Question about HDR: Hi all If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and...

MWojton Loc: Yardley, PA

Hi all
If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and under expose it 1 or 2 stops PP (I have elements 10). Is that correct?

Thanks for the advice.

MW

Eddografix Loc: Lake Havasu City, Arizona

MWojton wrote:

Hi all
If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and under expose it 1 or 2 stops PP (I have elements 10). Is that correct?

Thanks for the advice.

MW

Very good question, I would like to know the answer also

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

No. If you create an under-exposed version, and an over-exposed version of the original image, then combine them with the original, you will get what you started with. The whole point of HDR is to expand the dynamic range of the final image. So you over expose to lighten the shadows and under expose the highlights to acquire detail that would not have been in the correctly exposed single image. Using the correct software you can combine the under-exposed and over-exposed images and expand the dynamic range over what a single image would provide. The software has to be handled with a deft touch to avoid some bizarre and unpleasant artifacts and effects.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

MWojton wrote:

Hi all
If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and under expose it 1 or 2 stops PP (I have elements 10). Is that correct?

Thanks for the advice.

MW

Yes, you can. It's called "fake" or "pseudo" HDR. Do some tests and you can see the differences and decide for yourself. In most HDR programs you can weight the exposure to one of the images used.

MadMike Loc: SALT LAKE

You can do a Pseudo-HDR by using one picture and making a copy both under and overexposed, then process just likea normal HDR. But you will still loose some detail, because if you shoot it in camera, you will retain more information, or detail. If you have auto bracketing in camera, use that, it will snap all three frames togeather, and it works best. Hope that answered your question, or if anyone else has info. please comment.

Eddografix wrote:

MWojton wrote:

Hi all
If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and under expose it 1 or 2 stops PP (I have elements 10). Is that correct?

Thanks for the advice.

MW

Very good question, I would like to know the answer also

llindstrand Loc: Seattle Metro

MWojton wrote:

Hi all
If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and under expose it 1 or 2 stops PP (I have elements 10). Is that correct?

Thanks for the advice.

MW

No it won't give the true representation of HDR. As mcveed indicated you get back to where you started from. If you only want to shoot one picture, you would be better off editing it in one of the special effects programs such as Smart Photo editor, to get the color variations etc.
Swede

MWojton Loc: Yardley, PA

Thanks MadMike for clearing that up.

MW

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

MWojton wrote:

If trying to do an HDR photo, is it necessary to shoot several pics over and under exposed if you shoot in RAW? Because if you shoot RAW, you can over and under expose it 1 or 2 stops PP (I have elements 10). Is that correct?

From a fellow ophthalmic photographer:
Raw images do have a wider dynamic range than JPGs, but most of us end-up working with JPG copies from raw, so I still bracket my raw images by 2-stops. I tweak each raw image for best exposure, contrast, and color, then copy to individual JPGs, then merge in an HDR program.

This will provide deeper dynamic range than pseudo-HDR from single raw image.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

I shoot RAW and do HDR with RAW files in Photomatix Essentials. It is also suggested that RAW files be used with Photomatix.

Also, if useing Photomatix and you want to use just one picture for a pseudo-HDR, you do not have to make copys for over/under exposeures. Just use picture as is.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

MadMike wrote:

If you have auto bracketing in camera, use that, it will snap all three frames togeather, and it works best.

Actually, not quite correct. If you program your camera to bracket three photographs, it will take three images in sequence: normal exposure; -2 EV; and +2 EV for raw capture, and normal; -1 EV; & +1 EV for JPG only capture.

snails_pace Loc: Utah

I believe Photomatix recommends a minimum of 3 exposures 2EV apart. So ... metered, +2EV, -2EV. Most cameras (Nikons anyway) will let you choose the exposure order. Some cameras will only allow 1EV increments in the bracketing, in which case 5 exposures would be required at a minimum.

In Photomatix, a single RAW photo can be just be opened from the File menu and processed. Photomatix will then use the extra data a single RAW file has over a .jpg. The single RAW photo can still process to give interesting results, and in some cases is the only way ... flying birds, moving deer, running water.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

snails_pace wrote:

I believe Photomatix recommends a minimum of 3 exp... (show quote)

Photomatix recommends 3 exposures as you say but you can use up to five only. No more than five that is with Photomatix E.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

snails pace - Out of curiosity, why do you capitalize RAW and type jpg in lower case? RAW is an abbreviation for what?

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

Nikonian72 wrote:

snails pace - Out of curiosity, why do you capitalize RAW and type jpg in lower case? RAW is an abbreviation for what?

Nikonian72, If I may comment, I don't know what the letters RAW mean but maybe why RAW is caped is because it dosen't mean raw meat, see what I mean?

And what dose NEF mean? Nikons raw file format, I think. And I notice it too caped. Never mind, I found it myself ... "Nikon Electronic Format"

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Bangee5 wrote:

Nikonian72, If I may comment, I don't know what the letters RAW mean but maybe why RAW is caped is because it dosen't mean raw meat, see what I mean?
And what dose NEF mean? Nikons raw file format, I think. And I notice it too caped. Never mind, I found it myself ... "Nikon Electronic Format"

Raw simply means unprocessed, as in raw milk. It is not an abbreviation, and capitalization is not warranted. Nikon's raw format is called NEF. Canon's raw format is called CR2, for Canon Raw 2nd generation.

All digital cameras and document scanners capture in raw format, which can only be viewed in TIFF or JPEG or another viewing/printing format.

JPEG stands for "Joint Photographic Expert Group". TIFF stands for "Tagged Image File Format". These terms should always be capitalized. Read more here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/imagetypes.htm