I'm confussed beween HDR and bracking (Page 3): Thanks for all of the replays!! I now have a better understanding of the difference between HDR and bracketing. The only problem that I...

wmvcooper Loc: baltimore, MD

Thanks for all of the replays!! I now have a better understanding of the difference between HDR and bracketing.
The only problem that I have is that my camera is a Nikon 5100 and it only gives me two HDR shots to combind. Everyone who responding to my post talked about taking mutable shots.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

lighthouse wrote:

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

I have much more important things to do than argue with you. You obviously already have made-up your mind, and do not want to be confused by facts. My concern is you passing along mis-information to novice photographers. You epitomize the modern proverb "A little learning is a dangerous thing", Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744): http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

wmvcooper wrote:

Thanks for all of the replays!! I now have a better understanding of the difference between HDR and bracketing.
The only problem that I have is that my camera is a Nikon 5100 and it only gives me two HDR shots to combind. Everyone who responding to my post talked about taking mutable shots.

The Nikon 5100 HDR is very rudimentary (mickey mouse ) - do not judge HDR by what it does !

lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

Nikonian72 wrote:

All the information is always in the raw capture. ... (show quote)

After following this discourse for a short time, I think there is something missing. Yes, raw (or RAW) contains all the information in an image. It may, however, not have all the information for a properly tone mapped image. You may need two or more raw images.

Also, HDR does not have to be in JPEG. I have one in PSD and I print from TIFF.

The original post did not limit the discussion to in-camera.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

lightchime wrote:

After following this discourse for a short time, I think there is something missing. Yes, raw (or RAW) contains all the information in an image. It may, however, not have all the information for a properly tone mapped image. You may need two or more raw images.
Also, HDR does not have to be in JPEG. I have one in PSD and I print from TIFF.
The original post did not limit the discussion to in-camera.

Exactly my point. Even though raw format holds more information than JPG format, multiple images are needed to capture wider dynamic range, more similar to human brain/eye perception.

And for proper definition, a tone-mapped image is compiled from a single original image, while true HDR is compiled from multiple original images, whether raw, or JPG, or other.

michaelgem

wmvcooper wrote:

Thanks for all of the replays!! I now have a better understanding of the difference between HDR and bracketing.

I'll take a shot at summarizing.

An image captured in RAW that has a histogram completely within range, i.e. no clipping at either end has captured the complete range of lighting in the scene. So bracketing is unnecessary as there are no more light values to capture.

That is why Lighthouse said "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 other "normal processing means" are in effect a form of HDR processing on the RAW data so that all the light values lie within the range of the JPG image produced.)

In camera HDR processing on the raw data does just that. It processes/squeezes the greater dynamic range of the raw capture into the narrower dynamic range of the resulting jpg.

When the range of light values in the scene exceeds what the camera can capture in RAW or JPG the histogram will show clipping of light values at one or both ends. This is when exposure bracketing is necessary to capture the whole range of light values in two, three or more images.

HDR software combines in ingenious ways the parts of each of the images that are properly exposed squeezing all the light values of the multiple images to be withing the final limited range of the resulting JPG.

This is similar to the in-camera HDR firmware squeezing the greater range of values in the RAW capture into the narrower range of values in the resulting JPG.

So,

1. Bracketing captures all the light values in the scene when one image, even RAW, cannot.

2. HDR is the software or firmware that combines and optimally translates/squeezes that great range of light values into the limited dynamic range of the resulting JPG image.

Michael

wierdphotoguy Loc: the snow belt in Michigan

wmvcooper wrote:

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

HDR is a result; high dynamic range. To acheive HDR you can use the HDR setting on your camera and it works automatically. From reading this post it seems your camera is not the best choice for in-camera HDR (as taken from another's opinion; I have no experience with this model)

Another method for acheiving HDR is by using the bracketing feature and then combining the images yourself with post production software. With my camera's bracketing mode, I can adjust the number of pics taken, as well as the level of seperation of exposure. This method will probably work better for your model of camera, if the choice is available.

I never use post production to produce HDR photographs, so I rely on Sony's technology and so far it has done well for me. However, I have not attempted to test its limits yet. (like shooting the mouth of a cave with the sun in the background)

Because the topic got sidetracked onto a tangent, I was unsure if your original question got answered. The HDR setting on your camera uses bracketing to produce a HDR image in camera so you don't have to use post production software to combine the images you get when using the bracketing feature.

wierdphotoguy Loc: the snow belt in Michigan

Almost forgot to address the other part of your question; no HDR with raw files.

I am no expert on raw or HDR, but I was told by an employee at my local camera shop (take it with a grain of salt if you wish) that manipulated or edited files (like HDR images) could not be saved as raw, because raw files are literal translations of what the camera sees, therefore raw files speak to the authenticity of the image regardless of your camera settings. I asked because my camera will not allow me to shoot raw HDR images either. It will let me bracket raw images, but my software will not let me save images that have been edited as raw files.

Hope your questions are answered to your satisfaction, and I hope I did not add any fuel to the fire raging on this thread.
Mike

Ken W Loc: Long Island Ny

michaelgem wrote:

I'll take a shot at summarizing. br br An image ... (show quote)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Nikonian72 wrote:

I have much more important things to do than argue with you. You obviously already have made-up your mind, and do not want to be confused by facts. My concern is you passing along mis-information to novice photographers. You epitomize the modern proverb "A little learning is a dangerous thing", Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744): http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

Douglass, you are full of it.
How about you get down off your high horse and stop speaking down to people.
I stated no misinformation whatsoever.
It was you that was misleading the masses by misrepresenting what others were saying. And it wasn't only me that you did this to.

Feel free to point out what I stated that you feel was incorrect.
(Make sure it is what I said though - and not just what you think I said)

bhfranklin Loc: Boston Area / Cape Cod

It's listening to all of this back and forth BS of "what I said and what you said" that makes many Hogs consider finding another site!

Can't we just be civil and stay to the topic and not jump on each other....

Dryart38 Loc: Carlsbad, NM

To me, HDR is nothing more than keeping detail in the shadows and the highlights at the same time without blocking out either of them. I have used the latest Picasa 3, which has an effect called, "HDRish", which does what I stated above. My Fuji bridge camera doesn't have an HDR setting, and a while ago, I needed an effect in which I could hold detail in the Moon, and still have some detail in some foreground roof tops. Picasa 3 came through!

Nightski

Dryart38 wrote:

To me, HDR is nothing more than keeping detail in the shadows and the highlights at the same time without blocking out either of them. I have used the latest Picasa 3, which has an effect called, "HDRish", which does what I stated above. My Fuji bridge camera doesn't have an HDR setting, and a while ago, I needed an effect in which I could hold detail in the Moon, and still have some detail in some foreground roof tops. Picasa 3 came through!

Could you share it Dryart38? I have Picassa on my computer, and I would like to see what you've done. Could I upgrade to the latest Picassa 3 for free, or is there a charge?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I notice that a lot of what people refer to "hdr" is basically just tone mapping and tonal compression - something that doesn't necessarily require the fusion of multiple, exposure-bracketed images. Which I think leads to some confusion between true hdr and simulated hdr, if you could call it that. And software marketing seems to be adding to this confusion lately as well.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For "straight" HDR, all you need is a Sony camera.