I DID HDR FROM A SINGLE RAW!!!!!!!!!!! big files.

[RianFlynn]

Hello friends,

after WEEKS of studying and experimenting and reading that it cannot be done... I have been able to create a great enough dynamic range from a single raw file for a pretty solid hdr shot.

this is the orginal raw converted into JPG:

http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/1.jpg

and this is using my process to convert to HDR.

http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/2.jpg

I am still running tests... but I need more raw images and I dont have time to go shooting right now. Would you mind emailing me a good photos in raw format? my email is Rianflynn@ g m a i l . c o m

THANKS! I will give more info as I figure it out. Any advice is more than welcomed. This is a first for me.

Rian

[Meaty0]

Well don't keep us in suspense! How did you do it?

I keep getting a message saying that there is not enough difference for HDR to work (or something like that). I ended up using Photomatix.

Paul

[RianFlynn]

Well don't keep us in suspense! How did you do it?

I keep getting a message saying that there is not enough difference for HDR to work (or something like that). I ended up using Photomatix.

Paul


Im not going to say until someone emails me some more raws! haha I need to test it some more. eheh got any?

Rian

[cosworth]

When you do it next time you are going to record it as an action right?

[RianFlynn]

probably. Please email me one of your raw files that has action. I will test it.

Rian

[RianFlynn]

here is another one:

This is from a single raw. I have a little clipping on the bottom right. Any ideas to get past that?

This is the original:
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/3.jpg

the conversion:
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/4.jpg

[Tsmith]

Well I've been doing the same thing in Photomatix _ its fairly easy once you get the hang of it.

Flynn _ the edit didn't have enough range for the sky.

all the images in my gallery are from one RAW file: http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/yosemite_national_park_hdr

[PAS Photography]

Very nice work for using a single raw file. Id be interested in the steps you did to create these images.

[RianFlynn]

I got it. this is from one exposure.

from this raw
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/5.jpg

to this

http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/6.jpg

[RianFlynn]

Well I've been doing the same thing in Photomatix _ its fairly easy once you get the hang of it.

Flynn _ the edit didn't have enough range for the sky.

all the images in my gallery are from one RAW file: http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/yosemite_national_park_hdr

Very nice man. I wish I had you a while ago when I was trying to figure this out.

Rian

[mizuno]

Wouldn't it be easier to convert the RAW to 16bit TIF and then tone map it?

You're not getting any extra information in your file doing it the long way.

[RianFlynn]

Wouldn't it be easier to convert the RAW to 16bit TIF and then tone map it?

You're not getting any extra information in your file doing it the long way.

no sir. It doesnt look nearly as good. Here you are:

identical tone mapping settings for both tiff and the sneaky way from the same raw.

16 bit tiff toned mapped:

http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/6tiff.jpg

the sneaky way I am doing it. Im not telling how because no one has emailed me a raw file to play with.

http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/6.jpg

[embdude]

I will send over a few..... have at em'

I have played with HDR some but havent found results like I see here online. A couple of the raw files I sent you are on my photo blog if you want to see how I worked them out...

[mizuno]

no sir. It doesnt look nearly as good. Here you are:

identical tone mapping settings for both tiff and the sneaky way from the same raw.

They both look very similar (in terms of tone). The only difference to my eye is that the second one is over-saturated.

[RianFlynn]

This was a tuff one. I only spent about 2 minutes with it. thanks for the raws chris enjoy:

original
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/7.jpg

hdr from raw
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/8.jpg

[René Damkot]

Well don't keep us in suspense! How did you do it?

I keep getting a message saying that there is not enough difference for HDR to work (or something like that).


Strip the exif out of the file (make a new document in PS, and copy paste the original into it.)
You then have to manually tell PS the 'exposure' of the images.

[MJCfromCT]

...now if anybody knows how to get rid of that horrible glow that Photomatrix puts in, that would be greatttt...... :)

[DayHawk]

hey DR flinn, I am on your MYSPACE!!! haha

I am wondering how many Tiffs did you create? when I tried it I created 7 TIFFs from the 1 RAW file and it came out ok, but how many did you use??
Please share! :D

- Nick

[Tsmith]

What I did was take a single RAW file (one the highlights aren't blown out) in RawShooter Premium and saved a 16 bit TIFF from it three times. One for example -1/stop underexposed, one 0/stop and one +1/stop overexposed. I reduced the size with in RSP to 800x533 so the files aren't too big editing them for the web. Open Photomatix and select Generate HDR selecting the three TIFF images. Verify the bracketed exposures are as you adjusted and combine the images. Next in the Tool Palette select Tone Mapping and from there make any necessary edits and save as a JPEG for web hosting.

This method to me is a little better it seems than Tone Mapping an individual TIFF.

