dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

you can call a cow a horse, but it still cow.. lol geeesssshhhh

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

"Do not need" means unnecessary.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

OK.
It's obviously a case of you not reading properly what i said.

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."
The active part of that sentence is ...If the info is already there in the RAW....

Lets flip it back on you Douglass as you seem to be intent on following this up, and I am apparently being "ludicrous".

By extension from you disagreeing with me - you appear to be saying that you can have an image that has all the info on the histogram, but that will require HDR to get that info onto the visible image, because it is not possible to do it with normal processing?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

All the information is always in the raw capture. Why would it not be complete? You again prove that you do not truly understand the concept of raw as a capture format, and JPG as a viewing format. Your entire argument is built on the word "if".

There is no "if" concerning the information in raw. It is always maximum. Whereas a camera can be programed to provide "JPG basic", or "JPG normal", or "JPG fine", raw is always full info. There is no "if" concerning the information in raw.

liv2paddle Loc: Wall, NJ

If you are correct Nikion72 you should contact Trey Radcliff. Explain this theory to him so he can stop wasting his time taking unnessary images for his processing.I am sure he would appreciate a heads up!

Bamboo Loc: South Carolina

Ok guys “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”:)

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Oboy - does that statement bring back memories!

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

The way I interpret in-camera HDR is that the camera's programmers are trying to recreate the scene to be presented as your eyes saw it. Don't know what the algorythm is and we don't see the settings of the two shots.

Bracketing, in my opinion is the act of capturing images at varying exposure settings so that you can do with some computer program what the camera does "in-house".

Which is the better result? Depends upon the "eye of the beholder" and what was intended to be accomplished.

liv2paddle Loc: Wall, NJ

Wow after reading this entire string again it appears things get muddy! Maybe this is how all wars start food for thought! Nikion72 I misinterpreted your response in all the confusion apologies!

Georgia Peddler Loc: Brunswick, GA

As always, thanks for the good solid info, Douglas.
Has anyone else noticed that in the last few days there are more and more of the "instantly jump down the throat" type of responses from fellow UHH'ers? Yesterday was a classic comedy of back and forth idiocy. Come on, Hoggers, let's just enjoy the forum and be civil, OK?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No Nikonian, you are wrong.
All the information is not always in the RAW capture. All the information is not in the RAW capture if the dynamic range of the scene is greater than the camera can capture.
Maybe it is you that does not truly understand. I really did think that you would have known this.




Let's talk about where that "if" came from.
That "if", came from one of the other posters talking about creating 3-5 pics out of one RAW, and then creating the HDR image from those 3-5 pics.
My argument is built out of the premise that if you have a RAW image that encloses the full data available ie no blown highlights, no maxxed out blacks, then you do not need to make it an HDR situation to get that data out of the image. You can do it with other post processing means.

I think your argument is built out of just wanting to disagree with me for some reason.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

This is pretty rich considering that it was Douglass doing the "jumping down throats" in this thread Georgia.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Using raw maximmises the dynamic range of what is captured by the sensor - however, there may be scene values that lie beyond this single capture range - and that is what the multiple capture/combining technique seeks to embody - the total scene dynamic range - just my 2 cents humble opinion..... I will also tell you that the in camera HDR feature of the Sony NEX works very well !

JPL

HDR is a very simple thing that seems to be complicated. So I try to explain it here in few words.

1. HDR is all about getting Higher Dynamic Range than you get from one shot.

2. There are many ways to make HDR pics.
a). In camera HDR.
b). Bracketing, 3 to 9 shots. The Bracketing has the advantage that it is fast when done right. You set your camera up for bracketing and set the shutter to continuous and get all the shots in about 1 sec. That eliminates ghosts from moving things as much as possible.
c) You can take one pic and adjust in Lightroom, mostly by controlling shadows and highlights to get more Dynamic Range in the pic.
d). You can make copies of your pic in Lightroom with exposure +2 and -2 and then let photomatix make HDR from your copies and original.
e). You can take multiple shots manually ( which is exactly the same as bracketing, but without continuous shooting)

So this is actually simple and easy and just remember it is about combining more dynamic range, or I could say combining one normal pic with underexposured and overexposured pic in one final picture.

If you want full control and max quality you will prefer raw and bracketing, not in camera HDR.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Raw capture does not do exposure bracketing by default, you specifically need to program the camera to do so. And some cameras do not even include the feature of exposure bracketing within a single shot.