First attempt at HDR

[manaheim]

I thought with a RAW image you could get a HDR image with just one exposure... As in, the software would then make the up/down exposures for you... Am I right?

-Fauzi

No, if you can get the light range in one exposure there is no need for HDR. One can tonemap that image with is not the same. Taking one proper exposure in RAW and then making more than one file is still not HDR. It is again, tonemapping.

HDR is used when the light range is too broad for one exposure; meaning one needs details in the highlights and detail in the shadows, which the current cameras cannot support.

Both of you need to re-read what I said. Ann, he is technically correct.

Since high is a relative term and not an objective definition, I could argue I have a high dynamic range image even if I turn on the dynamic lighting control on my Nikon... or even if my sensor happens to be slightly higher dynamic range than yours. Some people call single-shot-RAW "HDRs" EDRs... Extended Dynamic Range.

The point is that, technically correct or not, they're not going to get as much dynamic range out of an image with one exposure as they would with 2, 3 or more... so if it's HDR you want to do, then choosing to do it with one image is going to net you a fairly lousy HDR.

If you're going to do it, do it well.

 

[ann]

They are making more and more head way with creating tools to extend the dynamic range of the sensor including d-lighting but it isn't the same.

Heaven only knows were we will be in 5 years, the need to make multi exposures to cover a 20 stop range maybe a thing of the past.


I don't come from the "school" that extended dynamic range is HDR. And i certainly agree , if one is going to do anything, including HDR, do it well.

 

[manaheim]

They are making more and more head way with creating tools to extend the dynamic range of the sensor including d-lighting but it isn't the same.

Heaven only knows were we will be in 5 years, the need to make multi exposures to cover a 20 stop range maybe a thing of the past.


I don't come from the "school" that extended dynamic range is HDR. And i certainly agree , if one is going to do anything, including HDR, do it well.

I don't come from that school either, and I never said it was the same. I'm merely pointing out that you said fauz was wrong, and that is an incorrect statement.

 

[ann]

I am not here to create issues i never meant to say you did..

 

[manaheim]

Me neither. It's all good. Just clarifying.

 

[Compaq]

I remember reading somewhere that a true HDR image is a 32 bits per channel image (or was is bits per pixel?), called true colour images or something, that our monitors yet doesn't support, or are good enough so that we can make use of such images. Blending several exposures is merely a reproduction of the true scene we wanted to capture. Our eyes can see details in shadows, midtones and highlights alike (unless the differences are extreme, such as black spots on the Sun), and what we want to reproduce is what our eyes perceive.

Or maybe I'm just embarrassing myself, here?

 

[manaheim]

HDR is often used as shorthand (knowingly or unknowingly) for combining multiple exposures and tonemapping them... The latter usually is the key part since, as you said, monitors can't keep up.