Flynn _ why the fuzzy look in the airplane pilot edit? I've seen this before but don't know whats going on there ... :confused:

[foxbat]

This most definitely is not HDR. The halo's show pretty heavy abuse of the shadows/highlights tool (or an equivalent) in PS.

[Tsmith]

This most definitely is not HDR. The halo's show pretty heavy abuse of the shadows/highlights tool (or an equivalent) in PS.

I agree on the halos _ the method I've posted above seems to keep this effect under control.

[EOS_JD]

Perhaps it's just me but to be honest i don't really think any of these edits add much to the original image?! They all look false.

[Lightstream]

That's what I'm thinking.. HDR has this unique 'look' that seems artificial. Some of them came out really nice like the brick building and the sky, but the rest seem to take on a strange quality.

[pieq314]

Wouldn't it be easier to convert the RAW to 16bit TIF and then tone map it?

You're not getting any extra information in your file doing it the long way.

That is what I was trying to say in the other HDR thread.

[jfrancho]

Doesn't really look like an HDRI to me. Looks like a standard image with a color shift, added grain, way overdone localized contrast, and maybe some shadows and highlight tool or some dodge with a 50% grey overlay. In fact, it looks as though you took the long route towards outcome.

[tiziano]

I just finished trying this technique. I don't find it useful. Starting from the same RAW, I was not able to get a better image or a higher dynamic range with HDR merge, then with the normal process of blending two layers, from two different jpegs that are derived from the same RAW. And, with the latter, I have more control on which areas to underexpose or overexpose.

[Hellashot]

Nothing groundbreaking about what was done in the original post. You could probably get near the same result by lightening the shadows. This was not a good example of harsh lighting where HDR would give a noticeably better image.

[embdude]

[quote=Dr. Flynn]This was a tuff one. I only spent about 2 minutes with it. thanks for the raws chris enjoy:

Wow you really got the outside part done well here. Much better than anything I was able to get from outside. On the other hand the inside needs help, kinda looks like newsprint. This might be a good start though as a background layer.

I processed it 4 times and layered them (not merged) to get better range. see my post here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1534430#post1534430

It is really amazing that just like a negative a RAW file will contain more data than can be easily extracted in a single print/jpg. So there is lots of room for increased dynamic range. Layering, dodgeing, burning are all time consumeing. The best thing about HDR is the automation....

[corinto]

I agree. Only one image to start with will give no more tonal information than it has to start with. And, if it's there, you can bring it out with several alternative tools (shadow/highlights, curves, etc). The important issue is clearly to work in 16 bits in order to have a greater detail to manipulate. I also think that HDR will give a false illusion of having a deeper bit count to start with but it is only that: an illusion.

Maybe this technique will give you a clearer picture of what information is there in the image. But the information in itself will not change a bit.

Julio

[cosworth]

Since when did HDR become an ANIME simulator?
I'm all for dynamic range, but something isn't right with many of these. The plane interior especially...

[embdude]

Since when did HDR become an ANIME simulator?
I'm all for dynamic range, but something isn't right with many of these. The plane interior especially...

I agree it needs some work still but you have to admit purely from a dynamic range it was able to recover details in color and shape way beyond what is available from a single raw conversion....

[jfrancho]

I agree it needs some work still but you have to admit purely from a dynamic range it was able to recover details in color and shape way beyond what is available from a single raw conversion....Not really. As was pointed out previously, shadows and highlight, dodge with a 50% grey overlay, etc. on a single 48 bit file can produce the same, unrealistic results.

[pieq314]

I just gave that airplane a try. Using the posted 8-bit jpeg picture, here is what I got. I expect to get better results if using the 12-bit RAW. You can judge if this can be called "HDR" or not. Just to be clear, I only used the ordinary tools (shadow/highlight, etc).

[jfrancho]

What is the deal with "trying for an HDR" look? Would not the best use of this be subtle, realistic, and not so obviously extended? Most of these look they are bad prints on pewspaper. Yay!!! I have shadow detail, but the picture looks like butt. I guess since this a new technique to many, nice, tru HDRI will few and far between.

[Tsmith]

I just gave that airplane a try. Using the posted 8-bit jpeg picture, here is what I got. I expect to get better results if using the 12-bit RAW. You can judge if this can be called "HDR" or not. Just to be clear, I only used the ordinary tools (shadow/highlight, etc).

I think my try bested yours. Copied the JPEG and used one click Auto Fix in Photoshop Elements 4 + applied low level USM.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4094/7kv1.jpg

[pieq314]

I think my try bested yours. Copied the JPEG and used one click Auto Fix in Photoshop Elements 4 + applied low level USM.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4094/7kv1.jpg

I agree your result is better than mine. And I think both of them are better than the "HDR" version. And if we started with the RAW file, they should be even better.

