HDR from a single file

[bwolford]

The OP in this thread:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=344394

Says he creates his HDR from a single file. I supposed he must create three "levels" of the image (using levels or curves) and the uses HDR to process. He also claims his source is JPG. No reason not to believe him. He does some fantastic work.

Any thoughts on how to achieve HDR like results from a single exposure?

[Picture North Carolina]

Originally Posted by bwolford

The OP in this thread:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=344394

Says he creates his HDR from a single file. I supposed he must create three "levels" of the image (using levels or curves) and the uses HDR to process. He also claims his source is JPG. No reason not to believe him. He does some fantastic work.

Any thoughts on how to achieve HDR like results from a single exposure?

Are you sure you posted the correct link? I see some great wedding photography there, but no shots that have anything to do with hdr. /Dan

Edit: I see now (later in the thread). Single file processing in photomatix tends to add saturation and pop. But do not be confused. Although his post-processing is great, what makes these photos work is his unique style, composition and interesting angles. Up in the air above his subject, down on the ground below, etc. /Dan

[carpenter]

I create mine from one jpeg file. I like my HDR style a little more painting like though. I use 5 exposures in 1 stop increments.

[danpass]

Just set the exposure 0, -2 (and save) and +2 (and save)


then combine the three "separate" files.

Photomatix kinda freaks though "Same File!" but you can input the exposure values manually when the popup window appears.


Always seemed pretty obvious to me to do it that way; if you wanted to HDR an action shot for example.


_

[Tsmith]

If its from a single file then it will not be an HDR, no matter how many duplicates you make with it adjusting the exposure. A single image will only allow you so much room for adjustments. Thats the beauty of the HDR process from multiple exposures is it gives you a wider Dynamic Range (hence HDR) to work with.

[Picture North Carolina]

Originally Posted by danpass

then combine the three "separate" files... if you wanted to HDR an action shot for example.

Originally Posted by carpenter

I create mine from one jpeg file. I like my HDR style a little more painting like though

Originally Posted by Tsmith

If its from a single file then it will not be an HDR, no matter how many duplicates you make with it adjusting the exposure. A single image will only allow you so much room for adjustments. Thats the beauty of the HDR process from multiple exposures is it gives you a wider Dynamic Range (hence HDR) to work with.

Thankfully somebody said it. This debate goes back on potn for over a year. It seems almost pointless any more to try to get people to understand that "HDR processing" a single file does NOT create an HDR image. It would be more accurate to say you are "tone mapping" or rather "enhancing" a single file using photomatix.

An HDR image is only created from two or more separate (and differing) exposures.

Why do so many of us try to continually correct this point? It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. I has to do with newbie photographers and newbie HDR'ers. If they are initially misinformed about what HDR is, they may never experiment with true HDR images and experience the benefits of truly increased dynamic range in an image. /Dan

[carpenter]

Originally Posted by CannedHeat

Thankfully somebody said it. This debate goes back on potn for over a year. It seems almost pointless any more to try to get people to understand that "HDR processing" a single file does NOT create an HDR image. It would be more accurate to say you are "tone mapping" or rather "enhancing" a single file using photomatix.

An HDR image is only created from two or more separate (and differing) exposures.

Why do so many of us try to continually correct this point? It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. I has to do with newbie photographers and newbie HDR'ers. If they are initially misinformed about what HDR is, they may never experiment with true HDR images and experience the benefits of truly increased dynamic range in an image. /Dan

So what's the difference if you bracket your shot or later edit it in photoshop with several exposure values then generated and HDR file. Why wouldn't that image be considered an HDR image if you are merging 3-5 pictures in varying exposure taken from one jpeg file?

Now I understand you will get a wider range and more deatil and such doing an HDR file with the proper technique of using the cameras exposure to shoot 3 seperate pictures.

[Picture North Carolina]

Originally Posted by carpenter

So what's the difference if you bracket your shot or later edit it in photoshop with several exposure values then generated and HDR file. Why wouldn't that image be considered an HDR image if you are merging 3-5 pictures in varying exposure taken from one jpeg file?

Now I understand you will get a wider range and more deatil and such doing an HDR file with the proper technique of using the cameras exposure to shoot 3 seperate pictures.

