Power of Raw & HDR / Tonemapping

Trev Rich

Trev Rich

Messages
3,836
Name
Trev
Edit My Images
Yes
Alot of people have asked "why shoot Raw?". This may not be the best example, and this isn't a very nice shot for an example, but it's an example all the same.

1. My initial shot, the gorge itself is exposed ok but by metering on the gorge, the sky detail is blown.

exposed-gorge.jpg


2. Underexposing by 4 stops in Lightroom, you can see that much of the sky detail is available which it wouldn't be on a Jpeg.
But by underexposing the shot to get the sky right, obviously this under exposes the gorge.

underexpose-gorge.jpg


3. I also made another image in Lightroom which was 2 stops underexposed.
I then ran all 3 images through Dynamic-photo HDR and tonemapped the result.
As you can see you can now get a rather nicer image the the orginal with both gorge and sky visible.

gorgephdr.jpg


The image itself is not a very good one. There's a spot of lens over the 2nd van on the lens, and I would like the skills to clone the vehicles out completely. But the point of this thread is to show one reason to shoot in RAW.
Hope this will be of help to someone or anyone :wave:
 
I really like that, I know HDR is a love it or hate it kind of thing, but I think it turns a photo that I usually wouldn't look twice at into something really interesting! (y)

Chris
 
perhaps though, too many people are using HDR as a way of rescuing an image that they shouldn't have bothered with in the first place...unless they attempted to bracket exposures in the first place (in camera).

this pulling of detail two stops either side of a single exposure never really works and yes, I look twice at these images too - if only to confirm my belief that they they look so incredibly odd.

in the same way that i would look twice at a girl with badly dyed hair and roots all showing - it's not admiration, that's for sure :)
 
That third photograph is impressive with the use of HDR.
 
A simple fix, use an nd grad filter :p

I personally like tone mapping. Not when it's overdone to the point of hideousness.

To get an idea as to when that point is, I think the OP's photo is fine on my scale of HDR disaster.

Good post (y)

There are a lot more (and better) reasons to shoot in RAW though :p
 
hangerhead said:
perhaps though, too many people are using HDR as a way of rescuing an image that they shouldn't have bothered with in the first place...unless they attempted to bracket exposures in the first place (in camera).
Click to expand...

But why would you need to bracket on the camera when you can shoot in raw and produce exactly the same results? Also shooting from a moving bus or shooting a moving subject, bracketing on camera won't work.

And as I said, I know this isn't a good image, it's just an example.

If I do and tonemapping work at all, it's usually planned when I take the shot, not just a way of "rescuing images"
 
foodpoison said:
A simple fix, use an nd grad filter :p

I personally like tone mapping. Not when it's overdone to the point of hideousness.

To get an idea as to when that point is, I think the OP's photo is fine on my scale of HDR disaster.

Good post (y)

There are a lot more (and better) reasons to shoot in RAW though :p
Click to expand...

Cheers FP...
Post up some more reasons and examples here of why to shoot RAW if you like. It will help others understanding why not to shoot Jpeg
 
Ability to change colour temperature
More control over sharpening and saturation effects (considering most cameras that shoot jpeg do it all in camera)
Non-destructive editing - you can keep one raw and make many, many different pictures out of it

That's all off the top of my head :p I'm tired and I'm sure someone will give a lot better reasons than that :p
 
Sometimes you can use a ND grad, but sometimes like in the example you've used it's not really practical. This is when using HDR does work. Also when you have a really high DR that grads wouldn't handle, such as sunsets with foreground detail, I've had a 8-9 stop DR in cases like this and HDR has produced the results. HDR works when the image doesn't looked "processed"
 
Trev Rich said:
But why would you need to bracket on the camera when you can shoot in raw and produce exactly the same results?
Click to expand...

Because you don't produce exactly the same results. HDR's from 1 RAW are often noisier than from 3 because its being rescued via software rather than captured at the scene. Also you will have the HDR crowd eating your children because a HDR from 1 RAW isn't a HDR at all, strictly speaking.
 
petemc said:
Because you don't produce exactly the same results. HDR's from 1 RAW are often noisier than from 3 because its being rescued via software rather than captured at the scene. Also you will have the HDR crowd eating your children because a HDR from 1 RAW isn't a HDR at all, strictly speaking.
Click to expand...

The point of the thread isn't really about HDR though. I know that this isn't really a HDR but a tonemapped image.
But the basic idea is the same, and the point was just to give one reason to shoot in RAW.
I don't own ND grads, and I was on a moving bus.
 