[sando]

As already said, Dr Flynns 'HDRs' arent actually HDR's. Technically, anyway. And I thought everyone knew how to do an 'HDR' from a single RAW? You can do it in CS2, just 'Save For Web' to strip the EXIF.

Duders gallery is awesome, whether you look at it from a "Is he trying for HDR?" or if you just see it for what it is. Personally, I just think that his work is amazing and veers away from the 'fashion' of creating fake looking anime HDR's (a la Dr Flynn and the whole HDR community on Flickr) and goes more towards actually what HDR was originally all about, which is creating an image with a High Dynamic Range, i.e. creating an image with perfect exposure in its entirity.

[RianFlynn]

As already said, Dr Flynns 'HDRs' arent actually HDR's. Technically, anyway. And I thought everyone knew how to do an 'HDR' from a single RAW? You can do it in CS2, just 'Save For Web' to strip the EXIF.

Duders gallery is awesome, whether you look at it from a "Is he trying for HDR?" or if you just see it for what it is. Personally, I just think that his work is amazing and veers away from the 'fashion' of creating fake looking anime HDR's (a la Dr Flynn and the whole HDR community on Flickr) and goes more towards actually what HDR was originally all about, which is creating an image with a High Dynamic Range, i.e. creating an image with perfect exposure in its entirity.

Am I detecting a hint of bitterness? I wasnt trying to create a good picture here... I am just trying to actually do hdr from raw.

Here are some of my shots that are actually HDR from multiple exposures:

http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/65.jpg

http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/53.jpg

http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/67.jpg


Yours,
Rian

[Chazs]

I'm sorry, but I don't see these as good hdr's or even hdr's at all; just creative, albeit, sometimes blotchy looking, forcing of digital data from a single photo. HDR is combining several counter-dynamic range photos together to pull the best from all. This "technique" just demonstrates that there is quite a bit of digital data in a RAW photo, but, it's not turning lead into gold.

[sando]

Am I detecting a hint of bitterness? I wasnt trying to create a good picture here... I am just trying to actually do hdr from raw.

Yours,
Rian No, why would I be bitter? But 'doing' HDR from RAW isnt an achievement, it's really quite simple. From your post title 'I DID HDR FROM A SINGLE RAW!!!!!!!!!!!' it looks as though you really thought you were the first to do it, and the way you were saying "Im not going to say [how it's done] until someone emails me some more raws! haha I need to test it some more. eheh got any?" reinforces that you thought you were really onto something. Take a look on Flickr and you'll see that this style has been going on for ages now, there's also about 4 million-odd tutorials out there explaining the method for getting an HDR from 1 RAW.

And when i catagorised you with the Flickr community, this was merely because your images look very much over done, and in that similar style.

The other 3 you posted are more like what I think HDR should be used for, which is getting well exposed images easily and quickly.

:)

[RianFlynn]

No, why would I be bitter? But 'doing' HDR from RAW isnt an achievement, it's really quite simple. From your post title 'I DID HDR FROM A SINGLE RAW!!!!!!!!!!!' it looks as though you really thought you were the first to do it, and the way you were saying "Im not going to say [how it's done] until someone emails me some more raws! haha I need to test it some more. eheh got any?" reinforces that you thought you were really onto something. Take a look on Flickr and you'll see that this style has been going on for ages now, there's also about 4 million-odd tutorials out there explaining the method for getting an HDR from 1 RAW.

And when i catagorised you with the Flickr community, this was merely because your images look very much over done, and in that similar style.

The other 3 you posted are more like what I think HDR should be used for, which is getting well exposed images easily and quickly.

:)

More like... Im trying to figure it out further before I send people down the wrong path.

You were not polite and I didnt appreciate it. Lets see some of your HDRs. haha

Yours
Rian

[CannedHeat]

I'm sorry, but I don't see these as good hdr's or even hdr's at all; just creative, albeit, sometimes blotchy looking, forcing of digital data from a single photo. HDR is combining several counter-dynamic range photos together to pull the best from all. This "technique" just demonstrates that there is quite a bit of digital data in a RAW photo, but, it's not turning lead into gold. I agree. I think that someone trying to create an extended dynamic range picture from a single raw, tiff, jpg or whatever demonstrates they don't understand the basic principle or intent of HDR in the first place.

[Tsmith]

I agree. I think that someone trying to create an extended dynamic range picture from a single raw, tiff, jpg or whatever demonstrates they don't understand the basic principle or intent of HDR in the first place.

Careful there now _ just cause someone does this and has success at it doesn't mean they are ignorant to the HDR process ... :rolleyes:

[sando]

Meh. Some people cant understand that there may be some people in this world not afraid to voice their opinion if it is to the contrary. Oh look, you're a yank... talk about being stereotypical. Yes, I agree, that was an impolite response of me, wasnt it?

