebRender on some devices where it didn't work yet (and you couldn't disable it via pref bc that ability's gone from stable), leading to every website glitching the fuck out, and they just... didn't fix it until the next scheduled stable release like a month later :/

<a:clap:726646390117105734>

Like geez you think a bug such as "cannot use any site" would merit the intense technical solution of... toggling a single pref on devices with a specific type of GPU

Would expect either a hotfix or a downgrade to the previous version until it gets fixed

(They fixed the bug in WebRender for the next release, but in the meantime they could've just... disabled WebRender)

Firefox is sadly getting less and less relevant

Not very healthy that besides Apple, basically everything is now Blink

Yup

Maybe we'll get lucky and Google will get broken up, that'd help at least a bit

Would that help? It's not like there would be two Chromes then...

There wouldn't, but they'd have a better incentive set when the same company that owns the biggest browser doesn't also own the biggest search engine and the biggest video platform and the biggest advertising platform and 1 of the only 2 mobile OSes and... etc.

They wouldn't effectively own both halves of most connections anymore

Less power to push Chrome if the biggest sites don't suggest it and your phone doesn't come with it pre-installed and non-uninstallable

Yes, I guess

<@178524721023811584> afaik they actually got more people into the mobile team after the layoffs than before.

Huh, interesting

Speaking of issues with mobile firefox, for being a browser that supposedly doesn't sell your data

Probably still 100x better than Chrome, which sends your data even when you uncheck the boxes or just sends your data with no way of turning it off...

IIRC they don't sell your data but use a third party service to get beta usage information for their own use.

another one of the photos from the same time as the one I was destroying in <#794206087879852106>. Cat looks suspicious of me.

you can probably guess who my main photo subjects are

What's the best android camera app?

Lol. I asked that exact question in different servers and every time I get a different answer

Last answer was: "if there's a gcam port for your device that would probably be pretty good more photos than videos tho"

But to be honest, if you have a Samsung device then you already have a good camera app in PRO mode as long as you don't record something that needs an extreme bitrate like hard rain I guess

takes photos in raw :D and go to lightroom :D

there is no "best app" manufacturer app is often great, because of all hardware tuning in post process. gcam when is enable have the best software tuning, especially for noise processing.

i shoot raw for 10 years on smartphone :D

always color lut, sharpening, noise reduction and jpeg compression are horrible on smartphone. it's way better now but not enough for me :D

My camera app will only give me jpegs with the only options being resolution

name of your smartphone?

ZTE Axon 7

there is dng in app options, you have a good isocell samsung sensor on it :D

Is your information about the oreo ROM?

I don't see it in the options

in manual mode: https://www.reddit.com/r/Axon7/comments/5tci3d/how_to_use_raw_photos/

found it

Yeah back in 2016 it was one of the best priced phones out there. High-preforming, metal construction, and a good DAC.

Then it got banned in the United States

In your case, I'd actually use the OpenCamera beta. For the best processed pics on my Axon 7, I used GCAM. For the best unprocessed pics, I used the OpenCamers beta with DNG output and denosising completely disabled.

after that the good solution is to create a preset on lightroom to automate treatment and export it fast :)

Pixel ports, aka google camera or whatever

lightroom mobile or desktop lightroom?

darktable?

i'm not advice to use android app, all sucks with no good noise reduction.

more cat pics

I'm pretty proud of this one, even if my camera did pretty terrible at low light

Cute. Is it a wild rabbit?

yes

wandered onto my lawn in spring last year

The wild rabbit was a more cooperative photo subject than the cat above it

The cat has a cataract in one eye and constantly moves her head to compensate by looking with her good eye

She also likes hiding in dark places

neither are good for making quality photos

I can catch the other two staring off into space often enough

I'd love to see this channel not just be <@!224363555074342912> 's pets though

GERMANY

Halfway between my home and the kids' school.

Purisima Creek preserve, yesterday.

