I'm confussed beween HDR and bracking: I'm confussed beween HDR and bracketing. To me it looks like i could get the same results with both. The difference that I see is that with HDR...

wmvcooper Loc: baltimore, MD

I'm confussed beween HDR and bracketing. To me it looks like i could get the same results with both. The difference that I see is that with HDR, I only get two shots, with bracketing i could get three shots or more. I also noticed that if I have HDR active, Raw won't work, If I have Raw active HDR won't work.
Everyone talks about shooting Raw, but nobody talks about bracketing. Why?
My camera is Nikon 5100

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

check bracketing in search and you'll fiind alot of data.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

FAQ: Beginners Guide to HDR & Pseudo-HDR
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26491-1.html

FAQ: What is the Difference Between Raw and JPG?
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26507-1.html

Dennstedt Loc: Ciudad de Merida, Yucatan, MX

bull drink water wrote:

check bracketing in search and you'll fiind alot of data.

Digital has pretty well eliminated the need for bracketing. My camera does not have in-camera HDR, so I will use bracketing to capture images at different exposures (usually 3 to 5) to use for out-of-camera PP HDR.

In the old film days bracketing was important, because most pro's shot with slide film (like the venerable Kodachrome 25) that was very unforgiving in exposure latitude. Now, if you shoot in digital RAW, the camera captures so much data you can change the exposure +/- by many stops in RAW conversion (negating the need for bracketing in most instances).

I like that cameras still offer it, because when I want it, then I want it. But is it necessary? For most photography situations the answer is no. Hope this helps.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Dennstedt wrote:

Digital has pretty well eliminated the need for bracketing. I will use bracketing to capture images at different exposures . . .

Contradictory statements. HDR is based on exposure bracketing.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

look couple these over..
there is a couple on in camera hdr

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nikon+d5100+bracketing+tutorial+&oq=Nikon+5100+bra&gs_l=youtube-reduced.1.0.0i10l2.19324.24530.0.29460.5.5.0.0.0.0.432.1155.0j2j2j0j1.5.0...0.0...1ac.1j2._otHaVWgNro

Dennstedt Loc: Ciudad de Merida, Yucatan, MX

Nikonian72 wrote:

Contradictory statements. HDR is based on exposure bracketing.

Absolutely correct. I think that what I was 'trying' to say (and not very well I'm afraid) is: that if you shoot in RAW, there is so much exposure latitude you can effectively create 3 to 5 different exposures with the same original image (rather than taking 3 to 5 separate images with different exposures), and then combine them in out-of-camera HDR software.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Dennstedt wrote:

Absolutely correct. I think that what I was 'trying' to say (and not very well I'm afraid) is: that if you shoot in RAW, there is so much exposure latitude you can effectively create 3 to 5 different exposures with the same original image (rather than taking 3 to 5 separate images with different exposures), and then combine them in out-of-camera HDR software.

A raw image cannot be altered, so a "combined" raw image is not possible. JPG images can be combined into a new JPG, with extended exposure range.

Dennstedt Loc: Ciudad de Merida, Yucatan, MX

Nikonian72 wrote:

A raw image cannot be altered, so a "combined" raw image is not possible. JPG images can be combined into a new JPG, with extended exposure range.

Again, you are correct. I will defer to your expertise and better ability to explain the technology. Buenas noches.

liv2paddle Loc: Wall, NJ

Now I am confused you can certainly combine raw images into most HDR programs but HDR in camera processors only accept jpegs and some cameras will only take two as in the D7100. Most take three images bracketed and use a third party hdr program to process as in photomatix

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Dennstedt wrote:

Absolutely correct. I think that what I was 'trying' to say (and not very well I'm afraid) is: that if you shoot in RAW, there is so much exposure latitude you can effectively create 3 to 5 different exposures with the same original image (rather than taking 3 to 5 separate images with different exposures), and then combine them in out-of-camera HDR software.

Yes you can, but this also means you are using the technique when you don't need to. You are using HDR just for the effect.
If the info is already there in the RAW you do not need HDR to bring it out. You can bring it out by other normal processing means.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

liv2paddle wrote:

Now I am confused you can certainly combine raw images into most HDR programs but HDR in camera processors only accept jpegs and some cameras will only take two as in the D7100. Most take three images bracketed and use a third party hdr program to process as in photomatix

Combining raw images in post processing produces a new JPG. The original raw images are completely unaltered. ALL images captured in a DSLR are raw images. When you instruct a camera to produce an HDR image, the result is a JPG. Most, if not all, Nikon cameras convert raw images to JPGs before combining into a new JPG-based HDR image.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

lighthouse wrote:

Yes you can, but this also means you are using the technique when you don't need to. You are using HDR just for the effect.
If the info is already there in the RAW you do not need HDR to bring it out. You can bring it out by other normal processing means.

You capitalize RAW as if it is an acronym, like JPG. It is not. Raw means completely unprocessed, like raw milk, or a raw egg. A raw image has superior exposure range when compared to the same as a JPG image, but is still inferior to the dynamic (exposure) range of the human eye/brain combination.

When producing HDR images from raw, I bracket 3 images, separated by 2-stops, which is equivalent to 5-images of JPGs, separated by 1-stop differences. Suggesting that raw images make HDR unnecessary is ludicrous.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

All of the following links discuss bracketing in the HDR section of this forum:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-53074-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-54403-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-54261-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-53105-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-101684-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-101686-1.html

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Nikonian72 wrote:

You capitalize RAW as if it is an acronym, like JPG. It is not. Raw means completely unprocessed, like raw milk, or a raw egg.

Yep, I know what a raw is.
If I want to call it a RAW and you don't like that well so be it. You'll get over it and I don't care.

Nikonian72 wrote:

A raw image has superior exposure range when compared to the same as a JPG image, but is still inferior to the dynamic (exposure) range of the human eye/brain combination.

Yes, you are correct. The eye/brain can see stuff the camera cannot capture in a single exposure

Nikonian72 wrote:

When producing HDR images from raw, I bracket 3 images, separated by 2-stops, which is equivalent to 5-images of JPGs, separated by 1-stop differences.

I have done the same thing myself. Yes it covers the same range but I am not sure that you can say that 5 images is the equivalent of 3 images. I think the verdict is out on that.

Nikonian72 wrote:

Suggesting that raw images make HDR unnecessary is ludicrous.

That is not what I said Douglass.
What I said was "If the info is already there in the RAW you do not need HDR to bring it out. You can bring it out by other normal processing means."
That is a totally different statement to what you pretended I said.