[RianFlynn]

Oh look, you're a yank... talk about being stereotypical. Yes, I agree, that was an impolite response of me, wasnt it?

*pathetic

Rian

[sando]

You cannot create an HDR from 1 RAW because the Dynamic range from a single RAW just doesnt go far enough. You can create something that does stretch the RAW to it's limit by extracting as much info from it as possible. But that isnt HDR. Maybe you could say it's HDR-like. You say you're here to learn, as are we all, but teaching someone how to create an HDR from 1 RAW is not correct.

[RianFlynn]

Matt,

I really dont know what your problem with me is. I suggest you spend less time picking fights on a forum and more time taking photos. Now please leave this post unless you actually have something constructive.


Rian

[blackviolet]

http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/65.jpg

http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/53.jpg



you might want to re-do your copyright message on these two 'please don't steal or pint' ;) :oops: although a pint sounds good right now!

[RianFlynn]

you might want to re-do your copyright message on these two 'please don't steal or pint' ;) :oops: although a pint sounds good right now!

hehe yeah I know. I just havent gotten around to it.

Rian

[chris.bailey]

Leaving aside the snipes at each other I just dont get this whole HDR from a single RAW thing. A single RAW image has a fixed unalterable dynamic range. If tones are clipped out of the dynamic range space a single RAW provides then they are gone. If the tones are within the dynamic range space of the single RAW file then they can be recovered by the RAW processor out of that RAW for subsequent processing by Curves, Levels, Shadow Highlight or whatever. All of this just alters the distribution of the tones that are available within the data from that single RAW. HDR allows you to capture tones that would otherwise be clipped from a single RAW by merging multiple RAWs, effectively dragging in values that would be clipped out of a single RAW. I would agree that HDR from a single RAW CAN work as a processing tool to end up with a nicely toned image BUT you are still working with the same amount of data so its not strictly HDR. With Multiple RAW HDRs you have much more data to work with. Or am I missing something?

[René Damkot]

The other 3 you posted are more like what I think HDR should be used for, which is getting well exposed images easily and quickly.

That's your opinion. You could try to respect that other people might have a different taste...

[Richard_Miami]

One of the things that attracts me most to photography is that it is a medium which allows personal expression. There is no "right way" and no "wrong way." There is latitude for creativity and personal style. Modern digital photography is a wonderful example of a technology with frees us as human beings, rather than a technology which constrains us. I happen to enjoy Dr Flynn's work, and I also enjoy BlueDogs, and many others. They have found differnent ways to express themselves. Some people don't like Picasso, some don't like Monet, others don't like Rembrandt.. etc. So be it.

Being a child of the 60's, I am tempted to simply say "different strokes for different folks." But in a nod to the 21st Century, I will try it a bit differently: It ain't about the technology, it's about the art.

Chill out guys..there is way too much beauty out there to have a religous arguement about HDR styles. Find the positive values in other peoples styles, and enjoy them for what they are.

[/rant]

[stupot]

One of the things that attracts me most to photography is that it is a medium which allows personal expression...


Exactly! I've read through this post grinning because everyone's getting so worked up about really important things like bits and raws and dynamic range and and and lots more exciting things! Truth is it's the end result and I like it, although I think the plane shot is a bit overdone we can all have fun can't we?

Anyway, Rian I really like these three you posted up! Especially the feet..! I'd be chuffed if I could get something like that out my camera, so I just reckon they're all jealous.

http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/65.jpg
http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/53.jpg
http://www.rianflynn.com/myspace/art/photos/67.jpg

[Tsmith]

One of the things that attracts me most to photography is that it is a medium which allows personal expression. There is no "right way" and no "wrong way." There is latitude for creativity and personal style. Modern digital photography is a wonderful example of a technology with frees us as human beings, rather than a technology which constrains us.

Very well said Richard

[tiziano]

Anyway, Rian I really like these three you posted up! Especially the feet..! I'd be chuffed if I could get something like that out my camera, so I just reckon they're all jealous.

I too like a lot your standard HDR shots, Rian!

[Tsmith]

Processed from one RAW file combined in Photomatix. I tried just tweaking this as a single tiff applying just the tone mapping but can't quite achieve the results that appeal to me.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/64127634/original.jpg

[karfeef]

It looks like chicken, it tastes like chicken, so lets all just call it chicken.

[Coco-Puffs]

Since when did HDR become an ANIME simulator?
I'm all for dynamic range, but something isn't right with many of these. The plane interior especially...

thats what i thought too...

but anywho, I might be wrong (so correct me if I'm wrong but) isnt Dr.Brown's Merge-O-Matic a plug in that allows HDR with RAW (but only with 2 images).
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html

and here's my image using that plugin.

