HDR with one RAW?

[Trigger]

Sparky, that was the histogram of the finished product. Did you mean that you wanted to see the histo of the RAW?

 

[480sparky]

Sparky, that was the histogram of the finished product. Did you mean that you wanted to see the histo of the RAW?

That explains why it looks so flat... Lack of bright highlights.

Yes, I'd like to see the history of the original.

 

[Trigger]

 

[480sparky]

That doesn't tell me it needs any "HDR treatment" at all. Maybe some contrast & saturation adjustments, but that's it.

 

[Trigger]

Ya, but after reading that an HDR is possible from one RAW shot, I wanted to try it out. It was one of the things that pushed me over the edge to shoot RAW instead of JPG. I don't mind though that it's not the same as a properly done HDR, I'll just abandon that method.

Thanks for the comments, feedback and insight.

 

[thetrue]

Shoot RAW anyway. Adjustability and IQ as a whole is definitely a plus.

 

[480sparky]

Ya, but after reading that an HDR is possible from one RAW shot, I wanted to try it out. It was one of the things that pushed me over the edge to shoot RAW instead of JPG. I don't mind though that it's not the same as a properly done HDR, I'll just abandon that method.

Thanks for the comments, feedback and insight.

It's not a 'useless' method, so don't toss it out completely. If it can be utilized to get the results you want, then by all means, use it.

 

[Trigger]

Shoot RAW anyway. Adjustability and IQ as a whole is definitely a plus.

A part of me still wonders if, due to the JPG capabilities of today’s mid to high-end cameras, and the fact that a JPG is the ultimate destination anyway for viewing/sharing our images on the web/email and various displays, is shooting RAW really worth it? Don’t those extra bit levels in a RAW file get tossed out the window anyway when converted to an 8 bit JPG, or is it still better than an out-of-camera JPG? RAW and big TIFs are certainly better for larger prints, but….hmmm.…what do you think?

 

[thetrue]

Please refer to my thread in which I get ripped in half for asking: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/306466-raw-really-worth.html

 

[480sparky]

Shoot RAW anyway. Adjustability and IQ as a whole is definitely a plus.

A part of me still wonders if, due to the JPG capabilities of today’s mid to high-end cameras, and the fact that a JPG is the ultimate destination anyway for viewing/sharing our images on the web/email and various displays, is shooting RAW really worth it? Don’t those extra bit levels in a RAW file get tossed out the window anyway when converted to an 8 bit JPG, or is it still better than an out-of-camera JPG? RAW and big TIFs are certainly better for larger prints, but….hmmm.…what do you think?

Yes.... editing removes a lot of data. The difference is...... when you shoot raw, you have ALL the data to start with so you have a tremendous amount of latitude when editing. When shooting JPEGs, you are trying to edit what technically is the 'finished product'.

A JPEG is kind of like a finished sculpture... you really can't do much more with it without your tinkering becoming obvious to the viewer. A raw file is like having the original chunk of stone to work with.

 

[Buckster]

Shoot RAW anyway. Adjustability and IQ as a whole is definitely a plus.

A part of me still wonders if, due to the JPG capabilities of today’s mid to high-end cameras, and the fact that a JPG is the ultimate destination anyway for viewing/sharing our images on the web/email and various displays, is shooting RAW really worth it? Don’t those extra bit levels in a RAW file get tossed out the window anyway when converted to an 8 bit JPG, or is it still better than an out-of-camera JPG? RAW and big TIFs are certainly better for larger prints, but….hmmm.…what do you think?

Yes.... editing removes a lot of data. The difference is...... when you shoot raw, you have ALL the data to start with so you have a tremendous amount of latitude when editing. When shooting JPEGs, you are trying to edit what technically is the 'finished product'.

A JPEG is kind of like a finished sculpture... you really can't do much more with it without your tinkering becoming obvious to the viewer. A raw file is like having the original chunk of stone to work with.

I like that analogy.

 

[Trigger]

While we're at it, as I'm new to RAW editing:

- When shooting in RAW, is it still critical to select an appropriate WB setting in the camera?

- In one's computer RAW editor (see attached), is it perfectly ok to select whatever WB setting provides the desired result, or is it best practice to use the "As Shot" one and go from there?

- Is "Auto" WB generally to be avoided, or does it usually do a pretty good job?

 

[480sparky]

Unless I'm shooting under known & consistent lighting (such as with my monolights or in a venue where I've recorded the WB before), I usually just shoot AutoWB and make any minor corrections (if needed at all) in post.

As for which WB to select, choose whichever one gives you the results you want.

 

[Ysarex]

A part of me still wonders if, due to the JPG capabilities of today’s mid to high-end cameras, and the fact that a JPG is the ultimate destination anyway for viewing/sharing our images on the web/email and various displays, is shooting RAW really worth it? Don’t those extra bit levels in a RAW file get tossed out the window anyway when converted to an 8 bit JPG, or is it still better than an out-of-camera JPG? RAW and big TIFs are certainly better for larger prints, but….hmmm.…what do you think?

Yes.... editing removes a lot of data. The difference is...... when you shoot raw, you have ALL the data to start with so you have a tremendous amount of latitude when editing. When shooting JPEGs, you are trying to edit what technically is the 'finished product'.

A JPEG is kind of like a finished sculpture... you really can't do much more with it without your tinkering becoming obvious to the viewer. A raw file is like having the original chunk of stone to work with.

I like that analogy.

Me too. Thanks Sparky.

 

[The Barbarian]

A raw image should have about nine stops of exposure in it. If you set the exposure at different levels, you'll see different details in different places, such as very dark or very bright areas. Combining the three and tonemapping will give you what the purists will swear is not an HDR, but does everything an HDR does. Assuming you've got no more than nine stops of difference. Otherwise, the only way to get it all is two or more separate exposures.

I was at a university library, and no tripod. Given that I'd have to stitch the photo to get what I wanted, the only way to go was to shoot in RAW and then make several different Jpegs. As mentioned above, you can't lose shooting RAW, since you can always discard what you don't need later; having that extra data makes it possible to do things you hadn't considered when you took the image.