HDR in Photoshop

CatB

CatB

Messages
162
Name
Cat
Edit My Images
Yes
I know HDR is a bit controversial but I really like the effect sometimes and wanted to have a go at it. Since I don't have a tripod I thought I'd try the slightly cheating method of taking one RAW image and adjusting the exposure.

I found a tutorial suggesting that you could save the differently exposed photos as JPEGs or TIFFs and then use the 'merge to HDR' command in photoshop to combine them. However I have tried this with several photos using 5 exposures going from -3 to +3 stops and photoshop goes through the process then tells me that 'there is not enough dynamic range to create a useful HDR image' or words to that effect.

So - does Photoshop know I am cheating and using a single RAW image so I need to buy myself a tripod or should I save up for Photomatix or some other HDR software?
 
It does know you are trying to just use one image. Might be getting photomatix anyway as photoshop is rubbish at creating HDR's
 
CatB said:
I know HDR is a bit controversial but I really like the effect sometimes and wanted to have a go at it. Since I don't have a tripod I thought I'd try the slightly cheating method of taking one RAW image and adjusting the exposure.

I found a tutorial suggesting that you could save the differently exposed photos as JPEGs or TIFFs and then use the 'merge to HDR' command in photoshop to combine them. However I have tried this with several photos using 5 exposures going from -3 to +3 stops and photoshop goes through the process then tells me that 'there is not enough dynamic range to create a useful HDR image' or words to that effect.

So - does Photoshop know I am cheating and using a single RAW image so I need to buy myself a tripod or should I save up for Photomatix or some other HDR software?
Click to expand...


Trying to think of the reason it gives you this "not enough range" thing, think it has been mentioned before, but can't for the life of me remember why it does it. Have a feeling it might be something to do with embedded exif into (but could be getting that confused with an old photomatix problem)
 
Thanks folks - the free trial is indeed enough to have a go at it so I thought I'd put the results up here for you.
The first is the photo without any HDR effect and the second is with (complete with watermark!) - I think it somewhat rescues an otherwise dull photo (although 'save for web' and flickr have between them washed out the colour).
1.
2713008893_39c1e353a9.jpg


2.
2713009211_28aa6922e8.jpg
 
I actually like the colours and tones in the first shot. It's nicely framed and composed. The sky is the only thing letting it down. JMO though :)
 
Duckydoodle said:
I actually like the colours and tones in the first shot. It's nicely framed and composed. The sky is the only thing letting it down. JMO though :)
Click to expand...

Thanks very much - I like hearing opinions like that :). It was the sky that I didn't like, very frustrating but it was very pale grey clouds at the time despite having had nice contrast of blue skies and fluffy clouds earlier in the walk and I couldn't find a way of exposing for the sky and the field. I was hoping to rescue the sky in post processing and I think the HDR kind-of does that - certainly better than my attempts at combining two layers with different exposures in photoshop. I should really try to get it right in camera though - I guess it's ND grad time!
 
If you're using Photomatix then you don't need a tripod as the software can align images for you. Just set your camera to auto-bracket and continuous shooting mode to get three exposures with minimal time/movement in-between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top