[CannedHeat]

Careful there now _ just cause someone does this and has success at it doesn't mean they are ignorant to the HDR process ... :rolleyes:

There is nothing to be careful about, my friend. I was simply stating a fact.

As long as you commented about my observation, I would like to ask you a question:

can a true HDR image where the dynamic range limitations of the camera have been exceeded be created from a single image?

[CannedHeat]

Leaving aside the snipes at each other I just dont get this whole HDR from a single RAW thing. A single RAW image has a fixed unalterable dynamic range. If tones are clipped out of the dynamic range space a single RAW provides then they are gone. If the tones are within the dynamic range space of the single RAW file then they can be recovered by the RAW processor out of that RAW for subsequent processing by Curves, Levels, Shadow Highlight or whatever. All of this just alters the distribution of the tones that are available within the data from that single RAW. HDR allows you to capture tones that would otherwise be clipped from a single RAW by merging multiple RAWs, effectively dragging in values that would be clipped out of a single RAW. I would agree that HDR from a single RAW CAN work as a processing tool to end up with a nicely toned image BUT you are still working with the same amount of data so its not strictly HDR. With Multiple RAW HDRs you have much more data to work with. Or am I missing something?

No, you are not missing something. That is the basic principle of HDR. It was developed to allow photographers to capture a scene that contains (let's say) 10 or 11 stops of light in a camera that can only capture a dynamic range of (let's say) 6 stops. You can stretch that single image all you want, but it still contains a finite amount of data and no manipulation whatsoever can be performed that will create data where none existed.

edit:

Translated, HDR means "extended dynamic range." What people are creating here with a single input file are not images with dynamic ranges that exceed the original. What they ARE creating is images with special effects achieved by using HDR software such as the photoshop option or photomatix. In essence, they are using the hdr functions to emulate the effects of a "filter" or a "plugin". If they like the effects (and I do in some of them) then that is great - it is their creation and vision. However, let's just agree not to label it a HDR because it is not a picture with an extended dynamic range.

[CannedHeat]

Processed from one RAW file combined in Photomatix. I tried just tweaking this as a single tiff applying just the tone mapping but can't quite achieve the results that appeal to me.



For our benefit, could you post the original, unaltered version? (reduced to jpg, of course, so it can be uploaded). thanks.

[René Damkot]

thats what i thought too...

but anywho, I might be wrong (so correct me if I'm wrong but) isnt Dr.Brown's Merge-O-Matic a plug in that allows HDR with RAW (but only with 2 images).
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html


Thanks for that link... I used to do it manually with 2 tif files. This is a nice addition!

[CannedHeat]

thats what i thought too...

but anywho, I might be wrong (so correct me if I'm wrong but) isnt Dr.Brown's Merge-O-Matic a plug in that allows HDR with RAW (but only with 2 images).
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html

and here's my image using that plugin.

Thanks for the great link! I prefer to create my HDR images via manually layer masking, but this website has some great stuff on it. Whoever the gentleman is, he has put lots of effort into it and it is a great resource.

[Coco-Puffs]

Whoever the gentleman is, he has put lots of effort into it and it is a great resource.

yeah, i was wonderig about that too so I googled his name a while ago and turns out, he pretty much created Photoshop.

"As Sr. Creative Director at Adobe Systems Incorporated,
Russell Preston Brown holds a unique position in the computer industry. Brown maintains a vital presence in the digital design and publishing community, facilitating the exchange between the user and software developer that is so essential to Adobe's software development. With complete mastery and breath taking style, Brown shows users how to work – and play – with Adobe software. He has given the world's leading photographers, publishers, art directors, and artists a strong grasp of the software tools that, by virtually all accounts, have led to Adobe's applications becoming the standard by which others are measured. Remember, what Russell always says "Learning about Adobe Photoshop should never be boring"."

[René Damkot]

This (http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/videos/BlendedExposures.mov) is a lot easier then manual layer masking.

[CannedHeat]

This (http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/videos/BlendedExposures.mov) is a lot easier then manual layer masking.

Thank you. Actually, this is exactly the method I use. Poor choice of words on my part - by manual I meant not using a plugin.

Other people who are interested in creating images with extended dynamic ranges should take a look at René's link. You can actually blend two images in under a minute once you get the keystrokes down. Another methods is found here (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml).

René, regarding the earthboundlight method, I have a question for you if you know. The only thing I don't like about it is that when you use the (i'm on a pc) ctrl-alt-shift-tilde to select the highlights, you have no control over what is selected. In other words, is there a way to change the tolerance or sensitivity of what is being masked? thanks. great link for others.