So its just called "Power of RAW & HDR / Tonemapping" showing examples of what you can do with HDR and tonemapping for funsies?
 
petemc said:
So its just called "Power of RAW & HDR / Tonemapping" showing examples of what you can do with HDR and tonemapping for funsies?
Click to expand...

No not really, it was just an idea to stop new comers to photography being afraid of shooting in RAW.. not to invoke a HDR debate.

I have a lot of respect for your work Pete, but thats not what the threads about
 
Respect my work or don't. Thats not what the threads about because its titled "Power of RAW & HDR" but you don't want it to be a debate about HDR just RAW? Well why even show the HDR side? You could have just shown the power of RAW easily enough. Theres plenty of things you can do with RAW that don't require HDR. White balance, fill light, recovery, increasing / decreasing exposure etc.
 
Ok boys, its not worth arguing over - we know there is a lot of flexibility with raw, whether you use HDR and/or tonemapping or not. Trev has done a decent job in demonstrating the detail that can be pulled out, Pete has pointed out that the purist method for HDR requires several exposures. Its all processing at the end of the day, lets just agree on that - raw is better than jpeg due to less compression. (y)
 
Not just the purist method, in all my time with it I've always noticed more noise when using 1 RAW file than with 3.
 
LadyLens said:
Ok boys, its not worth arguing over - we know there is a lot of flexibility with raw, whether you use HDR and/or tonemapping or not. Trev has done a decent job in demonstrating the detail that can be pulled out, Pete has pointed out that the purist method for HDR requires several exposures. Its all processing at the end of the day, lets just agree on that - raw is better than jpeg due to less compression. (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks LL...
I really don't want to get into an argument over this, but i don't understand why you say not to use 1 image Pete.. when your tutorial teaches you how to do HDR from one image :shrug:

anyway.. enough of that, don't be scared of Raw kids :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
I don't recall saying that. I said 3 is better as its not as noisy as 1.
 
In case anyone is interested , Matt Kloskowski is doing a 2 part tutorial , on HDR with Photomatix software, in next weeks Photoshop User TV. ( 11 August)

http://www.photoshopusertv.com/
 
I'm not a huge fan of HDR but it can produce some nice photographs which in my opinion look more like paintings/artwork. Here's one I did which was 13 exposures blending and processed:

Rest and be Thankful

My understanding was that when shooting RAW you are basically saving a capture of what the camera sees to its full range with no processing. I thought a camera can only see a certain range in exposure at any one time, therefore an HDR from one RAW would be more limited than one taken from several seperate RAW's at different exposures because the range that the camera can see will be shifted up and down accordingly?

Can't remember the specifics but from a studio lesson I did I'm sure I was told the camera can see a maximum of 6 stops whereas the eye can see 9 or something, therefore getting the correct light reading in the studio was pretty important?

If someone could go into more detail with this and correct where (probably everywhere lol) I'm wrong it would be appreciated as I've been wondering about this for a while! :) Oh and don't Nikons do some extended range thing on some of their cameras?
 
Lensflare said:
Are you just arguing over the title ? How sad.
Click to expand...

Yes thats exactly what I'm doing, or is it? You see earlier I said "Well why even show the HDR side?" My point, which is very simple, was that if the thread (not the title) was about RAW then why put a HDR image in and then go on to say "Don't talk about HDR." Trev asked the question, I answered the question and was then told that I shouldn't have answered the question because its not a HDR thread, despite the HDR image and title. Actually no, I'm just fighting over the title. It doesn't have a full stop after it so its not a complete sentence either. Probably needs "The" at the start too.
 
I was simply trying to show those how don't use RAW.. one of the reasons why it's a good idea too. How to use the detail kept in Raw on a bleak day.
My appologies to Pete and anyone else.
Whats the point in trying to help?:shrug: that's all I was trying to do. Not prove anything or get into arguments.
But I still end up getting petty comments, right down to my punctuation in the title.
I thought that this was a friendly forum and we were to help others?

Nevermind.
 
The bottom line is the 'HDR' shot works better than the others. Whether the results would have been better using another HDR method is irrelevant and whether it's true HDR is an argument for people who really do understand the theory behind the technique above tweaking sliders in software and even then it will probably boil down to differences in opinion.

The fact is, in some situations you can recover a shot using the technique on one exposure and as the process is fundamentally similar to taking a number of exposures in camera, it probably can be called HDR, apart from by those who like to argue the toss.
 
