one shot HDR?

Anyone do this? Read about people who take one shot, cloned it 9 times and adjusted accordingly? I haven't seen any pictures, so I cant really tell how they turn out. But how does the real 3/5 shot AEB look vs a one shot HDR?

I don't do HDR, but will take a RAW file & convert different "exposures" from it, & then manually blend them together.

I know this is a "poor man's HDR" technique, but wouldn't it result in noisy pictures? I mean, if I boost the whites in PP and blend it in, I am amplifying both the signal and the noise, whereas if I ETTR'ed and shot a +2 EV shot and blended that in, then I would get boosted signal without the noise.

I assume it is ok in a pinch, but it can't replace the proper HDR technique of exposing multiple shots in-camera.

Commonly referred to as pseudo-HDR it looks nothing like a HDR consisting of 3 or more exposures. Sure it can be tonemapped but you can't create dynamic range that wasn't there in a single image.

You lose detail as you adjust the exposure further from the exposure of the original picture. That is the RAW file does not contain equal detail across the 4-5 stop range of the file. It's better to shoot the additional exposure values, but it can be done.

It is basically the same as playing with curves, but with the difference that you can map differently for different parts of the image.

But no more quality available than you have when just playing with curves.

This is an example (I think) of what PhotsGuy is describing. As memory serves, this is 5 adjustments from a single image, then blended using Photomerge in Elements11. No tripod with me when visiting this basilica, and had to "do the best I could". For me, a useful technique to use when needed.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/88881706@N08/8​630195878/

That works for me. Nice shot.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #15970715
That works for me. Nice shot.

what he said..

I find Oloneo great for this (I'm not associated with them in any way). Took a nice snap of a sunset when I was in Fiji once, processed it with that to bring out shadow detail, worked great.

The fake HDR method can be a useful technique if you use LR. Although you are not obtaining any more DR than what your camera can capture in one shot, you can squeeze out every drop of it by blending multiple 16 bit tiffs to a 32 bit tiff which can then be tone mapped in LR. By working in 32 bits you have even greater flexibility and security.

Is there a difference between blending multiple developments of the same RAW, and just using selective gradients and brushwork in LR?

armis wrote in post #15971574
Is there a difference between blending multiple developments of the same RAW, and just using selective gradients and brushwork in LR?

Only in the amount of control you have. Either way, you can draw from the whole range of data that the original raw file has to offer, but you can do it with more sophisticated selections when you're blending in Photoshop.

PixelMagic wrote in post #15968827
Commonly referred to as pseudo-HDR it looks nothing like a HDR consisting of 3 or more exposures. Sure it can be tonemapped but you can't create dynamic range that wasn't there in a single image.

That's ok. Look at any "HDR" site. Most of the subjects don't have an intrinsic tonal range any greater than what a modern camera can capture in one bite.

NCSA197 wrote in post #15969963
This is an example (I think) of what PhotsGuy is describing. As memory serves, this is 5 adjustments from a single image, then blended using Photomerge in Elements11. No tripod with me when visiting this basilica, and had to "do the best I could". For me, a useful technique to use when needed.

http://farm9.staticfli​ckr.com …30195878_509865​68a0_b.jpg

Love it, just wish it were straightened ha!
Will have to have a go at this 1 shot HDR myself (I never used HDR before).