[René Damkot]

Well, I usually tweak it with a few things:
It matters what layer is 'on' when hitting 'cmd-opt-shft-tilde' (hey, I'm on a mac ;)). Come to think about it, I'ld guess if you make a temporal curves adjustment layer, that would be a way. I'll try that when I have time....
Secondly, I use levels on the layer mask.
Third, I go into quick mask, and paint over the ereas where I want the top layer to be active (lightest layer on top in my case). Then I exit the quick mask, select the layer mask, and fill the resulting selection with black. (or, if that is too much, I use the selection (or inverse selection) to run levels over the mask)

[Tsmith]

For our benefit, could you post the original, unaltered version? (reduced to jpg, of course, so it can be uploaded). thanks.

Funny thing is CH that you make out like this process can't be accomplished in the manner I used _ so call it what you want but the process of using a single raw file in Photomatix is the exact same as using multiple images. I'm pretty new to the process and have done some testing with multiple exposers just messing around and yes you get more range of exposure but I never said that wasn't the case _ I honestly think your missing the point here as to whether the process can be done with one file.

I actually find the process as fast as adjusting with curves and levels and the such on one RAW image.

And just to show you I'm a good guy on this matter you can play around with the REMOVED (http://upload.pbase.com/image/64135016/original)

just a note that image won't stay up too long as it eats up my storage space at PBase.

[Jonny]

all the images in my gallery are from one RAW file: http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/yosemite_national_park_hdr


Well in that case my friend you have one hell of a technique.
How the heck do you get 10 different scenes from just one RAW file?

:confused: :confused: :confused: ;) ;) ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tsmith]

Well in that case my friend you have one hell of a technique.
How the heck do you get 10 different scenes from just one RAW file?

:confused: :confused: :confused: ;) ;) ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:

LOL _ I ain't givin' that away just yet ... ;)

[Duder]

No, you are not missing something. That is the basic principle of HDR. It was developed to allow photographers to capture a scene that contains (let's say) 10 or 11 stops of light in a camera that can only capture a dynamic range of (let's say) 6 stops. You can stretch that single image all you want, but it still contains a finite amount of data and no manipulation whatsoever can be performed that will create data where none existed.

edit:

Translated, HDR means "extended dynamic range." What people are creating here with a single input file are not images with dynamic ranges that exceed the original. What they ARE creating is images with special effects achieved by using HDR software such as the photoshop option or photomatix. In essence, they are using the hdr functions to emulate the effects of a "filter" or a "plugin". If they like the effects (and I do in some of them) then that is great - it is their creation and vision. However, let's just agree not to label it a HDR because it is not a picture with an extended dynamic range.

not entirely true. If I may get technical about it for a sec:

HDR means High Dynamic Range. By definition, a High Dynamic Range Image can only be produced by using multiple exposures to create a 32-bit file, which far exceeds what was capable from the camera sensor/single RAW file. Any HDR image you see on the internet is compressed down to an 8bit jpeg.

IDR is Increased Dynamic Range, and is the result of any PP that improves the dynamic range whilst working in 8 or 16 bit. ie, layer masking, exposure blending etc.

LDR is a Low Dynamic Range image, which is the single RAW/jpeg/tiff that you start with.

a true HDR image is the result of an established photographic technique. it is not a photoshop effect, although that is not to say, the HDR process cannot be used in other ways to produce alternative results.

also, many people refer to the 'HDR look' when what they're really talking about is the 'Photomatix tone mapped look'. (usually applied with quite agressive settings)
using multiple exposures to produce an HDR will only ever give you better shadow and highlight detail, and balance the overall lighting of the scene to make it look better exposed and more natural.
the 'tone mapped look' can be applied to almost any image, and really has nothing to do with HDR.

[pieq314]

also, many people refer to the 'HDR look' when what they're really talking about is the 'Photomatix tone mapped look'. (usually applied with quite agressive settings)
using multiple exposures to produce an HDR will only ever give you better shadow and highlight detail, and balance the overall lighting of the scene to make it look better exposed and more natural.
the 'tone mapped look' can be applied to almost any image, and really has nothing to do with HDR.

This paragraph should be an excellent response to the "looks like chicken, taste like chicken" post.

[karfeef]

This paragraph should be an excellent response to the "looks like chicken, taste like chicken" post.

which was made to ridicule the eagerness of many to stamp the HDR tag on any image that remotely has 'that' look about it, rather than applying it solely to real HDR images. so no, it wouldn't be an excellent response.

Duders post is, however, an excellent explanation of HDR

[jfrancho]

which was made to ridicule the eagerness of many to stamp the HDR tag on any image that remotely has 'that' look about it, rather than applying it solely to real HDR images. so no, it wouldn't be an excellent response.

Duders post is, however, an excellent explanation of HDRIf ridicule = educate, then yes, you are right. Seriously, I don't think Duder's intent was to ridicule.