The white stuff in the background is actually the pacific ocean, but it's hard to tell.

we need a bot that denoise the images

purisima creek s7 q100 0.3.1 denoised by webp2 deploy previer-957 -q 44.5 ycbr space

An encoder should not act like a denoising filter.

in fact

Also not like a vectorizer, or an oil painting simulator

It should however, gain the ability to send you email.

but lossless compression

png original was 17,5 mb

speed 7 i used

q 100 is lossless

and anyway the denoising is almost lossless it denoises well

but original wp2 is 421 kb

Lossless compression on anything lossy will not work well

i don't understand why

with vardct magic

You'd need to infer the exact way in which it was lossy.

i know

If you even get a tiny bit wrong, the errors introduced by lossiness will appear as a high-entropy noise that you need to encode.

anyway all the photography is good

in this channel

Let me try to explain with a metaphor. Imagine an image is like a book. A very long, epic adventure. Lossless compression would abbreviate some words, like replacing the name of the protagonist with the first letter of her name, or replacing "and" with "&". This can reduce a 500 page book to a 200 page book, and you can get back the original book _exactly_ from the shorter version. Now lossy compression is like making a 5 page summary of the book. It's good enough if you want to know the main plot of the story, but of course not all details are preserved. However, it is possible to convert back the 5-page summary to a different 500-page book, one that has the same plot and main story events, but some of the details are very different. Some of these details are very weird, and many of the words used in that reconstructed book are oddly antiquated and somewhat unexpected. But it's a 500-page book, and while it may not be as good a read as the original 500-page book, it's still quite a nice book that tells basically the same story. Now if you do lossless compression on a lossy image, it's not the 5-page summary that you need to abbreviate, but the 500-page weird book. Because it uses those strange words and has these weird details, you might need 300 pages to abbreviate it, instead of the 200 pages you needed for the original book.

<:Foxy21:734765940016939038>

Unless, of course, you manage to exactly recreate the original summary from the 500-page weird book, and know you can rely on the reader to get the exact same 500-page weird book back.

Yes, but that is a bit like trying to convert french fries back to raw potatoes

That's in theory possible with images too - detect a PNG actually has JPEG compression artifacts, and go search for the JPEG parameters that caused it, and get an equivalent JPEG back.

Though, if JPEG doesn't actually have a perfectly well defined RGB expansion, maybe that's not possible.

With JPEG-XL I expect it would be very hard, due to the huge freedom the encoder has?

Yep, encoders must preserve the original as closely as possible, they should not be artists who redraw paintings from their memory and try to "improve", add more details, richer colors and remove "defects", it will be a different direction

At least that's better than this :p

With jpeg (or rather the output of a specific version of libjpeg-turbo on a specific platform with specific decode settings) it might be feasible to reverse the decoded image to the jpeg it came from, with some search.

With fancier codecs like avif, webp2 or jxl I think it is computationally not feasible to do something like that

🤮

Yes

You could probably convert that back to Pringles though

Pringles and lays are different

Pringles are making a potato dough thing then baking it, while lays are frying potato slices

I know

So you can convert Lays to Pringles but not the other way around

Have a cat who wants my food

Long ears for a cat

What's their name?

The name of the cat in the picture is Sticky. The name of another cat is Gruis and another cat was named Skunk... not my cats though. Ask Jon what those names mean <:kekw:808717074305122316>

The other cat

Our cat likes to jump in any cardboard box

what cats don't?

This cat likes to claim chairs

her name is Estelle

Black cat <:PepeOK:805388754545934396>

Ours is called Dame Blanche

For some reason this cat always follows me

They either like you, want something from you, or both

Probably both

Only too bad my youngest sister keeps scaring them away

Sorry for the quality, this was taken with quite the old device: Estelle and her brother Zane

At least the quality is better than my low light pictures :p

Also, cute cats

And lol. Moved again

She's literally follow me the whole time

Sorry about the extreme zoom, I didn't want to scare it away, but looks like bunny has grown up, and doesn't like cold.

I had a rabbit wander into about the same spot as the one I took last spring, but this time in a polar vortex

🍽️

Have a random sleeping cat

Maybe we need to make a cat photo compression codec

With special-purrrpose coding tools like the Fur-Preserving Filter, or the Discrete Meow Transform (DMT).

Yes. Just yes

Bored, so have another cat picture

Same cat?

That cat looks like a combination ofy dad's 2 cats

Claw Sharpening Filter

Zane lol, I was just struck by the similarity between the two

Furrier transform

https://xkcd.com/26/

You probably meant *Fur*ier transform 😉

with paw-written Felintel assembly optimizations

what about hisssc-v?

How much does assembly actually speed up the encoder?

depends, usually a lot, and more usual then not - REALLY A LOT

For example

A massive amount.

well, you can code SIMD with intrinsics too, without going full asm - usually it's about as good 🙂

yes, I don't like the terminology of "C" vs "ASM" C of course also gets compiled into asm, and a good compiler (aided by good hints) can sometimes do a better job at writing asm than human-handwritten asm

I think the better distinction is portable or platform-specific.

yes, but you can do some simd with portable code too, and in general, a lot depends on how well the compiler optimizes for the target platform anyway – I suppose you could make a correct compiler that doesn't bother with generating anything other than old instructions that will run on an old 486

in JPEG XL, we use https://github.com/google/highway to achieve this, in case someone here would like to use it too

How would it handle weird mosaic patterns (Kodak's RGBW, Fujifilm's X-Trans, Huawei's Quad Bayer RYYB or even Samsung's Nonacell)?

