Probably stupid, Can you do this?

[Battou]

I'll still continue with my current method on any moving subjects though as it's the only way to capture it. (such as the previous chopper example)

I wanted to imply that there is still a better way to do that. I have a couple processed at the moment, but those are all easily replicable at a stand still. I'll do one up with one or two of my heilo pics this weekend when I get the time, if I can find the originals.

so how can i make a "fake" hdr?

Monkey with the exposure slider in Photoshop and merge to HDR. Seriously though, HDR and False HDR are way overused, it's not a toy and should be used wisely. It also should not be called HDR....but that's alredy been said

...Since everyone else is doing it below are a couple of my false HDR images done using the same process give or take, the difference is the information was there. These are one shot processed at five different exposure settings.

Picture 1 (Note, final image was reprocessed after blue tinge was pointed out)

Image 2

 

[Syndac]

I know this thread died, but I just bought a magazine today (August 2008 Digital Magazine UK) which once again has a tutorial on making what they call an HDR from creating 6 exposures from 1 raw file, claiming it provides more information out of the standard range of an image. It's magazines like this feeding me the info I've been posting about in this thread.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I know this thread died, but I just bought a magazine today (August 2008 Digital Magazine UK) which once again has a tutorial on making what they call an HDR from creating 6 exposures from 1 raw file, claiming it provides more information out of the standard range of an image. It's magazines like this feeding me the info I've been posting about in this thread.

yes you get more data but you get even MORE data with 6 real exposured from the camera

 

[Syndac]

yes you get more data...

So then technically it's still an HDR.

 

[prodigy2k7]

more data doesn't necessarily mean HIGH dynamic range...

 

[Arch]

No, you don't get 'more data' as in the creation of more data than the original exposure.

What that magazine is trying to say is that it can reveal more data, but thats all tone mapping is really doing (among other things) , revealing data which is already there. This can also be done in several other ways.

The only way of creating a 'true' HDRI, is to take multiple exposures, as only then are you adding dynamic range which isn't available from the sensor in one exposure.

As i have said before there is nothing wrong with either method if it suits the job you need it for. I sometimes target zones in an image and use layer masks with curve layers... i am still increasing the range of the image, so in a sense even this ends up as an image with a higher dynamic range.

 

[Sirashley]

Ok, How's about EDR then, Enhanced Dynamic Range..., it's better than Fake HDR...LMAO...

I'm glad I started this thread because I have learned allot from reading the responses... Thanks guys... I stumbled across this for anyone with any other questions, I think this page really simplifies things for those just starting out

http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3038/how-to-create-high-dynamic-range-images.html

 

[photo28]

Can you make an HDR with Adobe Photoshop 7.0?

 

[reg]

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

By definition, it is.

 

[Syndac]

By definition, it is.

By "image" I'm refering to a jpg which contains less information than a RAW file and loses data per re-save, so no it's not the same.

 

[Syndac]

No, you don't get 'more data' as in the creation of more data than the original exposure.

Several people so far have said a raw file contains a couple stops more data than a jpg and I have quite a few magazine articles (HDR and RAW related) that seem to state the same thing.

I'm a photography magazine freak btw.

 

[prodigy2k7]

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.

 

[Aggressor]

Several people so far have said a raw file contains a couple stops more data than a jpg and I have quite a few magazine articles (HDR and RAW related) that seem to state the same thing.

Yes, it's true that RAW files contain more data than your traditional JPEG. That is partly because of the higher bit-depth (12-bit in Nikon vs 8-bit JPEG). Adding on to my previous explanation and further elaborating Arch's statement on revealing more data:

When saving files with shifted EV (+2 or -2), all it does is shift the center point of the values. For example: for a RAW file with a center-point of 2048 at EV 0; a file saved as (EV -2), a pixel with a value of, say, 5 at EV 0, may now be 1024, and a pixel with a value of 3800 may now have a value of 4096 (blown out). The values, of course, are approximate as (I don't believe) the values are filled in a linear fashion.

So, in essence, all that is happening is that the differences are more pronounced when changing the EV in the file. In the RAW file, the dynamic range is fixed as soon as it is saved. By changing the center point of the RAW, deep highlights or bright highlights will be emphasized, allowing tonemapping to be easier.

 

[Syndac]

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.

 

[Arch]

Several people so far have said a raw file contains a couple stops more data than a jpg and I have quite a few magazine articles (HDR and RAW related) that seem to state the same thing.

I'm a photography magazine freak btw.

Yes that is the advantage of shooting RAW (i do all the time), but this doesn't mean that extracting different versions of the same RAW adds data to the dynamic range of the single exposure.
As i mentioned, i can extend the visable dynamic range of my RAWs by using curves layers, and if i like i can say the result has a higher dynamic range... but it isn't a true HDR (in its modern context). In the same way, an image created using software such as photomatix and one RAW file isn't true HDR either... however it can (and commonly is) called that.

I don't have a problem with people saying 'HDR' to a one RAW tonemapped image (i think in future the meaning will end up covering all tonemapped images)... but the term 'fake HDR' could also be used to discribe it... no biggie.