[karfeef]

i was referring to my earlier post, not duder's

[CannedHeat]

a true HDR image is the result of an established photographic technique. it is not a photoshop effect, although that is not to say, the HDR process cannot be used in other ways to produce alternative results.

also, many people refer to the 'HDR look' when what they're really talking about is the 'Photomatix tone mapped look'. (usually applied with quite agressive settings)

the 'tone mapped look' can be applied to almost any image, and really has nothing to do with HDR.

That's exactly what I have been trying to say all the way along. I expressed it differently, but what has been created with a single file is the tone mapped look, not an image with increased dynamic range achieved by combining captures of different exposure. If you want to get technical, what is being done is called by some pixel blending. they have taken a single file, created different versions and are blending it together. the only difference being that instead of achieving the process in the old, traditional way of using masks, brushes, etc. a piece of software is being used to piece together the images. there is a good tutorial on adobe.com about the exact process (single raw, multiple images blended together) that is being used here. sorry, I cannot supply the link right now becauset the adobe website is so pathetically slow, the server is timing out. but when they get it fixed, it can be found by going to support, photoshop support, then searching for an article with the title of "advanced pixel blending."

For those interested in another good article that explains HDR and also explains single raw file blending, you can read one here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml).

Perhaps I expressed myself incorrectly, but what concerns me about the thread is the fact that the terminilogy is being used incorrectly: hdr vs. blending. the reason that it's a concern is because there are many people who have not tried blending, hdr, or anything similar. I am concerned that someone reading this may get the idea that to expand the dynamic range of a photograph when the subject of the picture is beyond the capabilities of the camera they can do so with a single file. generally speaking, the f-stop range of a digital camera is around 6 fstops. when taking pictures, especially landscape, it would not be uncommon to come across a scene necessitating 10 fstops to capture the scene. the only way this can be achieved is by combining two or more different exposures into an image of expanded dynamic range. it is a very important tool for some photographers to have in their backpack, in landscape photography maybe as important as DOF itself.

again, I tried not to get technical because there are even more things stirring in the pot such as the inability of monitors to accurately represent the full range of a 32 bit image. and yes, as you say the tone mapped look can be applied to any image - it doesn't have to be a raw. you will get limited results, but it is possible, nonetheless, to output numerous remapped versions of a jpg and do the same thing.

[embdude]

I am very intrested in what the possibilities are for getting if not HDR than at least the FDR Full Dynamic Range from a single RAW file.

I thank Dr. Flynn and others, who offered solutions to my airplane picture. I would really like to understand some of the techniques mentioned so far in this thread....

However I do not want to hijack Dr.Flynn's thread so I have beguan a new one. Basically a challenge to get the FDR from a RAW file, and of course since this is the shareing knowledge section, you must explain your technique to bennifit everyone.

new FDR thread... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1772576#post1772576

[Duder]

I am very intrested in what the possibilities are for getting if not HDR than at least the FDR Full Dynamic Range from a single RAW file.

I thank Dr. Flynn and others, who offered solutions to my airplane picture. I would really like to understand some of the techniques mentioned so far in this thread....

However I do not want to hijack Dr.Flynn's thread so I have beguan a new one. Basically a challenge to get the FDR from a RAW file, and of course since this is the shareing knowledge section, you must explain your technique to bennifit everyone.

new FDR thread... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1772576#post1772576

FDR? did you just make that up? I think it's only gonna end up confusing people even more. A single RAW file is an Low Dynamic Range image.

[nicolerork]

HDR is the new black. Meh, can't say I'm a fan.

[Yella Fella]

what is HDR quickly...?

[delinian]

Geesh !!!

[sando]

what is HDR quickly...?Email sent. :)

[Tareq]

My trials

1-
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/299/lebanonhdr1bo8.jpg

2-
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6198/lebanonhdr2hm6.png

[sando]

From 1 RAW Tareq?

I must say that they're nice, whatever the technique tbh, whether 1 RAW or 7 RAW's.

[Tareq]

From 1 RAW Tareq?

I must say that they're nice, whatever the technique tbh, whether 1 RAW or 7 RAW's.

Yes, from 1 RAW file, so easy than taking many shots

[tiziano]

Great job Tarek!

Can you explain what's your process?

Thanks!

[Tareq]

Great job Tarek!

Can you explain what's your process?

Thanks!

I am not that good in explanation.
just my shots was good exposed, so all what i did is i saved the original well exposed photo, then i change exposure by photoshop or any softwares to once -2 and another with +2 so then i got 3 saved photos (well exposed and underexposed and overexposed), then i used photomatix to create HDR photo from those 3 saved shots created from 1 RAW only.

