Probably stupid, Can you do this?

K_Pugh · Aug 12, 2008

You're probably right, in fact you will be. I just thought upping the exposure in RAW may handle it better than doing it afterwards in photoshop.. i have no idea though, it's not something i've done.

Sirashley · Aug 12, 2008

Okay, it's time for the Pepsi challenge. I took a true HDR last week. Three separate exposures and made it into an HDR using Photomatix. Tonight, I took the middle photo from that set, opened the raw file, saved one at -2 one at 0 and one at +2. Then used photomatix to make a so-called HDR. The results were really really close. The true HDR has less noise and is perhaps a tad crisper when viewed at the full 10 meg size. The first one is true HDR, the last one is Fake HDR... Pay no attention to the subject...LOL... this was a test... But I think it shows that they are so close that the FAKE HDR is a very viable option when you don't have a tripod or you thought about HDR after the fact... Opinions?

True HDR

Fake HDR

Syndac · Aug 12, 2008

Since when is it a "fake" HDR? It's 3 images with different exposures. I believe you're confused on the definition of an HDR.

Sirashley · Aug 12, 2008

Well others here were saying that is wasn't HDR... I thought it was, in order to show the difference between them I labeled it as fake. It just made it easier to distinguish the difference, sorry if I gave the wrong idea...

AussieDee · Aug 12, 2008

I don't see a difference. I"m curious, tho, as to what the original looks like.

Sirashley · Aug 12, 2008

Here is the original middle exposure

Syndac · Aug 12, 2008

Here's an example of 3 exposures produced from one RAW file. An HDR like this could never be produced by taking 3 pictures due to the movement:

And the resulting HDR:

Sirashley · Aug 12, 2008

Oh yeah, Aussie, photomatix is available for Mac, that's what I did mine on... Photomatix is freakin awesome, super-easy, and really produces some amazing results...

AussieDee · Aug 12, 2008

Sirashley said:
Oh yeah, Aussie, photomatix is available for Mac, that's what I did mine on... Photomatix is freakin awesome, super-easy, and really produces some amazing results...

Thanks! I"m gonna go after it but....

I'm really new to all this HDR stuff - I'm impressed by the difference.

The helicopter photo.... good example. So what adjustment is being made and by how much? And can it work with .jpgs from p&s's? I don't have a dslr.

.... yet!

pasteofanchovie · Aug 12, 2008

Thanks for posting this! I was wondering how to get started with doing HDRs.

Syndac · Aug 12, 2008

AussieDee said:
And can it work with .jpgs from p&s's? I don't have a dslr. .... yet!

If you're using jpgs you'd need to take at least 3 photographs at different exposures. That's the advantage of using a raw file instead.

prodigy2k7 · Aug 12, 2008

Syndac said:
Creating 3 exposures from a raw file isn't the same as using photoshop to brighten or darken an image. Pretty much all of my best HDR images came from 1 raw file.

And they would be better if you took 3 exposures from the camera...

prodigy2k7 · Aug 12, 2008

I dont really consider the "exposure" able to be adjusted, sure you can make it lighter/darker, but that doesnt change how much light from shadows are received on the sensor...

If you under or over expose in photoshop, its not the real thing, even if its close, its still not.

You are darkening the highlights and brightening the highlights bascally speaking, you get some noise out of doing that....

If you do it in the camera you get the real pictures, not a photoshopped picture that loses quality when you mess with levels/exposure/curves etc...