jpegs and hdr

[Abby Rose]

So, I'm interested in the more realistic aspects of HDR (though the wilder ones are cool too ). I'd like to learn a little more about the different techniques and programs, and I will, but I'm wondering if I should even bother trying it out since I can only shoot in jpegs. Are the hdr images made with jpegs really really crappy, usually?

Well?

[TPF Sponsor]

[Schwettylens]

most people use JPEG when they do HDR.

[ann]

i respectfully disagree, everyone i know which is not a smaller number , shoot raw, then work the images in tiff mode.

a jpeg file distributes the information in a different way than a raw file

jgep files have limited bit depth and then your working with a technique and tools that are developed for 32 and 64 bit depths along with a huge pixel count in the higher ranges of the images

If your only options is jpeg, then certainly go for it, have fun and practice a lot.

my comments are really with regard to the above statements.

[Bynx]

jpegs are just fine to create an HDR of stationary scenes. Raw files really shine if there is traffic movement like people or cars. There a single Raw shot can usually capture enough info to make a pretty decent HDR. Personally, I think shooting 5, 7, or 9 Raw files is overkill.

[Abby Rose]

Oh! Well thats good, then. I guess I'll do some more research... it's a really cool technique.

thanks!

[Schwettylens]

Once you merge the HDR, it will be a jpeg anyway.

i respectfully disagree, everyone i know which is not a smaller number , shoot raw, then work the images in tiff mode.

a jpeg file distributes the information in a different way than a raw file

jgep files have limited bit depth and then your working with a technique and tools that are developed for 32 and 64 bit depths along with a huge pixel count in the higher ranges of the images

If your only options is jpeg, then certainly go for it, have fun and practice a lot.

my comments are really with regard to the above statements.

[Bynx]

Im not positive but isnt the HDR automatically saved as a 32 bit tiff with a 16 bit jpeg as an option?

[Schwettylens]

Maybe if I shoot with RAW? Have not tried it.

[ann]

after making any corrections. i.e. ca correction or dust removable I apply that correction in mass to all exposures and then save them as tiff files, and continue from there.

the only time i change those tiff files to jpeg is when i wish to use them in my class for discussion and viewing for my students as it is easier on our old computer which takes forever to load tiff images, let alone those that end up as large as these do.

I would have to go run something through a program to see it does offer a 16bit jpeg file as that is not a function i prefer. However, PS doesn't support 16bit jpegs for saving and one has to revert it back to 8 bit .

Recently photomatrix is giving one the option of loading a 64bit application which will work on my laptop , but not on my desktop that will handle 32 but not 64.

It is my personal decision to work in the largest color gamuet and largest file size to maintain as many sutle tones as possible , not only with hdr but with all images, and since i do my own printing i can print in more than one color space to take advantage of these tones as you won't see them on your monitor.

Again, i am a firm believer that if one feels they need/want to work with jpeg, tiff or what ever, that is their decision; however, as a professional educator i also believe people should test varies option to discover what works best for their vision not mine.

[Bynx]

One thing makes sense. The larger the file size the more the detail. Any compressed file is small because something was thrown away.....detail.

[ann]

yep, and for me more information is all good

for example

In a highlight area and 12 Bit RAW file there are 2048 levels of informtion,
or an 8 bit jpeg file 69

Shadow areas 128 with RAW 20 with jpeg.

so basically in jpeg file at the greatest bit information it is still less than the lowest at RAW.