One question:

If you have a single file that contains a finite dynamic range and produce a number of different files from it, have you extended the dynamic range of that original file beyond what was originally contained in that single file? /Dan

[Padawan Dad]

Personally, I agree that to take full advantage of HDR you need to do bracketing to get a broader dynamic range and to create "true" HDR.

However, in the case of the OP, and the subject of the OP, whatever you want to call it, the use of taking one image and creating several different exposures from it, create results that could not be acheived otherwise. It's a very useful tool and method to create out of the ordinary, and in some instances, breathtaking results; whether "true" HDR, or not, it produces unique images.

[PacAce]

Originally Posted by Tsmith

If its from a single file then it will not be an HDR, no matter how many duplicates you make with it adjusting the exposure. A single image will only allow you so much room for adjustments. Thats the beauty of the HDR process from multiple exposures is it gives you a wider Dynamic Range (hence HDR) to work with.

Originally Posted by CannedHeat

Thankfully somebody said it. This debate goes back on potn for over a year. It seems almost pointless any more to try to get people to understand that "HDR processing" a single file does NOT create an HDR image. It would be more accurate to say you are "tone mapping" or rather "enhancing" a single file using photomatix.

An HDR image is only created from two or more separate (and differing) exposures.

Why do so many of us try to continually correct this point? It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. I has to do with newbie photographers and newbie HDR'ers. If they are initially misinformed about what HDR is, they may never experiment with true HDR images and experience the benefits of truly increased dynamic range in an image. /Dan

[Picture North Carolina]

Originally Posted by *Bill

Personally, I agree that to take full advantage of HDR you need to do bracketing to get a broader dynamic range and to create "true" HDR.

However, in the case of the OP, and the subject of the OP, whatever you want to call it, the use of taking one image and creating several different exposures from it, create results that could not be acheived otherwise. It's a very useful tool and method to create out of the ordinary, and in some instances, breathtaking results; whether "true" HDR, or not, it produces unique images.

Bill, with all due diplomacy and respect, I think you missed the entire point of the thread. None of the posters said the PP involved did not create a good image. The entire discussion is about what is and what is not a true hdr file. Regards, /Dan

[Padawan Dad]

Originally Posted by CannedHeat

Bill, with all due diplomacy and respect, I think you missed the entire point of the thread. None of the posters said the PP involved did not create a good image. The entire discussion is about what is and what is not a true hdr file. Regards, /Dan

The OP asked: "Any thoughts on how to acheive HDR like results from a single exposure?"

I don't believe I missed the entire point at all; I think that some people just veered a bit off of what the OP was originally asking, and are turning this into yet another "what is true HDR thread," which is NOT what the OP asked.

[bwolford]

Originally Posted by CannedHeat

Edit: I see now (later in the thread). Single file processing in photomatix tends to add saturation and pop. But do not be confused. Although his post-processing is great, what makes these photos work is his unique style, composition and interesting angles. Up in the air above his subject, down on the ground below, etc. /Dan

Ah, so you think he's using Photomatix. I missed that. I agree his photos work because his style. I was just wondered how HDR could be created from 1 exposure. Thanks for the tips.

Brice

[bwolford]

Originally Posted by Tsmith

If its from a single file then it will not be an HDR, no matter how many duplicates you make with it adjusting the exposure. A single image will only allow you so much room for adjustments. Thats the beauty of the HDR process from multiple exposures is it gives you a wider Dynamic Range (hence HDR) to work with.

I understand it's not a true HDR because of just one exposure... It just seemed to me that using a JPEG to accomplish it in PHOTOSHOP (I should have been more specific in the first post) seemed to be a not so obvious solution. Photomatix, based on the posts here, seems to be a candidate.

Although, I am not interested in more software. I'll stick with PSCS2 and start my experiments with HDR using multiple exposures.

[Padawan Dad]

Originally Posted by bwolford

Ah, so you think he's using Photomatix. I missed that. I agree his photos work because his style. I was just wondered how HDR could be created from 1 exposure. Thanks for the tips.

Brice

Brice,

I actually asked him about this, and he did say he does use Photomatix.

EDIT: Wait a minute.... Actually, I read it on his website (that he uses photomatix.)