As long as it can be represented as 4 or more channels, it should be ok. But we need to define metadata to store the pattern info.

Only applied Kritas autocontrast

No green channel

subsampling <:Pepepains:812832284004188241>

Autocontrast makes her face darker than it is. It does of course make the details 'pop' more...

Shhh, all models look different online :p

Btw, about progressive decoding

<:CatSmile:805382488293244929>

<:WhatThe:806133036059197491>

<a:CatBite:787816706214330388>

oh, sequential oriented jpeg?

Yep

how good is the quality of this photoi?

is anything exceptional as i think

i opened 113 tabs just to find this

30 minutes total

you mean artistically or in terms of compression?

according to imagemagick, it's a quality 79 jpeg

how to know

in term of artifacts

is it good enough?

like can you see higher qualities without special glasses?

I can see banding

PNG <:PepeHands:808829977608323112> https://i.redd.it/vz1roj4z9ai61.png

Guess I would rather go for one of these (smaller, 1 version with more ringing and more detail and one with less detail and less ringing)

<:reee:716737650551160932>

Hate it when people convert jpg to png <a:sadd:714292010982441001>

my display is a bit worse

No. I found a higher res version and used mozjpeg

1 with smoothening (which allowed more higher quality settings while staying below your size) and 1 without smoothening (more details, but couldn't spend enough to get rid of some ringing)

do you have the png

or did you download the 4k version?

https://discord.com/channels/794206087879852103/803950138795622455/813413234110496818

this looks better

I downloaded the high res version

And lol. That one uses smoothening

Angry cat

Sleepy cat

Jealous cat

Them together

The back of one of your cats looks like a combination between the back of my dad's 2 cats <:PepeOK:805388754545934396>

not mine, just HQ

2.7 MP camera

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_taken_with_Nikon_D1

Megapixels aren't everything

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/010822-N-6967M-503_DDG_81_At_Sea.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/1352FP317.jpg

Conditions are important, too, here's what I shot on my Nikon Coolpix P900 with a tiny 1/2.3" sensor. Straight-out-of-camera JPG, no editing.

And another one, also without any editing at all.

<a:aSCcatVIBING:787353742013497394>

haha zoom goes brrrr

a photo i tried encoding in jxl

not sure if google recognize it after the compression

yes it recognized

saved jxl to png with xnview is better i guess it re encodes

not the sprite

It's postprocessed by default on your camera, it looks like saturation and contrast are quite high

Unfortunately denoising and sharpness are quite bad even under good light conditions, but in other aspects this camera looks surprisingly natural most of the time.

In that particular case it's probably too orange even to my eyes, but the cat photo underneath that one looks quite true to life.

If you want to see *proper* oversharpening and oversaturation, just look at some of my Galaxy Note 9 photos. Samsung can truly botch the task.

And overdenoising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbeEkwlTeqQ

I like that guy

really interesting video. I hope he does one on the image compression of social media sites

he don't do that sort of stuff

He did, but only once. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR4KHfqw-oE

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/585584902016073728/818237221278711838/DSC_6886.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/585584902016073728/818238196391346226/DSC_6912.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/585584902016073728/818238024101265438/DSC_6905.JPG https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/585584902016073728/818238424468815904/DSC_6860.JPG

went on a photo run and got some neat looking shots while i was out

Look nice :o

Have an image with some very aggressive phone camera denoising ~~I need more 3D printed foxes~~

Re upload of the image I sent, but this one is better optimized (like, 12% smaller, because yay shitty phone jpg encoder)

photographic walk yesterday

What was the camera? They look good not only aesthetically, but also technically 😃

an EOS R6 with the EF 100mm f/2.8L macro

Was that edited or did you really get that background that blurry?

it was that blurry

That kind of thing a phone camera cannot do, except with manipulation (fake bokeh)

Beautiful

I think I accidentally shot a cover photo for JPEG XP

no "Activate windows in bottom left corner", sad

Wild puppies

Is this art?

https://tenor.com/view/pure-quality-thats-right-gif-18978514

It reminds me of the time when I discovered MS Paintbrush (on Windows 3.1, before it was called MS Paint). I was 7.

I think that was a universal childhood experience for generations

Why are you posting drawings on the photography channel

why not?

Perhaps they're (somewhat abstract) drawings of photographs?

or very high quality photographs of drawings?

They're test images for jxl <:FeelsReadingMan:808827102278451241>

notice the artifacts saving a png with paint png to png

it looks like this

-q 83.92 --gaborish=0 --dots=0 --noise=0 --epf=2 --patches=1 -s 5 with 0.3.5

it looks as bad as this continue in <#803645746661425173>

A hybrid rain Lily.

very pretty! the lighting possibly doesn’t put the attention on it as much as it could have, but maybe there wasn’t much that could be done about that

except maybe a closer shot? I don’t know

Yeah it's not a good shot.

RGB cat? <:Poggers:805392625934663710>

She decided to wander under a purple light we had so I snapped a few pictures

Nice

Reminds me a little of my mom's grandma's cat

The apple tree in my garden

> The apple tree in my garden <:BlobYay:806132268186861619> ... > APPLE <:Hsss:806131225278152756>

I don't think an apple minds to get eaten. It is its biological destiny. The alternative is rotting on the ground.

In any case, that's only for August-September. No apples to see yet now.

I mean this one: <:Apple:806136610659237888>

Ah lol

This one 🍏 is good tho

That looks wet

Sorry if PNG isn't allowed. Also, a little out of focus.

nice shot

what lens did you shoot this with?

Nikon D50 with Nikkor AF-S DX 55-200mm f4-5.6

So, really nothing special.

I don't have any good lenses.

great photo

Thanks.

I have developed this image from a dng file. I see some tile like patterns in this image. I don't know to fix it. Any help is appreciated.

Those might be maze artifacts. Which app did you use for processing?

Lightroom classic cc

Thanks God you've got Lightroom CC. Yes, those are most probably AHD or AMaZE debayering algorithm artifacts. You can fix this by doing this first: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/using/enhance-details.html and then using the same settings you used for the image above.

Thanks. I will do it

Whenever I open dng files on Lightroom ( desktop and mobile version) and snapseed they look somewhat good. But on darktable and rawtherapee, they look very bad and colors are strange. Is it normal?

Each raw software have a custom color profile, darktable is not an out of box software ^^

The color difference is too much. I think darktable and rawtherapee doesn't recognize embedded dcp

Can I see the difference between usual debayering (that you already posted) and "Enhance Details" version?

I deleted that dng. I will test that with new one

some DNG files rely on OpcodeList3 to be applied for correct rendering, and AFAIK darktable doesn’t apply that

if you have RawDigger, you can check by opening the file with and without the setting enabled

“Vendor specific” -> “DNG files” -> “Apply DNG opcodes” -> choice between “Stage 1”, “Stage 1 & 2”, or “Stage 1, 2 & 3”

or if you would like to upload the file somewhere, I can check for you

I remember encountering this in particular with DNGs created by shooting with Lightroom Mobile

Oh

Sad 🙁 If you can, please upload both versions, with same editing applied and differing only in debayering algorithms (Lightroom built-in vs Enhance Details).

Thanks. I will do it tomorrow. It's night here. I am away from my computer.

I don't see enhance in my Lightroom classic cc. I think it's available on Lightroom cc

I think part of the issue is some RAW software not being able to handle color spaces correctly of the photo.

Usually the company of the specific camera, their RAW editor has an option to export with an embedded ICC color profile. (Colors should be rendered correctly on anything that supports ICC, so basically any photo editing software)

The issue is when you convert something to, say, sRGB, so you open it in darktable, it doesn't understand your RAW photo is something such as Adobe RGB because that isn't stored in the metadata in an open standard for some reason. It mistakes those mappings for sRGB, and things look weird.

I don't know why RAW formats don't just have an embedded ICC file. Would make compatibility easier.

I think it's to get people to use the specific RAW editor of the RAW format.

My dng file has dcp embedded in it

I'm not sure of the settings of darktable, but if you manually tell it the actual color space of the RAW image, then things should be rendered correctly. It's not that the information isn't there, it just isn't interpreting the information correctly.

I just got tired of trying to figure it out and downloaded Nikon's RAW editor and export all my files to TIFF with an ICC profile, consider that open enough.

Never used DCP, personally.

A lot of proprietary RAW editors work fine in WINE if you're on Linux.

I know it isn't ideal if you're for open source, but I only care if it works.

Does lightroom work with wine?

I'm not exactly sure on that, never used Adobe products much, ironically.