Look it's simple. You asked a question. I answered it. You got moody about it and said this wasn't a hdr thread despite the content and your question. It's a forum. People answer others questions. Get used to it. Also you really need to learn how to get sarcasm.
 
This is a dumb question I know...

How is a shot taken in HDR? Does the camera need to have that feature? I use a EOS 400D. I really like the look of the shots, but i'm guessing it's mainly used in landscape photography right?
 
John.D said:
This is a dumb question I know...

How is a shot taken in HDR? Does the camera need to have that feature? I use a EOS 400D. I really like the look of the shots, but i'm guessing it's mainly used in landscape photography right?
Click to expand...

You don't take shots in HDR, they are made by software back on the PC. You'll want to use the bracketing feature, and take 3 shots at -, 0 and + EV. It can be used for any kind of photography where you need to get more dynamic range into a shot than the camera can do in one exposure :)
 
petemc said:
Look it's simple. You asked a question. I answered it. You got moody about it and said this wasn't a hdr thread despite the content and your question. It's a forum. People answer others questions. Get used to it. Also you really need to learn how to get sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Fair point well made.
Sometimes it's hard to read wether it's simple sarcasm or not through text.
And I'm still laughing at the "you got moody bit" :LOL::LOL:
Gissa kiss Pete :rules:
 
About 90% of what I say is sarcasm, the other 10% is "Google HDR guide"
 
So the main arguement is over the mix up between the title and the content?

I agree, it was a misleading title, or a misleading first.........thingy. The poor chap was only trying to help others....his use of HDR is beyond the benefit of RAW - because you CAN produce HDR images from either TIFF or jpeg - you could then even save the resulting HDR blend as a NEF if you wanted to (for those that work with REAL cameras (y)) and then continue to play with the curves further.

So what is the benefit of shooting RAW? It eats up your storage. It means you have to edit and sort your pictures when you get home. You can't just bung em on a CD and post em off to the office. Can't see any benefit there.:thinking:

On the other hand there is the lossless storage. There is the much greater level of information contained within the image - because it is a 16 bit image instead of an 8 bit one.

If you want a quick, get it off to the picture desk image - shoot jpeg straight off. If you want quality and archive longevity (a picture that will be worth something in years to come, rather than a oneof use) and the ability to fiddle with it afterwards - then shoot RAW.

Is that a more succinct way of putting it?
 
Whilst I appreciate that single RAWs tweaked to produce clones at different 'exposures' can be put through the same HDR process as multiple RAWs I would only do it as a last resort.

For me, the driving benefit of HDR is increasing the effective dynamic range of a scene. Trying to increase dynamic range with only a single RAW to start with defeats the purpose, in my mind. I've tried building HDR composites from both single and multiple RAWs, but it was the multiple RAW exposures that did it for me.

As for the never-ending RAW vs JPG argument, my take on it is that if a photo is worth taking, it's worth capturing as much information at the time as possible. I make sure I have enough storage when I shoot, when I get home I cull shots I don't want to keep, I post process each shot as best I can to achieve the result I want.

I wouldn't want the camera to decide how the final image should look and then for it to discard the information it deems unnecessary. For me, taking photos is only one half of photography with the other half being post processing and I enjoy both.

I'm never in such a rush for JPGs, but if I were then I'd just export them from RAWs. Doesn't take very long to rattle a few off.
 
John.D said:
This is a dumb question I know...

How is a shot taken in HDR? Does the camera need to have that feature? I use a EOS 400D. I really like the look of the shots, but i'm guessing it's mainly used in landscape photography right?
Click to expand...

Have a google for "HDR Tutorial" or look in the tutorial section on here.
You can achieve it a couple of ways depending on the shot and it's limitations.

I have always been a fan of HDR and one of the members here has it down to a fine art, Jimmy Lemon, but I have never been able to do it myself.
 
petemc said:
Gotta love the way you get the email with your original post :p He was trying to help, I was trying to help him. Shall we leave it there?
Click to expand...


whatever

Thought it was a fine post and helpfull too! Regardsless of whether the title matched the content etc
 
gpc1 said:
whatever

Thought it was a fine post and helpfull too! Regardsless of whether the title matched the content etc
Click to expand...

It was, far more helpful than "LOL!!". RAW is a brilliant creation which has helped me to rescue many a photo with it simply because it can be done. I spent most of today fixing white balance issues due to theatre lighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top