[tiziano]

I am not that good in explanation.
just my shots was good exposed, so all what i did is i saved the original well exposed photo, then i change exposure by photoshop or any softwares to once -2 and another with +2 so then i got 3 saved photos (well exposed and underexposed and overexposed), then i used photomatix to create HDR photo from those 3 saved shots created from 1 RAW only.
Thanks Tarek. The reason why ask is that I tried this exact process with awful results.
Here below you will see two versions of the same shot: the first one, was done using tone mapping on only one TIF file, and the second, much worse, doing HDR and tone mapping from 5 TIFs, extracted from one single raw, at steps of 1 stop.

[Tareq]

Thanks Tarek. The reason why ask is that I tried this exact process with awful results.
Here below you will see two versions of the same shot: the first one, was done using tone mapping on only one TIF file, and the second, much worse, doing HDR and tone mapping from 5 TIFs, extracted from one single raw, at steps of 1 stop.

Can you send me a RAW file?
i will check that myself.

[Tareq]

Send any RAW but well exposed, so i will try to get HDR.

[tiziano]

Just sent!

Eager to see the outcome! :D

[tiziano]

And here is the result of Tarek try. I had to resize it, and I added a little bit of contrast.
It is better then what I could achieve, but not at the same level of the other two posts from Tarek.

[Tareq]

And here is the result of Tarek try. I had to resize it, and I added a little bit of contrast.
It is better then what I could achieve, but not at the same level of the other two posts from Tarek.

Great, keep trying and you will get better for sure, i am not good in these things.

[SQUAREROOT]

From raw file, you saved it to 3 (diff exposures) Tiff file? or just jpegs?

[akhater]

well here is anohter way to do it with just one RAW file
http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/15/photoshop-tutorial-dynamic-range-optimization/

[Duder]

for those into creating (psuedo) HDR's from a single RAW file, the latest version of Photomatix can produce a direct conversion from RAW to HDR. saves the time creating three tiffs.

[shomat]

I'm a little late to the game, but...

I think the work I'm seeing in Tsmith's online gallery is some of the best post processing work in this thread. HDR or not, it doesn't really matter. His images look great, but do not lose their authenticity as most HDR shots appear "fake".

[elfy]

Am I detecting a hint of bitterness? I wasnt trying to create a good picture here...

Then why bother?

:confused:

EDIT: Haha! I've just noticed how old this thread is!

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j51/elfy32the2nd/htrb.jpg

[tom1s]

"Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!"

Amen to that.

[CameraBuff]

I really like that effect on the photos of the building and sky and the pilot. I would like to know how you accomplished this frrom a single raw. also since there seems to be some interest in hdr why not add a hdr section for posting hdr attempts.

[CannedHeat]

EDIT: Haha! I've just noticed how old this thread is!



Knowledge is never old. It is accumulative.

[Mfotography]

personally i have about 5 presets i made in light room to have an hdr look i love the feel to it but i have started doing tiff layers ... i will import raw file add the preset .. save it as a tiff.. bring the tiff back into light room and do this a few times adding slight variations to each and then blend them all together if i rememeber when i get home ill toss up some shots.. i like it though its alittle different from what i have typically see ... im probably just waising time and creating horrible images but i enjoy it ha

[tomd]

personally i have about 5 presets i made in light room to have an hdr look i love the feel to it but i have started doing tiff layers ... i will import raw file add the preset .. save it as a tiff.. bring the tiff back into light room and do this a few times adding slight variations to each and then blend them all together if i rememeber when i get home ill toss up some shots.. i like it though its alittle different from what i have typically see ... im probably just waising time and creating horrible images but i enjoy it ha

Looking forward to seeing some of these.
Tom

[GenuineRolla]

Here's mine from a single raw file:

before:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2284/2466875444_206f3d2983_o.jpg

After:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/2471533792_03ccd2b568_o.jpg

[simplified24]

Just play with post processing in Camera RAW or PHOTOMATIX ive done stuff liek this before

[kepople]

So the technique I have used involed exposing the shot for the highlights, and recovering from the shadows. Unlike film where the burned in areas sometimes still contained recoverable data, digital is the opposite. Blown areas are lost with little realistic recovery available, but shadow detail is still recordeded. I then create several images from it with varying levels and merge them together...

is this the technique you guys are using or are you simply using curves to create a simulated HDR image?

Just trying to catch everyone up...

kirby

[shannyD]

no fair.. i will email you a raw when i find one. ;)

[danny87]

There's some vids on Youtube with some good help.

[gwgw]

im just keeping the post going,heres a couple of hdr's

[Lazuka]

This was a tuff one. I only spent about 2 minutes with it. thanks for the raws chris enjoy:

original
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/7.jpg

hdr from raw
http://rianflynn.com/forum/hdr/8.jpg

First picture posted, and this current one have weird fog/haze in it, dunno what's going on with that? :p