Probably stupid, Can you do this?

[reg]

I disagree reg, althought I am a newb it doesnt sound right to me. Although Photoshop and other programs call it that, is it really adjusting the "Exposure". What is exposure by definition, I dont see how you can adjust it and call it 'Adjust the exposure' lets say...

Exposure to me is how much light is hitting the sensor isnt it? The Photoshop has some mathematical formula to produce similar effects, but is it really adjusting the exposure? Not IMHO.

On that note, multiple shots in camera will probably produce a better image with less noise (speculating). Also have a higher dynamic range, if you need be. In some situations your camera may have washed out skies and black shadows with no detail, photoshop probably/cant reproduce some blown out highlights and no detail shadows...

I will always use HDR in camera. Never in photoshop.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Guy said that "3 exposures FROM A RAW FILE" is not the same as using photoshop to "lighten or darken an image".... I said I disagree. He said that by image he means a jpg file.

Kthxbai.

 

[Syndac]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Guy said that "3 exposures FROM A RAW FILE" is not the same as using photoshop to "lighten or darken an image".... I said I disagree. He said that by image he means a jpg file.

Kthxbai.

Huh? You're confused. My original quote that you argued:

Creating 3 exposures from a raw file isn't the same as using photoshop to brighten or darken an image.

How can you possibly claim that working with raw files is the same as working with a jpg in photoshop? You make absolutely no sense. If that were the case why would raw files exist?

 

[prodigy2k7]

I don't see how you can say that since it has data outside of the range of a jpg, it can't be considered to have higher dynamic range. It may not be as much as taking multiple exposures but based on the definitions here it can still be called high dynamic range. I'd consider straight tonemapping to be the process done to a single jpg.

Just because there is "more" data in a raw file, doesnt mean "more" is "high" in High Dynamic Range...

I guess $5 is a lot of money compared to $0.01, yes in comparison but we never say $5 is a lot of money because in general its not a lot of money.

 

[Syndac]

Just because there is "more" data in a raw file, doesnt mean "more" is "high" in High Dynamic Range...

I guess $5 is a lot of money compared to $0.01, yes in comparison but we never say $5 is a lot of money because in general its not a lot of money.

But then it comes down to your definition of "high". If it's agreed that it's higher dynamic range, then I should be allowed to call it an HDR since it has more dynamic range than a standard jpg. :mrgreen: