Fake HDR's

[JHF Photography]

Whats the difference between 3 seperate exposures, and 1 exposure shot in RAW and adjusted with exposure bias in a RAW editor.
That sounds like an argument....its meant to be a question I dont know the answer to..
I'm not deep in digital..

That was in no way, shape or form meant to be an argument. If you look a little closer at my post, the terms "fake" and "proper" are in quotes; other peoples words, not mine. I am not implying that either are better than the other, I was merely taking a stab at deciphering what people were referring to as "fake" and "real", as LaFoto asked what they meant. I may be off on my interpretation, but this is what I gathered the OP was talking about.

As for the question about the difference between 3 shots, and 1 shot adjusted 3 ways, I do think there will be a difference (although I would love to hear the input of someone with more HDR experience than me). The reason I think there will be a difference, however slight it may be, is the fact that you can't pull back details that aren't there in the original shot.

For example, if you had a sunset with incredible depth of colors and textures, but your single shot blew out most of the sky, you're not going to be able to get those details all back by merely adjusting the exposure after. It would have been better to make an exposure for the sky seperately.

Again, this is just my opinion.... and I'm fairly new to HDR myself.


Jason

 

[Joxby]

I meant my question sounded like I was looking for a fight

I dont know much about digital processing short of the basics or what the requirements are for a true bonafide HDR, but in Nikon Capture or NX for that matter, I can take an image down 2 stops and up 2 stops from 1 good exposure...so a 4 stop spread.
I'm not sure how much a difference there'd be between that and 3 seperate exposures on site with similar bracketing.
Or infact using a greater number of exposures over a bigger range, cant help thinking theres a point where no advantage is gained at a certain quantity.

 

[JHF Photography]

I meant my question sounded like I was looking for a fight

LMAO!! :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Sorry, my bad.... there's that whole "interpretation" thing.


Jason

 

[tedgtfan]

I still don't get it: are we talking about the multiplied RAW-files here - or is THIS "HDR in Photoshop" out of a single jpeg-file?

I did see the phrase tonemapping in the article. Yes it processed from a single exposure and adjust the shadow/highlight, then duplicate the layer apply color dodge and mask out the black, then duplicate the base again and apply linear burn and mask out white, then colorize into red tones red tones, then tweak all the adjustments and flatten image. I found it hard to do because they must have been using an older version of photoshop. Anyway I know you said you didn't want web site but I'll leave it here in case anyone else does. Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I learn from these
http://www.nill.cz/index.php?set=tu1

 

[RKW3]

I have been shooting a lot of HDRs lately. The proper seperate-exposure way is great (of course), but the single-exposure tonemapping can be good as well at bringing out detail etc.. Here is one of my threads from a long time ago, when I used one JPEG re-photoshopped into three different brightness levels. I must say it worked a bit (although there are major errors with it still). P.S. the sky is fake, but everything else is real

A lot of times single exposure HDR's turn out horrible, it all depends on the original shot. (ie. if the original file has blown highlights, it's likely that tonemapping won't recover it still)