HDR: I am exploring HDR possibilities. Two questions: 1. which does a better job Lightroom Classic or Photoshop. 2. When I transfer images as layers from Lightroom under the edit...

whitehall Loc: Canada

I am exploring HDR possibilities. Two questions:

1. which does a better job Lightroom Classic or Photoshop.

2. When I transfer images as layers from Lightroom under the edit function, photoshop will not allow either a focus stack or hdr because “the images had not been saved.” While I can go to my external HD, my preference woild be to everything in LR. What am I missing

Thanks.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Don't know what camera you have, why not do it in camera? My Nikons will do it, though I have also done it using PP software.

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

quixdraw wrote:

Don't know what camera you have, why not do it in camera? My Nikons will do it, though I have also done it using PP software.

They will do it only if you shoot JPEG. Not using RAW

Quixdraw Loc: x

juan_uy wrote:

They will do it only if you shoot JPEG. Not using RAW

Thanks! Rarely use RAW - didn't know.

whitehall Loc: Canada

Thanks

I shoot with Canon 5Dmkiv or 8od. I always shoot RAW but Lightroom converts from RAW to DNG.

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

whitehall wrote:

Thanks

I shoot with Canon 5Dmkiv or 8od. I always shoot RAW but Lightroom converts from RAW to DNG.

That´s a setting. You must have set LR to do that in the past, it's something optional.
The only case that one has to convert to DNG is if you have an old version not updated and must use CameraRAW to convert them to DNG prior importing to LR.

I didn't answer your initial question, cause I don't have experience on that and don't know the answer. But probably you will get a lot of helps for tomorrow :)

bleirer

I've done it both ways, no difference that I can see except you get a few more choices. In Photoshop there is a script under the file menu. You do need to save the files though.

DNG works the same as the original camera file as far as Lightroom is concerned but you lose some of the original info if you wanted to go back in the future to the software that came with the camera, so you might as well not convert to DNG if you don't have to.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

whitehall wrote:

I am exploring HDR possibilities. Two questions:

1. which does a better job Lightroom Classic or Photoshop.

2. When I transfer images as layers from Lightroom under the edit function, photoshop will not allow either a focus stack or hdr because “the images had not been saved.” While I can go to my external HD, my preference woild be to everything in LR. What am I missing

Thanks.

If you are working with raw files, the results are equivalent, since both use Adobe Camera Raw to merge the files. The result is a simple exposure fusion and is indeed a raw file (dng), not a tiif or anything else.

After the files are merged you can apply tonemapping in Photoshop to the resulting raster files which can give them an HDR "look". Photographers who seek a natural looking image will be using exposure fusion, others looking for interpretive or expressive rendition will go more towards tonemapping. One can also start the process in Photoshop using raster files loaded as layers and merged, then tonemapped.

I do like the fusion capability of ACR and ending up with a raw file, but I feel that Photoshop's tone mapping falls far short of what a program like Photomatix Pro or similar can do.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

quixdraw wrote:

Thanks! Rarely use RAW - didn't know.

In today's world RAW seems to be the way to go. Why isn't that your choice?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

whitehall wrote:

I am exploring HDR possibilities. Two questions:

1. which does a better job Lightroom Classic or Photoshop.

2. When I transfer images as layers from Lightroom under the edit function, photoshop will not allow either a focus stack or hdr because “the images had not been saved.” While I can go to my external HD, my preference woild be to everything in LR. What am I missing

Thanks.

My Sony HX99V does up to 6 stops HDR. It will give me two images. One is straight up and the other is a composite of up to 6 separate exposures and the camera then combines the best of each. Sweet.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

When it comes to HDR I use Photomatix. They seemed to be the top dog. I have just this last weekend batch processed over 100. I set it up and went to bed. Got up Sunday morning and put the in my software (Aperture). I hand hold and shoot a 3 +&- burst so I set ghosting at 100%
Been doing this and selling them on 24X36 and 30X40 for years.
Photomatix was wort the $100.00

woodworkerman Loc: PA to FL

Check out:
https://stuckincustoms.com
Trey Ratcliff is an outstanding source for HDR. He moved from Texas to New Zealand several years ago.
Trey helped develop Aurora HDR software and many tutorials on its use.
You owe it to yourself to at least check it out. I find it and Trey's instruction highly enlightening.
ALSO, so many photographers create unrealistic garish images that only "they" think look great. I think being very careful with HDR use is very important.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

HDR is HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE, if you use them to expand the normal range of the camera (one picture) HDR can and is a great thing. That does not let you change the picture to a non real view as a lot of us do with a single shot. The only difference the HDR programs all make it easy for us to do it.
Nothing is wrong with any approach you chose. If one way was the proper way all our pictures would look the same.
Do your thing and be your way.

BigGWells Loc: Olympia, WA

juan_uy wrote:

They will do it only if you shoot JPEG. Not using RAW

I do HDR with RAW. Can be done in LR and PS.

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

BigGWells wrote:

I do HDR with RAW. Can be done in LR and PS.

Read the post I was replying to. It said that it could be done in camera, that's why I answered that.