You're right. They are AMAZE artifacts. They go away on AMAZE+ vng4 on rawtherapee.

DNG files have calibration matrices: https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.5.0.0.pdf chapter 6

see also: https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.59.11.110801

It's sad that you don't have Enhance Details in your Lightroom (time to go 🏴‍☠️, I guess...?) But glad to know that the artifacts are gone anyway.

My photos are really hit or miss.

Half the time I don't get anything decent.

You just need more practice, that's all.

Does that look too bright? I increased the brightness because it was a little darker than what the area actually looked like, but I may have increased it too much.

Is it from camera or edited in software like Photoshop?

It's edited in GIMP.

All I did was increase brightness by 10%

Not sure if the software really matters for that type of edit.

Supposedly that reveals more noise, to take a dark source and brighten it, but I only noticed that with taking almost pitch black photos at night.

Being 10% off doesn't seem to cause those issues.

The shadows aren't close to clipping.

I get better results by editing raw files than editing a processed jpg

It was RAW.

Oh

Well, I converted RAW to TIFF and edited the TIFF in GIMP

Yeah I too do like that. Nowadays I use wine + Photoshop.

That silly garden gnome was a "gift" from my parents in law, sorry about that

(also sorry about my crappy phone camera)

Who have a tuto how to create hdr photo? i speak about how to use the hdr option of jxl and the bizarre gamma curve :D. (i don't speak about multiexposition and tonemapping) I understand that hdr picture display well on display with hdr function. I see there are HLG and HDR10 for video format, but it's not clear at all :/ Darktable allow output P3 HLG but i don't know what it is doing with the picture when i edit raw in classic display.

HDR brightness?

Like on TVs?

I don't think that's really necessary for photos, a specific format.

You could just keep increasing the dynamic range though by using multiple exposures.

i think it can be nice in photos for the same reason it's nice in video

i think this is more talking about HDR formats that allow wider gamut and higher peak brightness

Well, Photography is already covered with Adobe RGB.

like if you take a photo of the sun or something, the sun can be drawn brighter than #ffffff

I don't know about any specific format, but a general tone mapping filter could probably be applied.

rec 2020 is also a wider gamut than adobe rgb

True, but most displays don't even support 100% of Adobe RGB.

I don't think HDR10 even really requires wide color gamut support.

Although having that is obviously preferable.

the hdr10 content i've seen is rec.2020 but yeah displays can't show the whole thing yet

```HDR10+ is a High Dynamic Range (HDR) video technology that adds dynamic metadata to HDR10 source files. HDR10+ signals the dynamic range and scene characteristics on a scene-by-scene or even frame-by-frame basis. The display device then uses the dynamic metadata to apply an appropriate tone map through the process of dynamic tone mapping. Dynamic tone mapping differs from static tone mapping by applying a different tone curve from scene-to-scene rather than use a single tone curve for an entire video.```

Isn't hdr10 means 10bit colors?

idk if vesa's displayhdr certifications require any gamut support, maybe dci-p3?

Dynamic tone mapping would be unnecessary for images, but tone mapping in itself may be of value for images.

hdr10 = 10-bit color + static metadata for peak brightness and such

hdr10+ is the same but with dynamic metadata

I don't know what cinema cameras are, most DSLRs seem to be 16 bpc with Adobe RGB color.

Way above most consumer displays.

I think exposure bracketing is also a form of tone mapping when you combine all the exposures to increase dynamic range.

Not all tone mapping necessarily needs to be a format, it could just be a filter applied to the source.

Though it has benefits in video for obvious reasons. (That metadata kind of makes HDR be HDR in video)

I tried exposure bracketing, it looked weird on my computer until I lowered the contrast.

Not bad, more of just, unfamiliar.

There is only so much you can push out of a display that just doesn't have the capacity in it.

It probably would have looked much better as a printed image.

For reference, my monitor has a contrast ratio of 150:1 (probably why it looked weird)

Also, since my monitor has a low contrast ratio, photos look a little bland and I get the feeling to boast the contrast, but then I remind myself that my monitor just sucks.

there are (at least) two things at play: capture DR and reproduction DR

bracketing addresses the former, regardless of the latter

i.e. regardless of whether that extended dynamic range will be tone-mapped to an SDR JPEG, or rendered on an HDR10 screen

once you have a bracketed shot, or a single raw that had enough dynamic range to begin with, you can decide what to do with it, and this can be “grading it on an HDR monitor and exporting it as a JPEG XL or AVIF image using PQ or HLG” for example

or it can be “using https://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse to tone-map it for a standard display”